Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive237

The copyright problems "noticeboard" located at

I have undone this for now, until we can be sure that the bots that work the area (not sure if we have one at the moment or two) are prepared for the change. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to add, I don't have any issues with the change itself, although I'm not entirely sure it's necessary. This isn't a noticeboard that attracts conversation. It's generally an either/or situation, fairly clearcut, and just a holding board until enough time has passed to permit rewriting or verification of permission. Heck, it can't even seem to attract administrators willing to work there. :P :P I just want the bot(s) onboard so everything functions correctly. (P.S. Did I mention that it needs more admins?) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

There was only one bot operating on that page, and all it did was add the next day's transclusion (all other bot stuff happened on the transcluded subpages, which wouldn't have broken), and that could've easily been handled manually. But I'm alright with delaying til we have the bot operator's attention. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:12, 16 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Well, but there's no reason to have to do it manually when we have a bot that handles it and there's no urgent need to implement the change. :) Easy enough to make the change (which otherwise seems to be uncontroversial) once everything is prepared. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Florida East Coast Railway, in the Further reading section. I'm seeing a driver's license, or a video playing. I can't see any code that's generating it. I thought it might be a bug in the cite book template, but that doesn't seem to be it. Any help would be appreciated. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 19:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything there. Could you perhaps take a screenshot? Thanks! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Bug in your system? I don't see anything either. Taroaldo (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems to have gone away. Perhaps it was something on my end. Weird. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 16:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – images already deleted and pages are CSD'd

Nobody Ent

14:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Sandboxies User:Richardbrason/sandbox and User:Stevepavlina79/sandbox are idetical and includes plenty of copyvios pictures--Musamies (talk) 09:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Images have been removed, SPI case opened. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Done. Black Kite (talk) 19:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone please unblock

I was asked to post this notice here and several other places. I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Delinking dates on delinking dates using an AWB bot. Input is always appreciated. Hmains (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

If someone could look at this AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Cook (footballer born 1990), followed by this discussion on the closing admin's talkpage, and decide if any action is necessary? Black Kite (talk) 11:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin but in my opinion the keep arguments were not very good and were essentially "me too", assertion and reference to WAX. The policy based arguments were the delete ones. I think this should have been closed as delete as an inadequately referenced BLP that doesn't pass the relevant SNG let alone GNG or N.
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  13:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• I have suggested to the closing admin that re-listing may be preferable. Black Kite (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Relisting is probably a good idea. Discarding unsupported votes, it was 3 deletes to 2 keeps. At worst a 'no consensus', but it seems it really should attract more eyes in hopes of a more definitive result. – NULL ‹talk›
  ‹edits› 05:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Kingdom of Sardinia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I stepped in on a request at AN to intervene in a horrible long-term edit war on this article. I protected the page for a relatively long time, for me, but it has so far done no good as none of the revert-warriors who have gone back and forth on that article for many months have used the opportunity to talk. None of them. These are the contested versions: [1]; [2].

Clearly, some of these editors are exhausted. They've had several RFCs, but perhaps because of lack of clear closure do not seem to have reached any strong consensus. I can understand why they don't want to keep talking endlessly about it, but we can't have this. We need stability.

My plan at this point is to semi-protect the article when the full protection expires (because IPs have joined in liberally) and to start blocking editors who go back to the revert war without following dispute resolution.

I'm considering whether it would be useful for me - as an uninvolved admin - to attempt to launch another RFC, with an understanding that a second uninvolved admin (or two or three) will close it, forming a binding solution until and unless a contrary consensus is established. I would propose sanctions on the article, such that editors who have been involved in the edit war who try to revert or modify to break consensus would receive escalating blocks or be topic-banned from the article. Newcomers who try to revert or modify to break consensus would be reverted and cautioned as to the situation, instructed how to seek a new consensus.

If the idea seems like a good one, I propose to extend the protection on the article and notify all registered editors who have been involved with the revert war, as well as going through the usual channels to try to get participation in the RFC.

Do you guys think this is a good approach to this thorny, long-term problem? If so, any admins willing to sign on in advance to close this after 30 days or clear consensus? Even if you're not willing to sign on, your feedback on the approach would be much appreciated. :) My goal is to pull the article out of the unacceptable stalemate it seems to have entered, preferably without blocking anybody who is working in good faith. Alternative ideas for how to do that also welcome. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You say that there were already a couple of RfC's on this subject - would a form of 1RR (if someone reverted an edit, no-one is allowed to re-revert that) combined with semi-protection (to take out the IPs and force them to create an established account - which can be blocked) be an option? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Aren't topic bans in order? Looking through the article history the edit warring is almost totally limited to User:Shardan, User:Jonny Bee Goo (although User:URBIS also contributes) with 2 sets of IP addresses, one in Rome and one in Milan taking up the edit warring when Shardan and Jonny Bee Goo drop out. Those two users also seem the least constructive on the article talk page. Looking at Shardan (who says he's from Rome) and Jonny Bee Goo's contribs they appear for some time to have been mainly edit warring this issue and not doing much else on WP. Johnny Bee Goo's (andd URBIS's) only contribs in the last 3 months have been solely to do that and Shardan's not much better. I'm wondering if there's a better chance of a consensus emerging if Shardan and Jonny Bee Goo (possibly with URBIS) were taken out of the equation. DeCausa (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I've notified the 3 users mentioned of this thread. DeCausa (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Related to that, have SPI's been filed for this, and is it of use to rangeblock the IPs (or 'rangeblock' the IPs through an edit filter)? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I have created Special:AbuseFilter/476 - still testing a bit. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I've collected quite a handful of ranges there now - I guess one could consider to unprotect the article and let the filter do its job (please feel free to add ranges or users who feel the necessity to continue the warring and do not discuss). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Filter disabled for now, no use when page is still protected. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow. That sounds like a fabulous solution. I didn't honestly know it was even possible. :O Let's give it a go. :) I will turn it back on, remove the page protection and advise the involved registered accounts. If they join in constructive discussion on the talk page, the matter can easily be revisited. (Sorry I didn't give back with you yesterday. I had family events going on and, honestly, didn't expect so quick a solution! :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, well, I guess I won't, since it seems like the options aren't available to me. :D When you turn it back on, I'll remove protection. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I've turned the filter back on, and removed the protection per this discussion. Please note that I may have missed IP-ranges. Moonriddengirl, if you want to see and/or adapt the filter, you need to enable that in your user rights (one of the special pages). I hope this solves the problem. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Have done. Thanks. :) I agree with you, fervently. I'll keep an eye out for socks. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really sure this is the best approach. Using an edit filter slows down every edit, which seems rather excessive considering that we have a rather localized problem. Moreover, that list of IP ranges will be pretty hard to maintain, and if we have to block that many ranges (I count 21 /16s), we should simply semiprotect the article. As to the three named users, this functions effectively as an unlogged page ban, which individual admins normally have no ability to impose, and the edit filter message will be quite confusing (MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed). I'd suggest simply warning the three that they'll be blocked if they revert again, and putting the article on semi. T. Canens (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, this constitutes a community discussion; it wouldn't be a ban by an individual admin. :) I'm fine with semi-protection (which was my original intent), but have no issues whatsoever with addressing the problem by temporarily banning the editors who have caused the most issues...whether that's technically imposed or simply agreed upon. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I have sometime rolled back because the voice was under a vandal attack! I collaborated to improve the Italian voice of Kingdom of Sardinia and there we had the same problem with the user Davidboz alias Jonny Bee Goo. He wants to demonstrate that Kingdom of Sardinia before 1720 was a flatus vocis, using a generalist voice coming from Britannica as a source, when - on the other side - specialist secondary sources demonstrate the opposite. I have already explained in the talk page what secondary specialist sources say about the Kingdom of Sardinia. I am ready to accept any other specialist secondary source about the history of the Kingdom and I have continuosly asked to Jonny Bee Goo to cite them, but in vain. For Wikipedia reliability, a generalist tertiary source should not have priority on a specialist secondary source. I’m sorry, my English is not so realy good, and I find difficulty to contribute to improve the voice, but I’m totally agreed with user Srnec contributions. I find this ban completely inappropriate because I have just rolled back an evident vandalism, a vandalism that should have been rolled back by an administrator, not by me. --Shardan (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No, you never "rolled back" because of a vandal attack. You rolled back repeatedly because you disagreed with what the other editor changed it to. It's different. That is

