Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive223

File:Aziz efendi-muhammad alayhi s-salam.jpg got deleted on Commons. Is there an available version to bring back to en? It's being used in the infobox at Muhammad. Corvus cornix_talk 00:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I've placed a note at Commons:COM:AN asking for help from anyone who's an admin there and here. If you're reading this because you're that admin, could you also please check File:Mahabharata-big.jpg? I'd like to know if it's a duplicate of File:Lord Ram.jpg. When you've checked, would you please leave me a talkback? Nyttend (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the file so this can be easily worked on, but the copyright is wrong (life+100 years for someone who died in 1934? No). See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aziz efendi-muhammad alayhi s-salam.jpg for discussion of the file. If someone can sort out a legitimate license, please edit accordingly. If not, please delete this file and find a more appropriate one for the infobox. - Jmabel | Talk 01:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Nyttend: on your unrelated question: the two are entirely different images. - Jmabel | Talk 01:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! I've notified Corvus cornix of your response. Nyttend (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, everybody. Corvus cornix_talk 02:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If anyone has a moment, could you swing by SPI and help clear some of the cases there? There are several cases that have been checked and are awaiting administrator review. The instructions for patrolling admins are

Could someone please take a look at Talk:Kraft Dinner#Requested move 2011 and close it if deemed appropriate to do so? It's been open for more than a week. --RSLxii 14:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I looked in and it looks like the arguments for and against are about evenly matched (With

WP:GHITS being a significant argument on the Move side). I relisted it so hopefully there will be more thought. Hasteur (talk

) 20:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If the text at

Cannabis dependence should have been so tagged already. It was not and so I conclude that it is not my problem. It is not my task to verify every bit of text on WP that I come across. -- Hpvpp (talk

) 05:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"Not my problem" - pretty selfish attitude, there, Hpvpp. You are responsible for every edit you make, and if it turns out that you moved copyvio text from one article to another, while you may not be culpable for the origination of the copyright violation, it's certainly your moral obligation to help clean up the mess you helped to make. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted the article as a clear copyright violation (from scholarly publications from 2003, so not an error based on a wiki-mirror or some such). I'll try to check the other articles this text is included in. And I totally agree with the comments by Beyond My Ken.

Fram (talk

) 07:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the text (as well as the text in a few other paragraphs in

Fram (talk

) 07:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The article Smoking cessation (cannabis), created by Bessmorris, appears to be a straight lift from this scholarly paper. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Bessmorris hasn't edited in almost a year, but I've nevertheless notified them that their editing is being discussed here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. So we can best check the articles

Fram (talk

) 07:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I very much disagree with your actions and I have raised a complaint at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Multidimensional_family_therapy. -- Hpvpp (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You are right to say it's "not your problem" in one sense. You did nothing procedurally wrong by creating the article. However removing the copyvio tag is procedurally wrong, it obstructs those who have made copyvios their problem. Moreover it contributes knowingly to perpetuating a copyvio. Rich Farmbrough, 12:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC).

I agree. Creating the article is one thing, but removing the copyvio tag is wrong as that should be left to those who work on copyvio issues. The complaint is also based on a lack of understanding (or disagreement) of our policy on copyvio and is going to fail if it isn't withdrawn earlier. Hpvpp, please don't do this again. Thank you.

talk

) 13:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I won't - I resigned [3]. -- Hpvpp (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

uswer page in wrong place Krishnendu Singha, please delete--Musamies (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Can somebody end the merge discussion at

The "clarified proposal" discussion is only open since 5 April (it would normally be 30 days, unless there's a clear outcome before that), and is finely balanced. No rush here. Rd232 ^talk 18:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Al-Masudi (born c. 896, died September 956), wrote a history book named The Meadows of Gold. In his book, he talks about the events from centuries before he was born until his own time. My question: Is The Meadows of Gold considered a primary source for the events that took place before Al-Masudi's birth?Kazemita1 (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I would think

the Reliable Sources Noticeboard might be a better place to raise this as I'm not clear if the book features et stories told to him in childhood, or if he is a history professor, or what. --Elen of the Roads (talk

) 14:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. He is definitely not a history professor, since there were no universities at his time. He is, though, a famous historian whose book is cited by many authors. Nevertheless, I will post it in reliable source noticeboard.Kazemita1 (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Al Masoudi is certainly an excellent source, one of the canonical ones for the period. However, it needs to be kept in mind that he represent the view of things as seen in his place and time, with the expected knowledge limits of his place and time. Fortunately, he has been well studied, so his strengths and limits are known--see our very good article on him. With respect to facts he's reliable--within his knowledge. But I would not assume any ancient or medieval historian had access to the full range of present knowledge. More generally, I consider no historian unbiased, and all conclusions about causes, results, rights, justifications, virtues, and motivations should be taken as well-informed expert opinion only, to be checked against other historians, & always ascribed to the individual, rather than assumed to be common knowledge that a single source will justify. (and as Elen says, such questions are more usefully asked at WP:RSN, the Reliable sources noticeboard.) DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Passover Seder has been having some problems with vandalism. Since it's actually Passover, many of the editors who would normally respond to such edits are off-wiki for the holy days. Could a few others please put this article on their watchlist for the next few days? Thanks! Risker (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I see it's been semiprotected now, that may have taken care of the problem. Hut 8.5 09:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

See

Oh hey, duplicate notice - We've got several old AFDs still open, including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebionite Jewish Community (3rd nomination) in its 11th day. The full list is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The final draft of a proposed update to the existing

Hi. I would like my edits to be hidden from the history of this page. Thank you. 108.6.214.253 (talk) 12:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Why? I see no reason to remove them from the history. TNXMan 12:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that this is not the only request that is open. There is a long list from March 10. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes the backlog was mentioned at the talk page where this request is active, but the suggestion was made to put a neutrally worded request here. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done This one is done, but there is still a massive

These two bits of edit summary vandalism are breaking my browser's rendering of the page history due to their length and lack of spaces. Can the edit summaries be RevDel'ed under RD criterion 3? If they were just "poop" or "fart" I wouldn't request this; it's the screwing up of the page rendering I'm mainly concerned about. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done. --Jayron32 01:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, much better! My browser and I thank you. 28bytes (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to participate in the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist#Blacklist double "Category" prefix?. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I was involved in nominating these the first time, so I am recusing myself from using my bits, but I need an admin to go through and redelete a bunch of files that have been previously deleted, and crept back into articles by new names. First, the deletion discussion can be found here: [4]. However, in the intervening months, most of these pictures have crept back into the selfsame articles. If an uninvolved admin could help out with getting rid of them again, per

• File:Noahpuckermanglee.jpg
• File:250px-Artie Abrams.png
• File:Tinacohenchang.jpg
• File:Quinnfabray.jpg
• File:Finnhudson.jpg
• File:Burthummel2.jpg
• File:KurtHummelseasonone.jpg
• File:Santana Lopez Glee.png
• File:Brittanypierce.JPG
• File:Emmapillsbury2.jpg
• File:Terri-Cow.jpg
• File:Will-MrSchue.jpg
• File:Sue-Queen-Glee.jpg
• File:Mike-Changster.jpg

Thanks again in advance to whoever takes care of this... --Jayron32 05:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Peripitus (Talk) 11:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Can somebody please transwiki File talk:NYC subway riders with their newspapers.jpg so that it is on Commons along with the file which is already there? — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 14:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This requires a Commons admin, so this message should be at the administrators' noticeboard at Commons. Graham87 06:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Request placed at Commons. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 15:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a three-week backlog at

Timestamp to prevent archiving. The backlog has not been cleared. Cunard (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent archiving. The backlog has not been cleared. Cunard (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you to the admins who cleared the backlog. Cunard (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• wisegeek.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Is it OK for a Wikipedia editor to systematically remove hundreds of links to a particular website? For example, this appears to be a working list.