edit-warring and is not allowed. It doesn't matter whether you are right or wrong - you can't do it like that. WP is a collaborative project - you need to find a compromise. It is a waste of time just sending that article back and forth in two different directions. DeCausa (talk

) 20:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I've asked secondary specialist sources, and these sources never come. What I should do after Thousands of bytes of unconstructive talk page? We should leave vandalism going on, or better revert to the approved version filled with secondary specialist sources? --Shardan (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for joining the conversation. You say here and on the talk page of the article here that this should have been rolled back by an administrator - did you attempt to engage an administrator? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Shardan, I am sorry, but being a party in a long term edit war is not the way forward. You say "what I should do after Thousands of bytes of unconstructive talk page?" - well, you go to a next step in dispute resolution - even if that means that maybe for a couple of weeks the version of the document that is on display is, in your opinion, totally wrong, but you do not just edit war until the other party gives up. You could have brought this to the attention of uninvolved editors, gotten an RfC, it may even have escalated to ArbCom, and then one of the two versions (or some middle way) would have been 'right' (and that may very well have been yours, or close to yours) - or we would end up at a restricted situation as we have now.

All of you are still in time to go through next steps in dispute resolution, you have access to all venues (except for the article itself - it is obvious that a one day break is not going to solve the problem). If I see it correctly, if we would have chosen the option of semi-protection, that edit you attempted would have earned you a block (I personally might have considered to look at the length of the edit war that is going on, multiply that by 2 or 3 and round that up to a block length) - and to be honest, I think that other administrators, when they would have seen what was going on over there, might very well simply have blocked a handful of accounts without further discussion and left the page in whichever wrong version it was in.

The article is now unrestricted (even less restricted than semi-protection would have given) for the majority of the editors, lets see what those editors make of it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, OK, I shouldn’t roll back for so long, it’s my fault and I’m sorry. The problem is another one: what happen when in few months I revert towards the right version? I’m sure that nobody can sustain the actual version, simply because currently sources are not appropriate and secondary specialist sources demonstrate that the State was just one! Imho I’d like to insert in the article the different point of views, but we are sure that Britannica really it affirms that in 1720 born a new state? Which historian specialist in that topic supports this thesis? If existing, we can cite him. We can write: ‘’for the historian Tizio, the Kingdom of Sardinia State was born on 1297, but following the historical researches of the historian Caio the Sardinian state was born on 1720‘’. But in these last four years nobody had insert specialist sources supporting this thesis, apart to cite a generalist Britannica.--Shardan (talk) 09:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

'the right version'? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Following Wikipedia policy, the right version of an article should be that one that shows reliable sources, possibly secondary sources. A wrong version should be that one which is not sourced at all, or sourced with anachronistic sources. These are the contested versions: [3]; [4].--Shardan (talk) 10:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

But, from what I've read from the talk page, the reliability of the sources isn't the true, or at least only, issue. The issue is about what should be the scope of a Wikipedia article called

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. You need to think about that policy more and your view of academic accuracy less. "Primary topic" is subjective and uncertain and there is always going to be different ways of determining it. You have to accept that there is no right or wrong in this - there can never be because there will not be, as with most Wikipedia policies, a clear-cut answer. You have to compromise and do something which is not "perfect" in your view. That's how Wikipedia operates.DeCausa (talk

) 11:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your constructive talking, De Causa: you have touched the point. Kingdom of Sardinia in our case, because of his long history, is a broad concept. For this reason the page located at that title should be an article describing the broad concept, synthesising different periods of his life, and at that point dividing into subtopics, such as chronologically, without creating any disambiguation page. So

Kingdom of Sardinia (1720-1861) where primary topic is the Sardinian State under the House of Savoy. For that reason we got problems with Jonny Bee Goo. For him, the primary topic of Kingdom of Sardinia should have been the last period of his life, I mean Kingdom of Sardinia 1720-1861, because for his point of view before 1720 kingdom of Sardinia was a flatus vocis, or a fake state, or worst a virreinato. And all that without produce reliable sources. In the talk page this one was my point of view.--Shardan (talk

) 13:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the place for a content discussion so I've posted a reply on the article talk page. DeCausa (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, over the last couple of days I have seen three or four large changes (100,000 bytes +) noted in Recent Changes or in my Watchlist, but when I check the article history the size change does not match. One example:

• From Recent Changes:

(diff | hist) . . Big Show‎; 21:28 . . (+105,009)‎ . . ‎KiLLeR SiX (talk | contribs)‎ [rollback]

• From Big Show history:

(cur | prev) 21:28, 18 June 2012‎ KiLLeR SiX (talk | contribs)‎ . . (105,009 bytes) (0)‎ . . (rollback | undo)

(cur | prev) 21:28, 18 June 2012‎ KiLLeR SiX (talk | contribs)‎ . . (105,009 bytes) (0)‎ . . (undo)

(cur | prev) 21:27, 18 June 2012‎ KiLLeR SiX (talk | contribs)‎ . . (105,009 bytes) (+18)‎ . . (undo)

I'm sure there's a simple explanation for this, but I'm just not seeing it for some reason. Thanks. Taroaldo (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I've seen this too, and would like to know what's up with it. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like T39225. Anomie⚔ 00:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Am I reading the info on 37225 correctly if I interpret the above example as:

• Recent Changes listing is "buggy"
• Article edit history (reasonably) correct

The concern being that many of these types of edits appear to be vandalism and we don't want to overlook vandalism because of a buggy edit history. Taroaldo (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The extra edits are just

null edits. Graham87

01:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

71.183.182.11 (talk · contribs) has created a false "Stage Musical" section on the Dork Diaries article, complete with casting and musical numbers. There is no such musical, and several editors have tried to remove the information, but it is reposted within a few days. This information is never cited. Upon visiting the User Talk page, I discovered that this user has created other uncited and possibly false musicals on other pages.

Dork Diaries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dork_Diaries

Thanks. HtownCat (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The IP editor is question has done the same thing -- invented entirely fictitious musicals or otherwise inserting fallacious information -- on other articles as well, including Megan Hilty, Betty Boop, Matilda the Musical, Nice Work If You Can Get It (musical), Priscilla, Queen of the Desert (musical), and others. Perhaps this editor needs a time out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Glass half full -- at least he/she shows some style! --Drmargi (talk) 06:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

There are no style points on false content. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Administrators, Please could someone assess the suggested amendments to the "Ahmadiyya" wikipedia page in the Topics section. Every amendment I have made has so far been reversed without any serious justification. The page has been blocked without any requirement. Apologies for failing to quote correctly etc... I'm a newb. (Steeringly (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC))

You are a newbie and I think you need some explanation of how things work here. Firstly, it's probably worth reading

WP:RS, if you haven't done so before now. Secondly, you want to give maximum prominence to a point of view that's very hostile to the Ahmadiyya in the opening to the article. Don't you think that's a problem if the article is to appear neutral? Thirdly, you tried to make a change that was resisted. You're the one wanting to change the article so the onus is on you to then go to the talk page to get consensus support for your change. If you just keep on trying to put your change in (which is what you've done) that's edit-warring and you could end up blocked. DeCausa (talk

) 17:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone posted an Ask Me Anything request for Wikipedia mods on Reddit. Might be an opportunity for outreach work for interested admininstrators, no? (Not sure if I'm up to it, as I'm not that up to speed on finer points of theory and praxis of Wikipedia policy and its enforcement. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Quotations#Copyrighted material and fair use, a 400-word direct quote from a 500-page book is considered infringement of the copyright law. I have two questions based on that:

1. What if the book we are quoting from has 250 pages. Does that mean, we are allowed only 200 words in the direct quote?

2. If we quote a book directly in a single article more than once, should we sum up all the quotes' word count to apply this rule or the rule is only talking about per-single-quote?

Thank You--Kazemita1 (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

1.As that was a legal case, we can't make a comparable statement easily. But hopefully someone will be along to say more about this.

2.Over the article, and in fact possibly over all of Wikipedia. Again let's see what others say. I'm sure about over the article (or talk page or anywhere), and I've certainly seen it suggested over Wikipedia in the case of lyrics.

talk

) 16:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• • It's a hard call. Fair use depends on a four factors [5]. One factor is "The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole". On the whole, we try to stay very far from any line between fair use and infringement. But it also depends on part on those other points. If having it on Wikipedia would interfere with the ability of the copyright holder to make money ("The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work") then we need to be extremely careful. When quoting from (say) an academic book, it likely we are helping rather than harming sales so larger quotes (a hundred words or some such) might be appropriate. As far as your second question, it should be in total across Wikipedia. So basically the answer is "it depends" but pay attention to those four factors and stay well away from anything close to infringement. Hobit (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
• Two key pieces on the 400 word case are the intent of use and the commercial harm. The text was published specifically to scoop a competitor, and Harper & Row lost a contract because of the actions of publishing those 400 words. If WP used the same 400 words, it is very doubtful that these will ever apply. We still need to be cognizant of how much we take and we dare not set any specific levels for feat of if we are wrong. --MASEM (t) 17:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
• In addition to the key point raised by Masem, assuming there was a ratio to determine acceptable copying, it would not scale linearly. Quoting 200 words from a 250 page work would be much less of a problem then the 400 from a 500 pager work. It is also valuable to discourage unnecessary quoting. If practical text on Wikipedia should always be original, only in circumstances where a quote is essential for understanding the material should a direct quote be used. Monty₈₄₅ 17:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no numeric rule about how much quoting does or does not constitute copyright infringement. Attempting to formulate one is a mistake, because it would have no basis in copyright law. --Carnildo (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

for lyrics, the nature of the work is important: for any poetry, copying the entire poem is usually regarded as not being fair use. It more usual to quote a stanza, or even just a fee lines. I would furthermore try to use the quote it as part of a sentence in context, not an isolated section. I tend to take a relatively expansive view of fair use, but this is one area where I am very cautious. Copyrights in popular music are enforced with particular vigilance. And in general, the acceptance of free content works such as Wikipedia requires scrupulous observance of other's copyright, & not trying to see how close we can come to a legal limit. That it's a fuzzy legal limit gives all the more reason for taking care. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• I echo Dougweller and Carnildo: Don't try to infer some kind of mathematical formula. Copyright law contains no such formula.

  If you want a good guide to quoting, then I suggest this: Take quotations by good sources as your guides.. If you're writing based upon good, scholarly, sources such as history books, literary criticism books, and whatnot, then you can see what's excessive and what isn't in a quotation. You can look at how much is quoted by the sources that you're using, in their analyses of the subject at hand. You can also see whether to quote at all, in the first place.

  A case in point: The quotation from William George Walker that I added to

  a free content encyclopaedia.