If you look at the history of the hundreds of links that are in the process of being removed, you can see that they were given neutrally by completely unrelated Wikipedia editors over many years.

The site in question has been discussed three times on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and each time the community decided that there was not a reliability issue with the website. Furthermore, it should be noted that the site does not appear on the spam blacklist.

Disclosure: I have a relationship with the site that the Wikipedia editor is removing links to and so I want to make it clear that I have not made any edits, nor am I proposing to make any edits to the associated Wikipedia articles. I am not posting in the capacity of a Wikipedia editor, I am merely bringing this matter to the community's attention so the community can decide if this behavior is appropriate.

(I'm new here, so if there's a more appropriate place to raise this question, please let me know and I'll repost there.)Vrsti (talk) 06:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. The website may be borderline reliable, but there's no requirement to link to it.   Will Beback  talk  07:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I do see a problem, as

wp:RSN links given by Vrsti? Yoenit (talk

) 07:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

How can 300-plus neutral Wikipedia editors over many years be so wrong and one editor over the course of a few days be so right?Vrsti (talk) 07:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Have you asked The Anome why he is systematically removing links to your site? MER-C 07:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No. Requesting advice from a neutral body seemed like a more appropriate approach. This didn't seem like a purely editorial issue because it doesn't pertain to a Wikipedia article or even to a handful of related Wikipedia articles. This seems to be more of a unilateral meta-decision that impacts hundreds of Wikipedia pages and the work of hundreds of different Wikipedia editors.Vrsti (talk) 08:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I notified Anome of this discussion, also I tried to find a conversation which started this mass deletion but it seems to have been unilateral from the very start. Buttercrumbs (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• The fact that RSN decisions have been such that wisegeek IS a reliable source and Anome is removing them on the edit summary basis that it is not a reliable source just concludes with the fact that he is wrong. If he is wrong, then his changes should be reverted. If he wants to remove wisegeek as being considered a reliable source, then he needs to form a consensus that states this and not unilaterally make such decisions on his own that are at odds with numerous past consensuses. It's as simple as that. Silverseren^C 08:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The RSN discussions seem to say that it's a barely reliable tertiary source. Every addition that I've looked (only a few) has been made by an IP editor. In the past we've had problems with websites that pay their authors per view, which gives those authors strong incentives to add links to Wikipedia. It looks like Wisegeek authors are paid a small flat fee. Does anyone know for sure?   Will Beback  talk  08:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Wisegeek is not one of the sites that you are describing. This site does not pay authors per pageview. It does not give any (let alone "strong") incentives to get links from Wikipedia (or any other source). It's an independent entity with a single editorial/administrative team that maintains strict oversight and control.Vrsti (talk) 08:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Freelance Writing Jobs!

We pay writers per article. Current rates range from $10 to $14 depending on the article topic. Writers know exactly how much they will receive for writing an article before locking it.

Apply Now!

— [7]

• Yes, a flat fee per article. MER-C 08:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Looks like link/cite spam to me. There are over 500 of those links right now (not all in mainspace). I'd suggest bringing to
  WT:WPSPAM. 69.111.194.167 (talk
  ) 08:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Based on what? Looking at the two examples I linked one was added by a good faith IP, while the second was added by an SPA account who was trying to promote another site. Yoenit (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

If the Wikipedia community researched when and how the citations were added, and contacted the editors who added them, you will discover that none of them are associated with Wisegeek in any way. Additionally, the hundreds of citations to Wisegeek are indicative of the size of Wisegeek's library. According to the homepage, there are currently over 135,000 articles. Many large and reputable websites have orders of magnitude more attributions from Wikipedia.Vrsti (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of who is adding the links, the site appears to be content-spam (easy to create content used to sell ads). As such, removing links to the site seems like a good idea. --Conti|✉ 08:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

If someone has no interest in the promotion of a site in which they have an interest then I would expect them to have no interest in whether the links are removed or not. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Now that is ridiculous. I care if references are removed from the article for no good reason and I never even heard of the site until I read this discussion. Yoenit (talk) 09:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a logical statement. Since you do not have an interest in the site you are not within scope of the statement. Vrsti has a declared interest in the site and has raised the issue. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have been clear about any COIs from the very beginning. I am presenting this to the community to make a decision about the unilateral removal of attributions to a particular site. The issue is an issue regardless of any COIs from the person who raised it.Vrsti (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Both the removals linked above by Yoenit seem reasonable (though the edit summary is weak). Wisegeek appears to be a bog-standard content farm; using such sites as references is, in general, problematic. They have minimal editorial oversight on the material, and accuracy rests almost always with the anonymous content writer. They never cite sources. As an example, it was being used to support the statement The best quality flamenco shoes are made in Spain; is that an objective statement? Who said it, or who has judged it? (are we really planning to say "According to Wisegeek", and if so what makes them a reliable judge of where the best quality shoes come from). This example highlights the specific problem with sites like Wisegeek. On the other hand more care is needed in removing the links, with proper rationale for each one. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Each and every article on the site is reviewed by a dedicated editor. Articles are subsequently revised, often, many times over. Readers report errors and suggestions and the content improves with time, just like Wikipedia articles, except all changes go through a dedicated team of editors. Vrsti (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's cut to the chase here: What interest do you have in having that site linked to all over Wikipedia? --Conti|✉ 09:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

{{ec}Meh, it looks a little better than most. And as a tertiary source might be useful in some cases; but the lack of depth and failure to cite sources (as a tertiary source) makes it highly problematic. In my experience even the best of such sites has only the lightest of (proper) editorial control, much of which is focused on the writing rather than catching inaccurate materiak. In addition, these sites tend to present opinion (or at least, what WP would treat as opinion) in their own voice (as in my example above). We can find much better sources, for certain. In the meantime, any of the cites that are supporting dubious or problematic material should be considered carefully (as my example above). --Errant ^(chat!) 09:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about the links per se. Citations allow readers to click through for more information but they also are intended to provide attribution for the source documents that were used in researching the Wikipedia article. In other words, this is about giving credit where it is due. I am sure that most Wikipedians work tirelessly for the greater good, but they still appreciate the recognition for their contributions. I think there would be an outcry (rightfully so), if usernames were entirely removed from Wikipedia, and everything was replaced with "anon." When an article on our site was used as an original source for the Wikipedia article, and this was given attribution by the original author and it remained for years only to be removed (in hundreds of instances) by a single editor - that is disconcerting - and I thought the community should be made aware of it.Vrsti (talk) 09:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Umm, I'm not really sure of the point you're making here. WiseGeek is a summary source; ideally we would be using whatever secondary sources their writers use, because that is much much better and easier to verify. There is another issue as well, quite often these sites use Wikipedia as a source. Without proper source citation (as is essential for any good tertiary source) we have no idea if this is the case, so it risks material becoming circular. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the community is aware of it now (and don't get me wrong, bringing this to the community's attention isn't the point I'm criticizing here). But both per

WP:EL, the site should rarely (or probably never) be used here on Wikipedia. And it should most definitely never, ever be the sole basis for an article on Wikipedia. --Conti|✉

09:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

How is removing a source, but leaving the problematic statement in the article an improvement? I see you have now removed the entire statement from

Flamenco shoes and if User:TheAnome had done this directly I would not have used it as an example. Yoenit (talk

) 09:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. There are two issues here. On one hand the use of this source should be reviewed. On the other hand any removal should be done properly & not unilaterally with a bad edit summary. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know this discussion is going on. I note that original poster says they have a relationship with the site itself; I applaud them for their honesty. I'd also note that I'm not the only person removing Wisegeek links from articles.