  Copying and pasting other people's writing wholesale is not writing. It's copying. Don't write articles by copying wholesale what Mangol Bayat said about the subject. Read Mangol Bayat, digest what xe has written, and write in your own words the knowledge imparted, citing Mangol Bayat as the supporting source. Better yet, read several sources on the subject, systematize and combine what knowledge they impart, write in your own words, and cite all of the sources. It took seconds for the original copy-and-paste "writer" of the prior article at Frederick William Sanderson to steal the words of Richard Dawkins and just copy and paste them into Wikipedia. Doing it properly, reading more than 50 books, articles, and WWW pages, and then presenting the knowledge that they impart in a systematic and encyclopaedic fashion with original prose, has taken me rather longer. But properly is how you must do it. The lazy route is the plagiarists' and copyright violators' route. Don't take it. The result is unacceptable for the project. Read; digest; and write in your own words. Or, more bluntly, as general advice: If you cannot write original free content prose, don't write at all. Don't misappropriate the non-free-content writing of other people as if it were a substitute.

  Uncle G (talk

  ) 18:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • That sounds very nice and it is oh, so emphatic, but it is also factually wrong. Correctly using direct quotations of limited length, set out in block quotes, properly attributed is a form of fair use and is no more a violation of the sacred principles of the free as in love not free as in bird encyclopedia (or whatever the idiotic slogan is) than are the tens of thousands of fair use logos and graphics incorporated at WP. Of course this ethical and legal reality may seem an annoyance to certain classes of Wikipedians, say, just for example, operators of bots that attempt to identify "copyright violations" by matching blocks of text in WP pieces to blocks of text in other copyrighted sources. But it remains a fact, regardless of how much bold type one uses to argue otherwise... Carrite (talk) 06:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    • No, Uncle G is 100% correct in what he says. There is difference between using a short, pertinent (both those words have meaning) quote and cribbing large blocks of text from another source and putting quote marks around it. If you cannot tell the difference, don't quote at all. Uncle G is completely correct. Using quotes correctly is allowed. Using the Wikipedia blockquote function as a lazy attempt to steal the work of others and not have to do research and write anything of substance is wrong. --Jayron32 02:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, Uncle G is spot on. Nick-D (talk) 02:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
        • Indeed! -- Donald Albury 11:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
          • Yes the quoting has to serve a purpose, not because the user didn't understand it enough to paraphrase it. You only quote things when the exact words used are important. The issue isn't copyright law as much as quality. Secretlondon (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Given the repetition of copying entire paragraphs written by someone else as a substitute for original writing across more than one article (see the diffs), I've issued a final warning to the editor who started this section, at User talk:Kazemita1#Plagiarism and copyright violation, to nip this behaviour in the bud, lest we get to have another contributor copyright investigation months or years from now where we have to go over every article where this person has copied entire paragraphs of non-free-content writing. Xe is in response asking to have the concept of writing in xyr own words explained to to xem, again. Others may care to try an explanation. I've simply pointed to this one. Uncle G (talk) 05:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Sertnwoe5s is a brand new account used to create two pages today, Atheism and bestiality and Atheism and obesity. I've submitted both pages for speedy delete, as they are nothing more than attack pages against atheists. User is obviously a sock of someone else, but I think we should block him to at least place a minor road block in his trolling. JoelWhy? talk 16:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Oops, never mind, you guys are too quick for me. His account has already been blocked. :) JoelWhy? talk 16:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

This page is for attracting the attention of

FYI, the original question was here. Nyttend (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc names Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sandbox as the sandbox for testing twinkle. This is useful; however, there is content history on the page. Everything before Alpha Quadrant cleared it was an AFC submission. I feel like the history should be split, so that someone's AFC submission is not being used as a Sandbox. I was also going to make a bot request so a bot would clear the sandbox out occasionally, but as long as it is being discussed here, can we User:lowercase sigmabot II to clear out that sandbox too? Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to be patient with this user but he consistently makes anti-concensus edits and edit wars over them when the get reverted. He also socks and makes the same reverts using an IP. His talk page is flooded with warnings and block messages for disruptive, anti-consensus edits as well as edit warring. This in my opinion causes more disruption and more work than he is of help. Becuase I am very busy, I will provide diffs later but a check into his contributions page will reveal that a lot of his edits are reverted. At this point I have been rollbacking his edits without edit summaries because of the nature of his edits. I am starting to lose my patience with him and I believe other users may be as well. I request external input on how I should proceed and what actions should be taken against Lucasmoura (talk · contribs) as I believe I may be getting too involved.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 14:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Editor blocked for one month by
  JamesBWatson. Ryan Vesey Review me!
  20:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

  It does appear that Lucasmoura does not quite understand how things are supposed to work on Wikipedia, and I cannot find any constructive edits from him. If he's got this bug up his butt over airdates now, I don't see how a month away is going to keep him from changing.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

User: KATkanga has been posting quite a few new pages about a television show which all seem to end up on a CSD and becoming deleted. I have tried contacting this editor and rewriting some articles but I don't think I will be getting through. Should this user be warned about Wikipedia policies for page creation? Your answers would be helpful. Also, if you can help me and you feel that this entry is not necissary on this discusson board, please remove it and discuss with me on my talk page. Thanks!keystoneridin! (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC) :Why has there never been any notices on his Talk page about problems with his articles, nor is there a notice that you have started this discussion, as is required? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I notice that all of the pages mentioned on KATkanga's talk page are blue links. Since I'm temporarily not an admin, I can't look for deleted content, so I'd appreciate it if you would provide a link to even one page KATkanga has created that has been deleted. Nyttend (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• are you sure there is no notice on the user wall? Maybe you could check my revision history where it notes that I did follow policy. And I am just asking for ideas to help the user. That's allkeystoneridin! (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You're quite correct, and I apologize. I'm having some problems with Wikipedia response time today and I started at the User page, clicked on the Talk page link but never got to the Talk page. Sorry. I have withdrawn my objections. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Not a problem, I just want to figure out how to help this user so they can make all of their creations sound. It appears this user creates many pages, so I want to reach out and help them.keystoneridin! (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This user seems to be copying content directly from a fan wikia.—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with all other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 6 July 2012.

For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Followed a link here from Commons; looked to try and figure out something, since I used to edit with a user here ages ago, and must ask: How on earth did Arbcom grant themselves the right to turn a 1-year ban into an indefinite because the user appealed? Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava_Rima_restrictions#Ottava_Rima_banned. Particularly as, apparently, there was a lot of support for the unban. 86.180.110.228 (talk) 06:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Care to tell us what your old user name was, and why you're raising this? Nick-D (talk) 06:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

If you have a question for ArbCom, you should go to User:Arbitration Committee and use the "E-mail this user function. This is not the right place to ask. (And, yes, what's your account name?) Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I was handling a CSD G6 request when I got a database error, and now I need someone to help me figure out what the heck happened here. The page in question is

I've put the talk page back alongside the article, and deleted the resulting redirect. Strangely,

Bencherlite^Talk

09:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

<ec> Hi. I don't see anything to indicate that a

Republic of Vietnam page was ever created. Taroaldo (talk

) 09:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks immensely. I have no idea how that happened, as I do not think I have ever encountered a database error in something like this before. Glad to see this was a fixable error. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – bizarre postings continued, user indeffed by Black Kite (talk). JohnCD (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Starofnight2012 is a brand new account, and his few postings all involve the Illuminati. See here as an example. I don't think he's being purposefully disruptive, but he may need to be monitored. JoelWhy? talk 13:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I informed the user as is required. Voceditenore (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I meant to do that. As an update, this has progressed a bit, including personal insults against another editor here. I have a feeling this is going to go south pretty quickly... JoelWhy? talk 14:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes. The editor seems to be obsessed with someone named "Anthony James", e.g. [7], [8]. S/he also created Anthony James Rumour, which was speedied. Not being an admin, I can't see the contents, but if the subject was a living person, Starofnight2012's future editing may prove very problematic. Voceditenore (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

And now... Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anthony James R. - Voceditenore (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yea, I submitted for speedy delete. Strange page about leader of the Illuminati or something. Little more than unintelligible ramblings, really. JoelWhy? talk 14:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I have survived worse insults than the one linked above. New user has now been pointed to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BLP etc and his contributions are being watched - no admin action required, yet. JohnCD (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Based on a variety of postings such as [9], [10], [11], and especially [12] it appears as though there may be some kind of health difficulties IRL. A block might be in order for disruption, whether intentional or unintentional. Taroaldo (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I have a proposal for an improvement to the admin dashboard. See Template talk:Admin dashboard#Addition proposal. I could be bold, but I thought I'd leave a remark since many editors use it. Hopefully they can weigh in. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I tried to get some feedback about mass tagging from the tagging editor, but to no avail.

Main diff showing all tagged images. All were tagged using the summary rationale of "What studio?"

The editor claimed they got a go-ahead from another admin and thereby tagged 36 images. The other admin, noted in their discussion with the editor:

"We can't rely on third party claims those photos were issued by the studios without copyright notice - we need proof/confirmation. This requires an unaltered image from both front and back."

If the above statement is accepted, it creates a new, much higher, and essentially impossible standard for most older photos demanding "proof and confirmation." Impossible, because photos are a mass-produced item, and almost every claim is thereby a "third party," or claim of the photo's owner and/or seller. Review is requested as the topic creates a new Commons rule by one admin without reasonable concern for film still purposes and copyright law. --

Thanks for the notification, but it's a matter for discussion on Commons, not here, as the images are on Commons and WP admins have no authority there.

Bencherlite^Talk

21:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this could be a issue on en.wiki say for works tagged PD-USonly or the like, but we should defer to the conclusion reached at commons as well. --MASEM (t) 21:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe this necessarily needs to be the case. We need better sourcing than saying "ebay" or "studio". It gives us no idea who the copyright owner may be, even if it lacks copyright markings. To that we do expect the uploader to provide sufficient description of what they are saying they are uploading, but don't require visual proof of that (but if they want, they can). However, just stating "ebay" and "studio" is a very flimsy excuse and I would help that we would be able to get more information from that. --MASEM (t) 21:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Good point. However, as in images like this one or this one, I typically upload the full image front with any borders, and back if available (example), before any cropping or modification. The description is generally a summary, sometimes verbatim, from the seller. --

talk

) 22:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I am by no means an expert on copyright or even our own image use policies (it simply isn't my area of expertise), but doesn't your example (File:Paul Henreid - Hedy Lamaar.JPG) have a copyright notice on the back? Meaning it would not be correctly tagged as being published "between 1923 and 1977 and without a copyright notice"? --auburnpilot talk 18:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi all. This is nothing urgent, but I would like to ask for administrator attention on Talk:Donald Tsang for the closure of a Request for Comment which has been going on for a couple of months. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Closed. --regentspark (comment) 20:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

If any administrators wield copyright knowledge and could help relieve the backlog at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files, your help would be greatly appreciated. — ξ^xplicit 22:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I created this article

I expect Enzino's second move was a mistake on his part; there's no reason at all to have the article at its current title. But since all references refer to him as José Reynaldo Bencosme de Leon (and with the exception of one photo they agree on this capitalization, too, see IAAF and FIDAL), that seems to be the appropriate title for the article. For comparison: There are multiple sources referring to Biaggi as "Max Biaggi". Due to the back-and-forth page moves, an admin will have to sort out the mess and move the article to itsw proper place. If you still believe that "José Bencosme" is the proper article name, please provide some

reliable sources to that effect on the article or its talk page. Huon (talk

) 15:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The question is that when journal articles (or internet articles), talks about him, call him simply "José Bencosme". If you want others reliable sources, I'm able to give you as you want: Bressanone, Bencosme è di bronzo or Josè Bencosme (50"55) or Josè Bencosme e Alessia Trost star alle Gymnasiadi di Doha. --Kasper2006 (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I have requested that José's article be moved back to its original place. Kaspar: remember that this is the English wikipedia and article titles are determined by the English language literature of the subject (which exclusively refers to him as Bencosme de Leon in international competition). SFB 18:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Wait a tic, why can't we just have it at the full title, and then redirect the shorter "José Bencosme" to that article? In this way we have one article and users can get to it (or link to it from other articles) using either title. Would that not solve the problem? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes it would. This is just a very drastic escalation of a minor issue. Sorry! SFB 18:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the full surname "Bencosme De Leon" , but pay attention to these two fact: 1) The second name "Reynaldo" is not necessary like Frederick in

José Bencosme De Leon. (Attention José not Josè). --Kasper2006 (talk

) 19:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

At 21:11 20 June 2012 admin Anthony Bradbury moved the wrong name José Reynaldo Bencos to "José Reynaldo Bencosme de Leon". That's right but without second name (never second name is used, not "Frederick" in Carl Lewis, not "Jefferson" in Bill Clinton), for this I cite two "official" sources: FIDAL and IAAF. For the same sources the "De" is capital (not "de" like all surnames in Italy). --Kasper2006 (talk) 03:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