There is no right for a site to be linked to from Wikipedia. Wisegeek is several rungs up from things like eHow, but certainly appears to me to be a content farm, if that term means an ad-stuffing pay-to-write site (see, for example, http://www.wisegeek.com/why-do-dogs-eat-grass.htm for a typical page layout[1]), and a great many of the links are either tacked-on to articles, or have common formatting suggests that many of them may have been added by a relatively small pool of contributors; some of them apparently at article creation time.

Where a Wisegeek article is the sole reference for an article, I suggest that a better cite should be sought. -- The Anome (talk) 10:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

[1] Fascinating. If you visit that page directly, after first clearing all cookies (as I just did to double-check the link), you get a spartan page devoid of advertising, which would appear to make my claim nonsense. View it through the path that I arrived at it by, and you get a page with an entirely different layout, stuffed with vast numbers of AdSense ads. -- The Anome (talk) 10:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As a gesture to the Wikipedia project, Wisegeek displays a different template for any user that has wikipedia as a referrer and has done so for the last several years. If you click on the link that The_Anome posted above (or any link to Wisegeek from wikipedia), you will not see any advertisements. Regarding your claim that wisegeek incentivized contributors to plant links, please read my post above at 08:54, 18 April 2011Vrsti (talk) 10:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Aha. That's certainly the most positive spin that could be put on that behavior. May I ask what your connection with the site is? -- The Anome (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Wisegeek operates differently than Wikipedia. Advertising revenue, as opposed to donations, is used to run the site. Regarding my affiliation with the site: I have worked with the site for several years though I don't represent it in an official capacity -- but I don't think that is relevant here. The issue I initially raised and wanted to focus on is whether the systematic deletion of links to a single site that were organically added by a host of people over a number of years is in the best interest of Wikipedia. Based on the comments above, several other commenters in this discussion have agreed -- please focus on the ideas raised instead of calling my affiliation into question. I'm not interested in editing content or making changes (precisely because I don't want any COI to enter the mix). I wanted to raise the issue of systematic deletions for the community to address. According to some of the supporting comments above, it doesn't seem like it was an unreasonable issue to raise. About not raising this issue directly with the remover, I have addressed this in an earlier post.Vrsti (talk) 11:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This isn't

WP:RS/N (where this probably belongs), but I really don't see how this website could possibly qualify as a RS, so removing links to it seems perfectly reasonable. I note that the COI account Vrsti (talk · contribs) was created yesterday and their only contributions have been to complain about the removal of these links without first bothering to raise it with the editor in question, so I think that this was a bad faith report. Nick-D (talk

) 10:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly interesting to consider the thought processes that drove the creation of that account. Special:Contributions/Vrsti makes interesting reading, following on from that chain of thought. It's also very interesting that the SPA in question knows so much about the history of discussions of Wisegeek on Wikipedia. -- The Anome (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

About the recent creation of my Wikipedia account -- I am a frequent and longtime reader and supporter of Wikipedia, but I have never made any edits. I created this account precisely to raise this issue. The thought process of the account creation went something like this: Hundreds of Wikipedia editors cited our content over the years, and now all of a sudden, someone is undoing all of those editorial decisions. I think that the Wikipedia community might like to be notified about this.Vrsti (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Holy crap. Has anyone looked at the site without the Wikipedia referral (delete your cookies and do a google search for them)? There's literally more ads than content to be found. In this case I'd strongly suggest blacklisting the site entirely. --Conti|✉ 11:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Since when are COI editors and SPA accounts completely forbidden from raising concerns? The OP has done nothing but request wider review of this matter with civil and argumented posts. Is this considered a "Bad faith nomation" nowadays? Yoenit (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree. There's nothing wrong with bringing this to our attention. --Conti|✉ 11:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll chime in here to agree as well. There is nothing at all wrong with Vrsti's raising the issue here, particularly since he/she was careful to disclose the COI at the outset. LadyofShalott 13:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this as well. This just smacks of shooting the messenger.

cool stuff

) 21:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Now discussion seems to have died down a bit I would propose the following:

• An RFC is opened to determine the reliability and desirability of wisegeek as an external link or reference.
• User:The Anome and any other users involved in systematically removing wisegeek links promise to stop doing so until consensus has been established that this is desired.
• If no such consensus is found all instances where the link was systematically removed should be evaluated and the link reinserted if this improves the article.

Does this sound reasonable? Yoenit (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think such a formal resolution is needed. Just take it to RS/N to check. I've gone back over a big portion of the links removed so far and almost in their entirety they should not be re-added. Anyone want to open an RS/N thread (my view is that it is not likely needed because it is clearly not a very reliable source). Even if RS/N decides it is unreliable, The Anome a) needs to use better individual rationales in their removals b) also remove problematic text associated with the source (because otherwise it begins to defeat the object) and c) make sure they are checking each carefully and not removing indiscriminately (there may be a small number of cases where this is a useful link) or at least replacing it with a better source. Removing links like this is a slog :) --Errant ^(chat!) 15:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's embarrassing to me to find out that there are so many links to a site whose pages are so full of ads. That in enough should be enought to blacklist it.

talk

) 15:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ditto; I've just done a dip-sample of five random pages and each one has more advertising than content (and some are laughably bad). Agree that in no way can this be considered a reliable source for anything other than articles about itself, and concur that this should be added to the blacklist. – 

iridescent

16:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The amount of advertising shouldn't be an issue: otherwise, we'd end up dropping links to practically all news media websites. But having looked at a few of the links on The Anome's list, it is clear that the vast majority don't add value in any way I can see -- for example, why should List of oldest CEOs need a link to [8]? However, there are at least a few which might benefit from the link to Wisegeek -- for example Monte Cristo sandwich to [9] -- but I believe those cases are best handled on a case-by-case basis with discussions on the related talk pages. Maybe The Anome should have announced he felt these links weren't helpful & that he would be removing them -- but that's an issue of Wikiquette, at most. And where would one make this statement? -- llywrch (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The amount of advertising certainly becomes an issue when there's more of it than actual content. --Conti|✉ 17:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. On that "Monte Cristo sandwich" one you link to, for instance, I count 13 adverts in the body text. Legitimate media outlets may carry advertising, but they don't intersperse lines of advertising with lines of text to make it appear that the advert is an integral part of the article, nor do they carry more advertising than actual content. Even

iridescent

17:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow, I didn't see any ads as I use Firefox, but when I used IE the website looks quite different. I agree that the website should not be used as a link in the EL section due to the mass ads, and that it can not be used to back up any controversial statements, but there are still some cases where it is an alright source such as at Testamentary trust. If better sources are found to back up text, they can replace the wisegeeks ones, but until then, it would hurt wikipedia to remove them. Buttercrumbs (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