All the English language sources I have seen use the "Reynaldo" part. If you can find me a couple of English sources that don't use it then you can move it there. Otherwise, we aren't following the sources for our title. Also- I have seen mixed usage with and without Reynaldo in Italian sources too. In the case of the capital on "de/De", the IAAF contradicts itself on this. I'm not sure which is considered correct. SFB 06:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Granted, that's fine with me any way you want. José Bencosme De Leon (his sponsor page), José Bencosme De Leon (his facebook page), José Bencosme De Leon ((in English) official European Youth Olympic Festival Guide), José Bencosme De Leon ((in English) Athletics Ireland official site). All 4 sources, for the "De" and for the "not Reynaldo". --Kasper2006 (talk) 07:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The first two use a capital "D" and the latter two a lower-case "d", so it's still not clear. Either way, I'm rather tired of this discussion now. You can request whichever title you prefer at Wikipedia:Requested moves and use that page for future moves. Further discussion of this minor issue is not the most productive use of anyone's time. SFB 18:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion was over? No. So why

After considering the arguments put forth in each section, community consensus on this matter is determined to be that the community should dedicate itself to determining the implementation of Pending Changes that it wishes to be turned on. Many opinions have been presented in the various areas of this RfC as to what works and doesn’t work in Pending Changes as implemented/proposed; the community must now focus its energy on optimizing the implementation of Pending Changes that it wishes to see go live. Because the community must have time to discuss this, and in order to avoid the holiday season which would interfere in both devs’ and editors’ schedules, Pending Changes will become live on 1 December, 2012. To allow developers enough preparation time, we recommend that community discussion about changes to the draft Pending Changes policy be concluded no later than 1 November, 2012. If the community has not, at that time, reached a consensus about how to change the draft policy, Pending Changes will be implemented according to the terms of the Draft Policy until the community can find a consensus.

Thanks to everyone who participated, and thank you very much for your patience.

For the closing admins, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yes thanks for all your efforts - Discussion of how to/where to switch on is occurring at Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012 - Youreallycan 14:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The decision gives us about a 4-month window to work out the details ... and it seems to be agreed that there's a lot to work on, and I believe the next rounds of mini-RFCs are going to be very demanding on the closers. I've thrown my hat in at WT:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012#The next closers; if anyone else is interested in getting involved, come one, come all, and we'll sort it out. - Dank (push to talk) 19:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Backlog cleared. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 13:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a major backlog at

Got a handful -- who's up next? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Holy cow, that is worse than the other day. Is it fewer admins helping out, or are we just getting a lot more protection requests? On my first cup of joe, but on the way over. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Proposal by Jc37 (talk)

New proposal for a user-right group to help with backlogs. Enjoy : ) - jc37 18:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_permissions#Reviewer

Also, per the above link, could use some help with taking what is relevant at

Moved discussion to WP:AN/I Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to stick this and I'm just flagging this up. I've come across a lot of unblock appeals coming from people with Singaporean ISP Starhub as a internet provider - this is out of all proportion to eg the population of Singapore or number of subscribers. It appears that their IP addresses change very frequently which means that although they got a block message when they appeal it's not their current IP that is blocked. These all seem to be range blocks. For example 218.186.8.13 has sent in about being blocked when the block that is affecting them is 202.156.10.0/24. Does anyone know how Starhub's address allocation works?

I know people will respond with 'make an account' but there is something that is causing a lot of these cases. I've read that some services from this ISP have adverts injected by the ISP - could this be it? Have we accidentally ranged blocked most/all of their address range? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secretlondon (talk • contribs) 18:30, 23 June 2012‎ (UTC)

It's possible that they are reacting to the

Carrier Grade NAT with load balancing, in which case successive page loads by the same user could have different IP addresses. If so, this would effectively make their entire network an anonymizing proxy. Rpoers that ads may be being injected, suggest that web proxies are involved; if so the way that this has been solved in the past for web proxies is for the ISP's proxy to set the X-Forwarded-For header in requests. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/XFF_project

for more on this.

Carrier Grade NAT with a wide source IP address range is a much harder problem to crack, and really the only practical routes for addressing this are either forcing login via anonblocks (the current situation), the ISP segmenting their CGN setup into smaller GGN pools so that IP blocks affect only a subset of their users at a time, or the ISP beginning to offer IPv6 to their customers. -- The Anome (talk) 11:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

On review: a

caching proxy servers, and they need to be pointed towards the XFF project as a potential solution. Of course, if they're not using globally unique addresses, this won't work. -- The Anome (talk

) 11:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Update 2: Starhub/Maxonline are already on the http://www.wikimedia.org/trusted-xff.html list, so it looks like they already have XFF set up, but there's only one proxy listed there. User:218.186.8.13, and any others in the same position, need to ask their ISP to contact the WMF via official channels to get the list extended to cover all their proxies. -- The Anome (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you which channel for technical requests? None of them look particularly suitable. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Contact_us Secretlondon (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

On the Wikimedia end, xff AT wikimedia DOT org are probably the right people to contact (source: meta:XFF project). Alternatively, you could direct them. or the Starhub customers, to Starhub's abuse department email contact at abuse AT starhub DOT com, and point them to this discussion. -- The Anome (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I've emailed them both myself highlighting this discussion (although I really need a Wikipedia email address..) Secretlondon (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Do the WikiProjects have some authority over the articles they claim to cover? My question is if I create a Wikiproject "Antarctica" which claims to cover all "Antarctica-related" articles, do I (and others in "WikiProject Antarctica") have the authority to arrive at some decision based on a discussion in our Project's talk page and alter all existing articles accordingly without a discussion in their corresponding talk pages? - InarZan Verifiable 10:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Consensus needs to be established among the community - whether that be determined on an individual talk page, at the WikiProject's talk page, or a noticeboard such as this. GiantSnowman 11:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. If consensus was reached among participants in the project it could be rolled out on articles within its scope, but very cautiously. If it's a trivial issues (for instance, a new infobox or the removal of one deemed not useful, changes to structures of categories or a coordinated effort to remove references to a clearly unreliable source) it's unlikely that there would be any problems. However, decisions made through discussions in limited forums such as individual Wikiprojects obviously can't override Wikipedia-wide policies or guidelines (though some policies and guidelines have arisen from discussions which began as part of a Wiki Project's activities). Why do you ask? Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikiprojects provide a coordinating function, not an ownership/power function (

BWilkins ←track

) 13:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with BWilkins. Most articles can fall within more than one Wikiproject, for a start. At best they can make recommendations. As Nick-D says it might be possible to make modest changes, but not if they override our policies and general guidelines. Wikiprojects really have no authority, and if editors at a particular article disagreed and were arguing within our policies and guidelines even on trivial issues there might be a problem.

talk

) 14:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This almost certainly relates to the OP's unwillingness to accept the consensus in of

WT:INB discussion would likely come to the same conclusion as I do. - Sitush (talk