A suggested way forward

Thanks for this. I think that -- except for the special versions specially served up from links within Wikipedia -- these links are clearly covered by

Given that these removals seem to be supported by existing policy, I propose that I continue to do these removals, subject to community review in the normal way, with the following changes:

1. when I remove a Wisegeek cite, I will also remove the statement it cites, if clearly identifiable, unless that is supported by another cite
2. I will provide a more informative edit summary: I propose "link to wisegeek.com removed: please see
   WP:ELNO
   , point 5"

It's just possible that in some cases, these links might be merited, but I have yet to find a case that justified linking to such a heavily ad-dense page that could not in principle be supplied from another source. In this case, these links will remain in the article history, and my edits, like any others, can be reverted -- nothing of value will be lost.

Is this generally acceptable to those here, and can you suggest any improvements I should make to this? -- The Anome (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. --Conti|✉ 19:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It is good to see the discussion around this issue. Regarding "linking to such a heavily ad-dense page," I would like to remind you about a comment made earlier: for years, Wisegeek has supressed all ads for visitors who have Wikipedia as a referrer. In other words, users click on citations on Wikipedia will not see any ads on the site.Vrsti (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That's nice, but ultimately irrelevant. The site is a content farm, and we generally don't like to them or use them as sources. --Conti|✉ 19:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Err you realise that in saying "It's just possible that in some cases, these links might be merited, but I have yet to find a case that justified linking to such a heavily ad-dense page that could not in principle be supplied from another source." you are admitting that some of your edits are bad for wikipedia (blanking of valid content)? The suggestion that same material could be "in principle be supplied from another source" is only relivant if you are going out and tracking down such souces and adding those.©Geni 06:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of any negative comments in the last hour, other than the not-unexpected comment from the original SPA above, I'll now continue with the link removals, on the terms proposed above. Please let me know via a message on my talk page if you want me to stop again, and I'll do so before going back here to review this. -- The Anome (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

What? Did you read any of the above conversation? and what the hell is this about - "In this case, these links will remain in the article history, and my edits, like any others, can be reverted -- nothing of value will be lost." That is not a valid excuse for making bad edits unless you are a complete noob. Do not remove the source when it is being used to source non controversial text unless you also replace it with a superior source. Buttercrumbs (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't want to be a considered a "noob", whatever that is. You certainly know a lot about how Wikipedia works after just 19 edits over 9 days. Can you tell me how User:Vrsti, a SPA created in a very similar timescale, and you got chatting about this in the first place? I find this edit particularly interesting: you seem awfully familiar with previous discussions of Wisegeek on Wikipedia. -- The Anome (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no relationship with Buttercrumbs whatsoever. I am not familiar with the functioning of Wikipedia and posted in a few places to find out the appropriate place to post what seems to be a legitmate issue. (I think the debate that has occurred in this discussion is indicative of the issue's legitimacy.) As you can see, Buttercrumbs along with other Wikipedians replied to my initial post(s) in other places on Wikipedia. I must say that the repeated interrogation and implications that I am acting in bad faith is a testament to the shady characters that you all must run into here - not your fault of course but I would have hoped that raising issues in the community's interest would be welcomed (as some have expressed). I would urge you to avoid the temptation to speculate about hidden motivations and ulterior motives - I can assure you there aren't any on my part. I have to admit, that this hasn't been a very welcoming experince for this particular noobie - I came here trying to present what I viewed to be a potentially important issue and mostly I have been bitten.Vrsti (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure your edits here were in good faith and meant well, and I was impressed by your being up-front about your affiliations with the site. As you say, it is sometimes difficult to

assume good faith; we all try, but it can be difficult, given the circumstances. Please continue editing here! -- The Anome (talk

) 22:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

However, it's a very good reason to make good edits, and removing citations to unreliable sources is a very good kind of edit. Nyttend (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the dedication and veracity of the Wikipedia community and the effort that you have placed into this issue. I am not sure if any of this will be helpful, but the site's founder (who I work for) has recently posted on some significant changes to the site that are currently underway.Vrsti (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the implication that there is an attempt here to create a false consensus through the use of sock- or meatpuppetry (either coordinated or accidental), and suggest that the actual consensus of actual Wikipedia community members is that these links should be removed. I support the removal of these links and urge that their deletion continue.

If Wisegeek changes their website in an significant way, this subject can be reopened in the future, but there's no reason to change our actions now on the basis of what they may or may not do in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh this just keeps getting better and better. First we have bad faith nominations, now we have sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry trying to establish "false consensus". I assume the new editors are supposed sockpuppets, but who is their master and how are they establishing false consensus? The only false consensus I see is some editors pushing a total ban of the site in this discussion. If somebody wants to start a proper discussion at one of the noticeboards or an RFC I would support restricting its use, but I refuse to be part of this lynch mob. Yoenit (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I respect whatever the community decides on this issue, but these accusations against me have no merit. I have no relationship whatsoever with anyone who posted in this thread. I have never posted on Wikipedia ever before with this or any other username. I do not have any associates that are addressing this issue under any other Wikipedia usernames. Quite frankly, I do not know a single editor that has anything to do with this at all. I have worn my COIs on my sleeve from the outset. I honestly wanted to raise a philosophical issue. There must be a way to determine whether these accusations are true, and if not, I urge people not to make such serious false accusations without more than a cynical hunch. Since I don't know about the intricacies of Wikipedia as you all seem to, one could argue that collusion is more likely plausable among long term contributors; since I have no proof of that, I have refrained from making any such claims.Vrsti (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sorry for not being more releaving, if you had read my talk page you would have seen me say that this account was for an experiment to see how new editors are treated, which I found to be very poor - editors talking to me in code, getting templated, messages left on others talk pages being deleted without response. Then I saw Vrsti's problem from a talk page and commented unknowningly logged into this good-intentioned second account, but I didn't switch back to my real account in fear of getting that account in trouble...still I stick with what I said above, while many links should be removed, some are not fine and the website should not be de facto blacklisted. And you can block this account, I'm done with it now, Buttercrumbs (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

If you were truly interested in how new editors are treated, you wouldn't be here at all. Truly new editors generally don't find their way to the noticeboards for weeks or months -- some never do at all. In fact, a new editor showing up here almost immediately is generally a good sign that something is going on -- so I stand by my analysis. The deletions should continue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I had a long response to this, but lost it due to an edit conflict. Instead I will just show you this link and leave it at that. Yoenit (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If you just go back a page in your broswer you get back what you meant to add and can copy and paste it to add it when you have an edit conflict, and if there is a indenting or chronologic problem you should add {{ec}} to make other aware of what happened. More friendly advice from me, just like the diff you posted above, . Buttercrumbs (talk) 08:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we stop making various accusations and get back to the issue at hand. Fact is that this site is a content farm that - if not visited from Wikipedia - has more ads than content. It pays its authors to create the content which gets them the page views which in turn brings in the money, so they have a very, very clear interest to be linked from highly visible sites like Wikipedia (even if they don't show any ads for Wikipedians). Regardless of good/bad faith, sockpuppetry and various other accusations, I don't see at all why we should ever use this site, and I have not yet seen any arguments from those supporting the site trying to convince me of the opposite. --Conti|✉ 07:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned previously, no one is paid or incentivized in any way to bring visitors to the site. Writers are paid up front for their work. Wisegeek is not a website based on revenue-sharing whatsoever.Vrsti (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and the only reason I mentioned the other is because I believe people (aggressive commercial websites, sockpuppeteers, vandals, etc.), sometimes see our policy of

WP:AGF

as equivalent to being naive or weak, and thus easy prey for them, but AGF doesn't prevent us from being clear and frank when the evidence is staring at us in the face. We assume good faith to begin with, but only until the facts allow us to drop our initial assumption and act on the basis of the underlying reality that the facts reveal. 07:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I also support the removal of these links. Anome should continue with the policy consistent removal of unreliable and unsuitable links. There is no policy based reason for these links to be present or for Anome to stop. People are free to advocate the use of unsuitable sources that very obviously do not meet the requirements of

I will not argue for using the site, just using caution in its removal. It seems

wp:ELNO 5 does not apply to references. Yoenit (talk

) 07:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Conti's suggestion above. This isn't a RS and there's no reason to include references or links to it. Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Taking the links to RSN at this point seems like forum shopping to me. I think there is clear consensus here that they are spam and should be removed. WP:ELN is another place to consider if discussion is to move someplace from here. The Anome, if you're using a bot to get rid of them, how about having it dump all of the removed text and links onto a noindexed page in your user space, so people can see all the stuff in one place and pull out any actual RS's? It could also leave an html comment in the articles saying where the info has gone. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

We should have handled this better

We really should have handled this better, IMO.

@Vrsti, thank you for bringing this to our attention and thank you for disclosing your possible

@The Anome, you have been a great Wikipedian, and excellent admin and an awesome bot programmer. I have a lot of respect for you and agree that the wisegeek links should probably be removed —but— from the discussion here, we should probably get community input before doing so. Would you please mind pausing while we get more input?

@everybody else, I would like to move this discussion to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Wisegeek as a reliable source. Everybody is encouraged to speak about the issue there. The more input the better. If everybody agrees, would somebody mind closing this discussion? Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 08:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I will certainly wait for community input, and I'll follow the discussion at WP:RS/N and wait for a consensus to form. Best regards, -- The Anome (talk) 09:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 06:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Tangential point

Sources is actually a vague term. Vristi raised the good point of acknowledgement above. So while the validity of some Wisegeek articles to support certain claims might be in question, there is also the issue of acknowledgement. Marginal or non-RS can be used as sources to write an article, provided the material can also be sourced to an RS. We do this with direct copies of CC-by-SA or PD material such as Citizendium, Planet Math, Eastons, etc... Rich Farmbrough, 12:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC).

If anyone has a moment, please could the large collection of expired PRODs be attended to? Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 17:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

 Working /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I got the last of the 14 April cat, but the 15 April one to which you linked should stay open for a couple more hours, until midnight UTC. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aron "Deuce" Erlichman (I participated in it)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2003–04 Manchester City F.C. season/FA Cup Fourth round replay (not even going to try)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differences between conservative and liberal brain (ditto, though looks like a delete based on vote count)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwight Watson (American football) (makes my head hurt)

Thanks, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China's 2011 crackdown on dissidents looks like a bucket of fun. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I closed all except one of them. I hope you don't mind that I struck through the ones I closed. The one I left, being

Differences between conservative and liberal brain, I am inelligible to close as I participated. --Jayron32

04:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Could someone SNOW close the above RfA? It seems a clear case (as I've said there) and it seems senseless to let it go on. --

] 06:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Courcelles has closed it. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Admin needed for difficult closure of AFD

Resolved

WP:TLDR level and is getting snippy. I have already commented, so I am not eligible to close it. Could an uninvolved admin please step in and make a decision final so we can close it down before it decends any further. The same arguments are coming from the same people and its getting repetitive. --Jayron32

00:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• I think I'm the third admin who wandered over there with the intent to close the debate and ended up making a comment instead. Sorry. Protonk (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I closed it with a highly unsatisfying "No consensus" result. --RL0919 (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Repeated canvassing for AfD

WT:PW page: [48]. I reminded him that this was inappropriate, and quoted the relevant section from WP:CANVAS. He acknowledged my reminder and posted a more neutral notice (while keeping the old one on the page). Today, he posted another non-neutral notice of the WT:PW page: [49]. Talking to him hasn't worked, so I am following the instructing from WP:CANVAS on how to deal with canvassing. GaryColemanFan (talk

) 18:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I've reminded Nascarking of the need to post neutral notices to Wikiprojects when notifying of AfD discussions. GCF, your reminder might have been better placed on his talk page, rather than at the Wikiproject talk page. Although the notice could have been worded more neutrally, there is no excessive spamming that I can see. If there is no further repeat of this, then I don't see any need for further admin intervention on this issue. Mjroots (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Abusive language by User:Nascarking

I have been advised by

WP:WQA. Jezhotwells (talk

) 20:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Nascarking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Over the Limit (2011)

This user continues to be abusive towards fellow editors at the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Over the Limit (2011), despite having been asked twice to refrain from abusive language, diff #1 [50], diff #2 [51], diff #3 [52]. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This is unacceptable language. However, it would probably be best to close this discussion thread and move your comments to ANI, where another thread has been started.[53] TFD (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I presume that TFD meant here rather than ANI as here is where their link lead to. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I have issued a warning about continued use of inappropriate language. Any further examples please let me know on my talkpage, or otherwise make a report to ANI - which is the more appropriate noticeboard. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

hello

User Krawl pls unblock me — Preceding unsigned comment added by The last 5454534 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This smells fishy. The only user with a userpage whose name starts with "Krawl" is an indef'd sockpuppet, and this user has also created User:Hgfhfhf. I'm not sure what's going on; if anyone does, it'd be great if you'd handle it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

{{checkuser needed}} ? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This guy is coming back, after five years? Wow, some vandals don't get tired (they also are really bad at making their case) --Rockstonetalk to me! 21:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) KrawlingKreep is one of many, many sockpuppets of User:Blu Aardvark. I doubt User:The last 5454534 was referring to this. Of course, a CheckUser should clear this up. Guoguo12--Talk--  22:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

There's also a Krawl (talk · contribs), although they're not blocked and haven't edited since 2006. Jafeluv (talk) 09:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, well, well. It looks like there's lot more going here than meets the eye. The following are  Confirmed as being the same person:

• BENJIECI (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Johnaarguelles (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Guz23456 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• The last 5454534 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Krawl64556645564 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Kas53454353 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Wallbot (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Jennifer love hewitt234089 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Jennifer love hewitt (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• LucPower Portal (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Thewillofgod1006 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Anime Nut (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ninpou kobanashi (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Khjjghjghjgjg32432 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Eror23131321 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Slap123 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Lapaqweqweq1232131 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Laxasad12334 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Start12113213 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Burnley12132131 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Orangesms1231321 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mgkhgkhfghfg211213 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Xasfdafsafda1213123 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Napa1213131 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Orangesms (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Else1211 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Else1287654 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mgkhgkhkkjjhkkj (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mgkhgkhjghhg (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mgkhgkh (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mgkhgkhfgfdfg (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Георги Тодоров (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mgkhgkhfgfdfgf6544564 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mgkhgkhfgfdfgf754323 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mgkhgkhfgfdfgf765867 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Fsu376576575 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mgkhgkhfgfdfgf7656765 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mgkhgkhfgfdfgf765657 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mgkhgkhfgfdfgfd5423 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Fdsdf123454321 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mgkhgkhfghfg21231 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Kjllhkjlhj5535 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Тодор Тодоров (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Find123423523 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Goodher3214 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • No, I have no idea who this is or what's going on. TNXMan 16:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Seems like someone had a lot of free time. I think User talk:Mgkhgkhfgfdfgf7656765 is the only one blocked, for violation of the username policy. Guoguo12--Talk--  17:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked each and every one of them. Many of them also made similar edits and seem to not care about disrupting anything. Underlying IP range has also been blocked. –MuZemike 20:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I also blocked User:Else12987766, User:Khjkhjh231312312, and User:Hgfhfhf, which were each created by one of the above accounts, for consistency. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyright

Hi,

It is claimed that this image is in public domain, but there seems to be no evidence. Please, advise. p.s. I already asked the person who posted it.Kazemita1 (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done – image tagged with {{di-no permission-notice}}. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 18:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Question - Whilst having no opinion on the merits or otherwise of the image or its tagging, the image was originally uploaded in 2008 with a website given as a source. That source was presumably checked by at least one other editor and accepted as valid. Now the website is down, the image is tagged as unlicenced. Does this have ramifications on all images where the source website is taken down, whether they are PD or fair use? Mjroots (talk) 07:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it has. Thankfully we have the webarchive, which has several copies of the source website [54]. Note I do not see any evidence of the images being public domain on that page, nor does it seem likely that this is the true source of the images. Yoenit (talk) 07:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Opinions please.....on whether an editor who happens to be an admin initiating an AfD is "involved"

See Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#.22Involved.22_status_of_nominator. Some numbers of !votes'd e good here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Move protected page page move

Can someone move

WP:FOUR

) 14:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's appropriate or not, as the article goes a bit beyond the case. Maybe opening an

WP:RM discussion would be a good thing? --SarekOfVulcan (talk

) 14:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Super-injunctions and unnecessary censorship of Wikipedia

Resolved

 – Summary - WP is not currently oversighting to comply with UK "celebrity super injunctions" - although it is following its standard BLP practices. Legal matters are the province of WMF (who have been sent a query) and of individual editors. Rich Farmbrough, 14:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC).

There has been a much-bemoaned trend in the courts of England and Wales recently to grant

super-injunctions, which limit freedom of expression for those under their jurisdiction. Sometimes these block reporting of trivia like the identities of celebrities with embarrassing personal lives, but often they are much more sinister. As per "Wikipedia is not censored", Wikipedia's main servers are based in Florida and are under the jurisdiction of the Floridian and US federal courts (with their admirable First Amendment). I am not a lawyer, but I do not believe that the super-injunctions currently attracting attention in the UK bind Wikipedia. There is therefore no valid reason to keep information covered by them, which for the most part is obviously in the public domain judging by a cursory inspection of the web, out of the relevant articles. I have brought this up on the talk pages of ETK (the redirect, not its target) and Imogen Thomas. I am mentioning it here because Wikipedia's non-censorship policy is not being adhered to (oversight is being used), but there is not a great deal those of us under the jurisdiction of the injunction-granting courts can do about it. The help of Wikipedia's international team of admins is therefore required! Thanks and apologies for cross-posting at the village pump: I wasn't sure where was best. Terminal emulator (talk

) 18:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is out of the remit of admins or other editors; this sounds like an issue for the Foundation to deal with. Issues regarding legal issues, even those which apply to jursidictions nominally outside of Florida, usually cannot be handled by anyone except the Foundation (that stir-up last year regarding the old paintings from a British museum comes to mind), and so if you are concerned, you should probably contact the foundation directly by email as described here; in my experience they are generally responsive to serious concerns raised by Wikipedians. --Jayron32 19:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

This needs oversighting, incidentally. <giggle>. 87.194.239.235 (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I think rather than it being an issue for the Foundation it is a more straightforward matter of editors having some unjustified fear that Wikipedia is breaking the law by reporting on matters covered by injunctions, when the location of its servers means there is nothing to worry about. As far as I know, no lawyers have threatened Wikipedia or its editors directly (and if they do I'm sure the Foundation will respond suitably robustly, or at least I hope they will). The solution is probably some kind of awareness-raising amongst editors and admins to make sure that they do not feel the need to censor Wikipedia by reverting edits or using oversight because there is a court order in some part of the world other than theirs or that of Wikipedia's servers. More proactively, it would be great if Wikipedians outside of England and Wales and therefore beyond the reach of its courts could keep an eye out for news of super-injunctions (at least, those that cover matters less frivolous than celebrity sex scandals) and make sure that suppressed information that's of encyclopaedic relevance is added to the appropriate articles. Terminal emulator (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I concur with the users above. This is generally a Foundation issue, and if there are potential legal challenges, then it is entirely up to the Foundation as to what the official stance on the inclusion of this information should be. For editors to use tools to supress these edits seems extremely inappropriate, and most certainly a direct violation of

WP:NOTCENSORED. It is not our job to enforce the dubious laws of a country that actually has no jurisdiction over Wikipedia itself at all. We could probably all debate about the information in question until the cows come home. I understand how some users may have an "unjustified fear", but the use of oversight/revision deletion/voodoo is the only part of this that is actually disturbing me. --Dorsal Axe

20:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that any UK based editors steer well clear of the area in question, lest they find themselves in

Contempt of Court. Clarification from the Foundation would be welcome. Mjroots (talk