) 14:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Examples of the unwillingnes to accept are here, here and here. I could list a lot more - it has been going on for quite a while and these links are just for today. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

(od) I'm not sure why this is being brought up here. In the discussion at WT:IN (

Dear RegentsPark, if you are saying that the discussion on this issue is ongoing, can you revert this edit as an admin? Will you justify an aggressive removal of concerned content while the discussion is still going on? - InarZan Verifiable 16:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

InarZan, the current local consensus is that there should be no collections of people images in these articles. Perhaps the wider consensus from the RfC will be different. If it is, then the collections can be added back but, in the meantime, we'll stick with local consensus. --regentspark (comment) 20:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Jumping back to what Nick-D said about the general issue (and without any intent to comment upon or imply anything about what's been said since Nick's comment), the policy controlling the relationship between projects and the larger community is set out in

This discussion is basically triggered by the extension of local consensus in

WP:INB to all the articles related to ethnic groups in India (these articles are of course part of other projects too). Though, these consensuses are not intended to breach any wp policies, they seem to act as proxy-policies which may or may not be healthy for Wikipedia. Some editors suggest that these proxies are necessary to deal with the peculiar nature of Indian castes or ethnic groups. In my opinion, if a local-consensus is to be used as a proxy-policy, it should be comprehensive; wide participation should be ensured (threshold should be set), a poll process should be there and finally the discussion should be closed by an un-involved administrator, preferably an outsider to the project. -AshLey ^Msg

08:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There is more information at the official guideline, WP:WikiProject Council/Guide, especially the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice_pages section. But the summary is this: A WikiProject is (just) a group of editors who want to work together, and no little group of editors gets to boss around anyone else merely by virtue of calling themselves a "WikiProject". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Generalities that apply to most Wikiprojects are not very helpful when dealing with Indian caste-related articles, and to that extent, user:InarZan has been disingenuous in framing his RfC statement. His interest has nothing to do with Antarctica. Indian caste-related articles are notorious for rampant POV, for unimaginable puffery, and for unmitigated abuse of every Wikipedia guideline related to reliable sourcing. These articles (as far as I can tell) are the only ones that come with a "castewarning" template (that give attending admins some discretionary powers). See below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community has permitted discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here . Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions.

I'm trying very hard to think of a reason not to just indefinitely ban InarZan2 from St. Thomas Christians... I'll sleep on it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, there has been some rope and one of the others referred to in that message has already suffered. Nonetheless, I have learned something from this thread. I accept but am disappointed that it seems to be the case that the lunatics can run the asylum, that a project cannot limit the consensus of the wider community when disruption etc is plain to see. Ye other specialist projects can somehow create accepted notability guidelines that extend the consensus, eg: the one that assumes notability of nonentity cricketers who are named in the team for a single first class match yonks ago, do not play and are never heard of again. Even some regulars at

WP:CRIC have acknowledged that this seems weird but, of course, it is a nice quirk of the system if you are a cricket buff. - Sitush (talk

) 02:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think lunatics are running the asylum is true. OP has carefully constructed a question in general terms and is getting very general answers. I doubt if anyone will answer no to a question of the sort "If montages are accepted in several other wikiprojects can WP:India craft an exception to their use?" The way the question is crafted is itself, in my opinion, disruptive. --regentspark (comment) 17:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I apologise, in particular to InarZan. My reference to lunatics running the asylum was not a reference to InarZan's query but rather to the notion that a highly specific constraint regarding an existing community consensus, determined by consensus of those involved with a specialist project, can somehow be disregarded by people who know absolutely sod all about the issue and have no experience of it. Yep, this is a challenge of sorts to the boundaries of consensus and I accept that I am out on a limb, but my critical point was that, for example, the Cricket project appear to have been able to usurp

WP:GNG and the same applies with regard to the long-running saga of whether or not every school is notable ... yet the India Project gets a kind of hammering despite being one of those huge backwaters that 99.9 per cent of regular contributors really do not want to engage with. Again, I am phrasing this poorly but I am hoping that the gist will get across. It is not worth me spending hours and hours justifying my comments, so people can either take them or leave them.

There is (indeed was, when InarZan posed here) a RfC in progress and although I consider the question posed to be malformed, the outcome will surely suffice for those who quote the various policies etc regarding acceptance by the wider community. Too many contributors here are focussing on the theory and ignoring the blatant underhanded-ness that was implicit in InarZan's query. RegentsPark describes that query as "disruptive", I agree and it seems from current comments that some others do also. To be sure, some good has come of that - and I am grateful for the comments and the expansion of my policy knowledge etc - but even after the disingenuous-ness has been made clear, there appears to be a meta-discussion going on that, yes, is interesting but is not addressing the very real, very substantial problems that relate to the core issue: how do we cope with these India-related articles, and in particular given the WMF "push" there and the often horrendous policy abuses that appear to be burgeoning due to that. - Sitush (talk

) 01:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Not looking at whatever the India-issue is, WikiProjects have *no* authority (as others have said). It is a problem that many participants do feel that whatever WikiProject they are interested in has authority and attempt to assert it. Bzzt. In theory, WikiProjects serve a function, but this issue is major across The Project. It needs confronting on sight. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

  "Not looking at whatever the India-issue is, ...?" Well, then what you've said is vacuous or trivial, because this RfC is all about the India issue, even if it disingenuously avoids mentioning it. It is posted by an SPA who has less than a hundred contributions, all to Indian castes. Do you expect people to drum up a consensus each time a mischief maker challenges the same issue, but on a new caste page? Given that there are tens of thousands of castes, will you coming to bat for Wikipedia's core values each time? What about the castewarning template I've posted above, shouldn't you be confronting it on sight? Talking in vacuous generalities is easy, like you've done, to boot with sophomoric edit summaries. Dealing with the problem is hard. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

  I was addressing the OP's question, as did others. That's a canard that's regularly trotted out and needs beating with a stick. I've no doubt there's a further issue re castes. Good luck with that. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is true that a WikiProject, being inanimate, has no authority; in fact no will. However project members absolutely have authority which derives from the same policies which empower all editors; and no more. After that, specifics are necessary to further qualify. For example a community discussion conducts on a relevant talk page, which often my be the talk page of an associated WikiProject. If such an RfC closes with specific adopted criteria, project members are compelled by consensus to enact that criteria. And non-members are equally as expected to follow suit. This summarizes my understanding to this regard; which you may promptly disregard if you prefer. My76Strat (talk) 08:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Mebbe sometimes, but see

WP:CCC. Br'er Rabbit (talk

) 08:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

A project can amplify and/or clarify existing policies, such as the

BWilkins ←track

) 11:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

But this is not an instance of a policy overriding a policy, but of an informal WikiProject guideline (

WP:ACTOR in actors and filmmakers articles since around 2010, and one can actually demonstrate this with real examples. Viriditas (talk

) 08:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Dunno about the Gmail stuff but with one account, the person appears to have intentionally volunteered their identity on wikipedia, which generally means it isn't outing to mention it. Linking it to other accounts may or may not be okay, I don't know enough about the history to say. Nil Einne (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's relevant information, and he revealed it himself; if he turns out not to like it that's just tough for him. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

By the time a banned sockpuppeter has taken it to the point where a long-term abuse page on him becomes necessary, I don't see why they should be entitled to any expectation to continued protection under our normal privacy rules (provided they are an adult person and mentally sane). This person consciously chose to raise an all-out fight against this project, even trying to blackmail to community to let him back in with the threat of more socking. He also not only self-disclosed his identity, but deliberately used it in an attempt to influence editing here [13]. If the personal information bothers him, he knows what he has to do to be let back into anonymity here. Under these conditions I don't see any problem with that LTA page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting in late here, but I agree with Kim's removal of these details. Aside from the obvious 'outing' and harassment-type issues, we have no way of knowing whether this editor actually worked for that politician (I presume), and prominently linking the politician to this copyright violator was potentially defamatory. Nick-D (talk) 23:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I won't pretend to understand much of what's above here. There seem to be some very shrill and shorthand arguments, few of which make a full and coherent case that I can follow. However I don't myself see that this edit is necessarily what's claimed. It comes from an editor who asserts that he has a particular real-life identity but I see no reason to take this at face value. We don't allow subjects of BLP articles to complain about their own treatment without OTRS confirmation of their identity. It seems to me that we cannot be absolutely certain that this person is responsible for the edits. What if it's a political opponent trying to get them to look bad? Nyttend has reverted my removal of personal information but I don't think this discussion has run its course. Nyttend may be right in restoring the material but there would have been no harm in letting this discussion run to a consensus before doing so. I'll ask Nyttend to self-revert (I'm not going to edit war over this.) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I have reworded it, leaving the info about the self-disclosed name and the matching earlier sock account in, but hedging it to make it clear we cannot vouch for the correctness of the self-identification. I have also removed the employer address. I see no ethical problem with actually doing what was suggested there and contacting that office, in this particular case – given the fact it's such a high-profile public institution, the abuser's edits are clearly directed at our coverage of that institution, and he has repeatedly claimed to be working on its behalf, this matter is different from simply "contacting somebody's employer" to get them in trouble. Have people actually done this and has there been any response from official Senate addresses? In any case, if somebody still wishes to do this, they know where to find the address. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree we should make clear we have no way of knowing if the disclosed information is accurate, the risk of an opponent or someone else falsely claiming to be a person is something (I think) I've noted before. So the rewording is ideal.

However I don't know if your claims of BLP are accurate. Unless things have massively changed since I became less active in the area and quick check of the noticeboard suggests they haven't, we normally just accepted self identification as the subject at face value unless it actually matters we are certain the person is who they say they are. A lot of the time it doesn't and shouldn't matter who is complaining, at most it may give people an added impetus to take things seriously and fix issues quickly so it isn't a big deal if we are incorrect. Sometimes it may be suggested the person go thru OTRS confirmation, but if they don't bother it doesn't mean we just ignore their complaint, we don't want to make things too hard for those with legitimate complaints. If there is a complaint about the accuracy of sourced information, for better or worse there's often little we can do without

WP:RS

even if the person's identity is confirmed (how to handle such cases is something we still IMO don't really have a good way to deal with), so the first request would often be for RS. (Times when we may require definite identification may be when a person of limited notability is asking for the removal of sourced information for privacy reasons or when the person uses a username which identifies them as a well known subject.) I would note even in times when perhaps we shouldn't accept the claims at face value, people often sort of do, e.g. people will say someone created an article on themselves rather then saying someone claiming to be the subject created an article on themselves. Or someone has been removing well sourced criticial information rather etc.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Could someone please hide this version? Contains a phonenumber. Evalowyn (talk) 12:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done and emailed it to

oversight for them to further handle. In future please contact oversight directly instead of posting it on a board where hundreds more people will see it--Jac16888 ^Talk

12:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

And now oversighted, though I can't stress enough how important it is not to post this stuff in public. Courcelles 19:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I'm currently mediating a MedCab case about the lede of Wikipedia:Verifiability, where we are in the process of drafting an RfC to submit for community comment. We are very nearly done, and we are making the last few finishing tweaks to the RfC page before it is ready to go up live. One of the things that the participants have been discussing is how it should be closed, and who should close it. There is a consensus in the mediation that the RfC should be closed by a panel of three uninvolved administrators, and there is also a rough consensus that we should name them before the RfC starts, to help avoid any drama when it is time to close it. Also, to make sure things remain impartial, we want to avoid choosing admins ourselves, hence this noticeboard post.

So, would any admins be willing to volunteer to close the upcoming verifiability RfC? Ideally, you should:

• Have no previous involvement in any of the debates over the lede of Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Be available around the last week of July, which is when the RfC will likely finish
• Be willing to take the time to sift through the hundreds of comments that we will likely get, and weigh the different arguments

If anyone fits this description and would like to take this on, just leave a message below.

Also, if anyone has any comments or questions about asking three uninvolved admins to close the RfC, or about naming them before the RfC starts, then the feedback would be very welcome. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Unless there are objections, I'm available to help closing the RfC. I can't remember having expressed an opinion about the issue before.  Sandstein  17:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

  Thank you! I'll let the mediation participants know that you're willing to volunteer. So that just leaves two more admins to find. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 01:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

[My apologies to Mr. Stradivarius for my accidental rolling back of his last comment a while back - I think it must have been a watchlist mousing mishap.]--Melburnian (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem - I just assumed that was a mistake. I think we've all done a fat-fingered rollback or two in our wiki-careers. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, it looks like we are be all out of admins - though there must be a few out there that haven't expressed an opinion on the verifiability issue yet. I think I'll wait for another day or so, and then I might have to talk to the mediation participants about contingency plans. Again, if you're willing to take this on, just leave a message below. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not entirely comfortable with announcing the closing trio in advance of the RfC. I think you should allow admins to respond via email, make your selections but withhold any announcement until such time as the request is ready to close. IMO - My76Strat (talk)