) 20:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• I have reviewed the situation because of the allegation of improper use of suppression tools. None of the edits have been suppressed/oversighted, although egregious BLP violations have been deleted. Folks, this is an encyclopedia, not a gossip sheet. Information, especially salacious or highly controversial information, being added to biographical articles must be sourced, without exception. This is Wikipedia's policy and standard, and it has nothing to do with injunctions or superinjunctions or anything happening in the courts of the United Kingdom. If people feel an overwhelming urge to spread gossip, I strongly urge them to go elsewhere, as repeated BLP violations is grounds for removal from the project. Risker (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is bound by United States federal laws and the laws of the state of Florida. As far as I know, we can volunteer to do anything that any other court asks, but they don't have the ability to compel Wikipedia to do anything. Keep that in mind here. Risker's advice, however, is important as well.
    Wha?
    20:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, but I am British. I think the injunction is against publishing the material, but being able to otherwise view or learn of the contents is not covered (or the editorial staff, printers and others would all be in contempt). Nor, do I think, would a British national be in contempt if they were to be involved in the publishing of the material in a foreign jurisdiction. Regardless of that, other than the fact that the subject has felt themselves compelled to apply for such a super-injunction can it be argued that the issue is sufficiently notable in itself to be included in a BLP? Since unsourced negative and non-notable content should not be included, what are the exceptional circumstances that mean WP should be publishing this content? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick response concerning one specific point: If English courts handle international matters even remotely like German courts do, in this respect, then a UK-based editor publishing something abroad in media that is targeted (exclusively or to a considerable extent) to the UK market would actually be in contempt of court. So it's better to leave such edits to others unless you are sure you know what you are doing. Hans Adler 20:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I am fairly confident in regard to such matters, that English courts injunctions are limited to its own jurisdiction only. I would, of course, not presume to tell another Brit that they must or even should get themselves involved, since I am also aware that what is permissible and what is practiced under application of law in the UK is not always the same. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that it actually covers communicating to an audience (IIRC that is the specific wording). So theoretically announcing it to the whole pub (say) is a violation :) The injunction actually covers, I think, the EU (athough I am a bit shaky on how that works, but that is what one law journal was claiming - I have yet to tie down what they mean by that). All I will say is; publishing the material in another jurisdiction might be fine... but I wouldn't risk it :) --Errant ^(chat!) 21:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Risker, unless I'm mistaken you haven't looked at the oversights in question because you don't know the identity of the people covered by the injunctions. It's at their articles where edits have been removed. I have not divulged them here for obvious reasons alluded to by Hans Adler above, but I discovered them after reading media coverage of a couple of recent super-injunctions and spending five minutes Googling. I came on Wikipedia to see if anything was mentioned in their articles and saw from the page histories that information had been removed and oversighted. Perhaps I didn't make it sufficiently clear above, but I'm less concerned by the celebrity gossip than I am by the general principle that material should not be removed to comply with injunctions that don't bind Wikipedia, for all I know on matters covered by injunctions I don't know about but which are being discussed on the internet and reported in the foreign press, and concern something more important than tabloid sex scandals. I don't want Wikipedia to be a gossip sheet any more than you do, but if information is of encyclopaedic relevance (some probably is, some probably isn't) then the efforts of foreign courts to censor it should not prevent its inclusion. Terminal emulator (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Terminal emulator, I had no difficulty at all figuring out what articles you were talking about, and I have reviewed the relevant deletions (not suppressions). They were of material that is the stuff of supermarket tabloids, unsourced and inflammatory. The presence of that material in the article would have constituted an egregious BLP violation. There is no censorship involved here; the deletions were done entirely within policy and entirely appropriately, and had nothing at all to do with any superinjunction. Risker (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Well how am I meant to know that, given that the revisions in question are in greyed-out text in the page history and can't be clicked on? Wikipedia is chock-full of unsourced information, plagiarism, innaccuracy, dodgy medical advice, and while such things are often removed they aren't thrown down the memory hole. I am not alleging some kind of conspiracy, I just see some rich people with their well-paid lawyers getting court orders to prevent discussion of their sex lives, which I am not interested in, and am concerned about the wider principle that Trafigura-type information could be being oversighted because of misplaced concerns about injunctions, and I as a reader wouldn't know a thing about it. Terminal emulator (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

In answer to your question, about 95% of those "greyed out" entries in this project are revision deletions, which can be full or partial, and can be done by any administrator. In order to tell whether an edit was revision deleted or was suppressed (what you call oversight, though that actually refers to deprecated software), click on "view logs for this page" at the top of the page history. It will list what's been deleted and by whom; if there are no entries there, but there are still "greyed out" entries in the page history, then those edits were suppressed. Further, just because something is suppressed is no reason to jump to the conclusion that a legal process in England has anything to do with it; BLP violations (according to the Wikipedia policy) in various forms make up the overwhelming majority of article-page suppressions. I just wish that people would not automatically assume that something nasty is afoot when there could be a perfectly reasonable, project-specific, explanation. Comments like this hurt the reputation of our Oversight team, all of whom take great care in their work, ensuring it is policy compliant and sensitive to specific circumstances. I can count the number of "legal"-related suppressions done in the past two years on the fingers of one hand, and I believe most of those were done by WMF staff or at their request/authorization. Risker (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Risker. As someone who is basically a reader rather than an editor, and does not have a comprehensive knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and technical features, it seems that what I have referred to here as oversight is actually what you call revision deletion. I appreciate that you've checked this out and taken the time to explain things to me. Terminal emulator (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, insofar as anything needs to be removed from public view, that's kinda the idea. Certain people at Wikipedia have been entrusted with tools which allow information to be removed because the community trusts their judgement regarding what is proper to remove and what isn't. If everyone could just view removed material, what would be the point? Risker is a highly respected member of the community, having served at high-level positions like ArbCom, and so her reputation is impecable. What's special about you that you (and no one else) gets to "check up" on someone like Risker? We do have an entire class of users called the Audit Subcommittee, who are specifically selected to check on oversighted edits to make sure they are aligned with policy, and

Risker is on it. There's no one more qualified in all of Wikipedia to make a decision about what you should, or should not, be able to see. If Risker says its all copacetic, I trust it... --Jayron32

23:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Jayron, I am not against oversight per se (or what I thought was oversight, see above), and I am well aware that it exists for good reasons. My point was really the trivial one that if a revision is hidden, I am not in a position to see whether that hiding was justified, and would appreciate someone with the requisite permissions checking it out, which is why I raised the matter at the administrators' noticeboard. I never said anything remotely like "I am special and have a special right to check up on Risker". I have no reason to believe that Risker is acting anything less than completely properly here and I don't believe I have suggested otherwise. Risker has left a message on my talk page giving some examples of the proper use of suppression/oversight/revision deletion/similar tools, such as the removal of personal phone numbers, and suggested that I am jumping to the worst possible conclusion about something I don't understand. To stress it again, I am well aware that there are often good reasons to remove edits from the page history. I am not jumping to the worst possible conclusion, I am raising a concern because I am not sure what has happened, and I appreciate that it has now been looked into. Having said all this, the fact that two people I cannot name here have obtained injunctions which are the subject of much discussion in the UK press and amongst legal commentators and other interested people really ought to appear in their articles and still does not. This is because it is interesting and notable from a legal point of view, not because we are interested in their sex lives. I would have thought that someone beyond the jurisdiction of the relevant courts who had seen this discussion would have added the fact that they took out injunctions to the relevant articles by now, not because they think the details of celebrity sex scandals are important, but because the legal issues are notable and worthy of encyclopaedic coverage. Terminal emulator (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

While you are mostly right in terms of the restriction of material being bad. From a practical perspective it shouldn't really concern us, so far nothing covered by the injunctions has been relevant (to my recollection anyway) to WP, mostly being of the level of gutter tabloid allegations/nonsense. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the recent ones are, but super-injunctions are not always used for spurious reasons (e.g. there is a long-standing one preventing anyone, anywhere reporting on the [suspected] new identities or locations of the killers of Jamie Bulger, lest the individual[s] named be killed as a result). It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 23:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless someone can point to any specific noteworthy information that was suppressed, I will assume that this is just another case of the usual bad logic: When some people want to censor X, and Wikipedia (or some Wikipedians) don't want X in an article, then obviously they must be doing it because they support the censorship, or acquiesce to it.

(It's a natural conclusion, but not a correct one: Courts want that X is not published. Wikipedia doesn't want to publish X. I don't understand why Wikipedia doesn't want to publish X. => It must be because of the courts. Nope. Every day thousands of people complain that we are deleting information that they think should be published, information that nobody wants to censor. Many of these people don't understand why we are deleting it either.)

I think the much likelier scenario in most cases would be the following: It takes pretty much before a British court decides that information should be censored. We have

BLP

rules which, at least in theory, are much more stringent. (This is natural because our rules are what we, an encyclopedia, do, not about what the Sun or the Mirror is allowed to do.) Therefore once the courts have decided something should be censored, the odds are we will independently deem it unsuitable.

There may still be cases in which the courts are actually abused to suppress information of the type that you would expect to read in Encyclopedia Britannica. I doubt that we would be censoring that unless really forced to do so, which the UK court system may or may not be willing and able to do but to my knowledge never tried. Hans Adler 21:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• If there is significant coverage of the suppression then the suppression itself may well meet our inclusion guidelines. In any case, the suppression itself should not be a reason not to cover a topic. WP:BLP may be such a reason, so it's worth treading carefully... Hobit (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with this completely. After all this discussion, still neither the article on the person covered by the injunction arising from ETK v News Group Newspapers Ltd, nor the article about the person covered by the injunction arising from the Imogen Thomas case have any mention of the eminently notable legal proceedings they have been involved in. Their names are all over the web and for all I know in the foreign press (possibly not in this case, but possibly so in more important cases relating to corporate wrongdoing, for example). If someone famous is involved in a court case that because of its significance for the legal system (possibility of a privacy law by the back door, abuse of the courts by people who can afford expensive lawyers etc.) attracts considerable coverage in the press because of the legal angle and not the prurient gossip angle, this should be mentioned in their article. We have an article on e.g. Meinhard v. Salmon not because these two obscure people's business dealings are notable, but because the legal issues arising are. Same goes for many other mentions of legal proceedings on Wikipedia. I hope I've made myself clear on this point now. I doubt the foreign press are much interested in the sex lives of the more obscure British celebrities, so perhaps there are no reliable sources in these particular cases, but I am trying to establish two general principles here: (1) If a super-injunction is granted somewhere, which, if complied with, would result in encyclopaedic information being excluded from Wikipedia, someone outside of the injunction's jurisdiction should not feel any need to refrain from adding the information, provided the usual standards about reliable sources etc. are met. (2) The fact that a super-injunction has been granted may itself make notable matters not otherwise encyclopaedic, because the phenomenon of super-injunctions is notable and the subject of much debate and coverage, with implications wider than the often salacious and trivial facts that any particular injunction covers up. Terminal emulator (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This might be a good opportunity to test out the WMF's new general counsel, Geoff Brigham. I believe the email is gbrighamwikimedia.org ;) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

While I have no problem with Geoff Brigham being informed (actually I already did that when I first saw this thread), I will point out once again that the revision deletions were perfectly normal administrative revision deletions for BLP violations; certainly they meet our project's standard for them. There was no oversight/suppression. Any requests to act on an injunction or other legal document is passed through WMF counsel, and these situations are exceedingly rare. Risker (talk) 06:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

To clarify once more, I have not at any stage been of the belief that there was some kind of secret office action at work here. I just think that if someone is involved in legal proceedings that are attracting enough comment to be notable, we would normally expect this fact to be mentioned in their article, and the fact that it isn't in these two cases made me wonder if this was because editors believed that Wikipedia is bound by these injunctions. What I believe is encyclopaedic information (the legal proceedings not the salacious stuff) is not appearing in articles. You've assured me that this state of affairs is not the result of a misuse of oversight. Thanks for that. Terminal emulator (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to be a bore about this but I'm back briefly because the discussion has stalled without my points being addressed and I want to knock this "you want to turn Wikipedia into a gossip sheet" suggestion on the head, to which end I will use an example. If a senior politician took legal action to obtain compensation from a neighbour who had chopped down a tree on their land which had fallen wrongly and damaged that politician's house, it might well be that we wouldn't consider the affair notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. If however they attracted a great deal of comment and controversy by attempting some highly controversial legal remedy, like getting Parliament to pass an act of attainder against the offending neighbour, this would probably make the trivial matter of a badly felled tree very notable indeed. Compare this situation: some 'celebrities' are involved in sexual affairs, which are not particularly notable in themselves, but they obtain controversial and much-discussed injunctions in an effort to cover it all up. This makes the affairs much more notable. It's quite simple. Terminal emulator (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Super-injunction is currently a redirect to injunction. Perhaps you might want to work on that; I quite agree that it is an encyclopedic topic, and there is probably sufficient discussion in reliable sources, including scholarly ones, to develop it into a full article. Mention of examples of such super-injunctions, as they are discussed in reliable sources, would be appropriate for inclusion in such an article. But that isn't where we started on this thread; we started with accusations that Wikipedia was bowing to the will of the UK high courts on this issue, and that is patently not the case. Risker (talk

) 17:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I realise this discussion has been closed but I would just like to add a brief comment. I'm slightly concerned by a lot of the editors here who are simply dismissing these injunctions because they fall out of the juridiction of Florida. Regardless of the lack of juridiction, these super-injunctions have been created by competant courts with access to a lot more information than you or I and after full consideration of both the UK's equivalent of the first amendment and the individuals concerned right to privacy. In my view the competant decision of the judicature of a soverign state should not be trumped by a random editor's interpretation of a private organistation's biographical policy regardless of whether that courts view can be enforced or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob House 884 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

That is so wrong, that it should not stand without noting it's wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful and insightful comments there. What exactly is 'wrong'? Bob House 884 (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

As we are not bound and should not be bound by German

WP:BLP

, which is much stronger than US law, and stronger than the text of the European right to privacy. The decision in regard German courts is already referenced in a Foundation announcement and an ArbCom decision.

As an aside,

1st Amendment, as can be seen in the English (not necessarily UK) judicial position on libel, which would be considered not only contrary to the US Constitution, but absurdly so. — Arthur Rubin (talk)

16:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to offer more than a sentence in rebuttal. I still can't agree with you though, I adknowledge that wikipedia is in the priveliged position of choosing whether it follows the information laws of other countries (the UK and in your example, Germany) because of its fortunate geographical location. I'm not arguing that we are bound to follow the laws of other countries, just that it would be nice if we afforded the laws and judicial decisions of other countries a modicum of respect. If I was pressed on why one of the largest worldwide sources of online knowledge was diseminating information which clearly 'contravened' a legitimate court order, I would like to be able to give a better answer than 'they are physically located across the pond, so just chose to ignore it completely'.

I realise that European and American case law on freedom of speech differs but essentially the two rights protect the same things and that's the parrallel I was trying to draw. Whether one approach makes sense in terms of the other is neither here nor there. Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Really hate to request this at an Admin Board

Resolved

Could some one delete

WP:CRYSTAL violations I have ever seen. The Hoax tag has been sitting on it for an hour. Normally I wouldnt mind waiting but this is rather bad one. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs

) 14:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)