Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive98

21:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Award pages

Can someone please clarify the policy on awards pages? I noticed this article:

17:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Since you put "teach me a lesson" in quotes, I assume that you're saying Metros said that specifically. Could you provide a diff so we have context? Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe you missed the point of this post. He never said that specifically, but that is what he did theoretically, hence the quotes. Anyhow, I'm still looking for an answer on WP's policy toward award pages. Rhythmnation2004 13:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we usually only add wins (as notable award wins, not nominations, are part of

WP:N for people, though obviously not the only criterion), and they go in a subsection of the main bio article. MSJapan

16:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, in that case, wouldn't

01:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think it would be reasonable to list Latifah's page on
  WP:AFD to find out what the community thinks about this. >Radiant<
  09:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking for a tool

I'd like to check a range of IP addresses to see whether they've edited Wikipedia. It's a fairly narrow range but a bit large to run manually. Durova^Charge! 17:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You should be able to use a wildcard as described here, but I can't get it to work.... --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No you shouldn't, see r21379. I believe

VoA has a script for this. Prodego ^talk

17:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I remembered that they communicated that we could do it. I didn't remember that it got removed (or maybe it wasn't communicated). Oh well, that explains why I can't get it to work ;) --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, okay is there any working tool for this? Durova^Charge! 22:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I could whip up a pywikipedia script if you want, all I need to know is what you want in the output.

∆

05:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The only "working tools" I know who will do this are developers :) -- it's a SQL query. If I'm wrong and there is a way, please let me know too since I need this all the time... Antandrus (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

VandalProof can check a /24 pretty easily. I haven't tried any other ranges. – Luna Santin (talk

) 03:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll echo that request. In a few cases, I've wanted to know what the contributions from an entire /14 (yes, that's a slash-fourteen looked like to get an idea of what the collateral damage associated with blocking (short- or long-term) a particular ISP would be. If I had SQL access to the database, I could do it that way–but I don't, and I can't. I'm certainly not going to hammer the server with a quarter million separate contributions requests (most of which would probably turn up empty anyway). Maybe this should be over at WP:VPT? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• I can think of an easy way to do this! Download GNU wget, set the base-url to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/, put the list of IP addresses to check into a file. Give the file to wget as a list of files to download. Once it has downloaded them all, go to the folder in which you put them, and do "sort by size", all the ones with no contributions should have the same file size, and be the smallest files.

Also you can write a quick bot if you prefer and make it search the files for the following phrase : "No changes were found matching these criteria." Make it write a list of all the files in which it was not found: that is the list of users (or IPs, because you could put user names in the list too) who edited wikipedia. I was thinking just a quick and ugly bot like :

SYSTEM(dir /b /on > list.txt);
ifstream list("list.txt");
char IP[50];
list.getline (IP,50);
ifstream contribs(IP)
and then search the stream, using a premade library or using a getline loop.
then if "No changes were found matching these criteria.", is not found output IP[] to a buffer.

Jackaranga 17:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Note if you were to use this method you wouldn't see the deleted contribs I'm guessing because you wouldn't be logged in (as admin), you may be able to pass the login cookie to wget though, I'm not sure what would happen. Jackaranga 17:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if admins can clarify if this is a violation of policy. I recently noticed this message in a WikiProject banner at the top of Talk:Allegations of Chinese apartheid.

This article was written under the auspices of Wikiproject Zionism, an effort sponsored by the Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry to ensure a favourable portrayal of the State of Israel on Wikipedia. [1] If you would like to participate, please contact

Hasbara Fellowships

to receive a list of open tasks.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a concerted government-sponsored effort to especially give a "favourable portrayal" to any country a gross violation of the neutrality policy? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It was pretty obviously a very poor taste joke. I've removed it as vandalism. Still laughing, but I guess it wasn't really funny. Thanks for pointing it out! I'm not an admin; but hey. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

To admins - here's the version of the Talk page before the message was removed[2]. To Duae_Quartunciae - are you so sure it was a joke/vandalism? The message linked to this article[3]. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It was inserted by an IP here. No other edits, obviously someone trying to be funny. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

There was discussion on

WP:AN/I about this solicitation (which is real, from Hasbara) a few days ago. Obviously, someone who thinks that these AfD's are insufficiently contentious and rancorous thought it would be humorous to reference it in the AfD. Removing it was the right call. MastCell ^Talk

05:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Meh. The faux "Wikiproject Zionism" banner was intended as a sarcastic commentary on the brouhaha around the "Allegations of Apartheid" series, not as graffiti, and I apologize for the disruption caused. The shitfight has driven any reasonable voices that might have offered a solution away and will convince any onlooker that Wikipedia doesn't live up to its aspiration to be a serious encyclopedia. Let's look at it like this: at least one editor thought that the wikiproject may really have been genuine and that there really is an organized campaign underway to "improve" Israel-related articles. 129.170.116.177 16:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

More "communication" from image enforcers

As a prelude to the flags of several countries being deleted, you may encounter the following: Vector-images.com image warning Greetings, You are being contacted by BetacommandBot and by Zscout370. The reason for this message is that you have have uploaded Image:Flag of ...x under the following license Template:Vector-images.com. Recently, a decision [link to "decision" not provided"] was made about images and anything not meeting freedomdefined.org will be considered "unfree" for Wikimedia's purposes. The terms of the website do not allow their images to be used now under our new guidelines. You are being given a chance to relicense the image for about two weeks. If you fail to relicense the image, there is a good chance the image will be deleted from Wikipedia.

Albeit for me to speculate that the images were fine for our purposes, but the ever-so uncommunicative, for-profit forces decided that they'd rather have missing flags and coat of arms in country articles because, in theory, some corporation would not be able to profit from said images. I did say

23:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Be aware that certainly in the UK, and I would think in the U.S. also, there is enough individual variation in an artist's rendering of a heraldic blazon for that rendering to attract copyright on its own account, in addition to the copyright in the underlying design.

From what can see of Vector-images.com, their license agreement with the user is very limiting, and specifically excludes further sub-licensing. So these images cannot be considered free. But since, from the original heraldic specification, they should be eminently re-drawable to avoid Vector-images.com, this looks to me like a clear case of

WP:NFCC

#1 (Replaceable non-free images).

Frankly I'm surprised that BCbot isn't tagging them all for deletion straight off. But IMO you would be wise to consider use of these images to be running on borrowed time, and to consider making plans to replace them. Jheald 00:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

See

00:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. It seems Vector-Images.com sees its business as selling vector versions of its images, and is happy for the promotional raster preview version it supplies to be used without restriction, so long as it is identified as the creator. This includes commercial use. It is not 100% explicitly clear that it includes modification -- eg tracing to produce competing vector SVG art. It seems the balance of opinion on Commons is that that is permitted too. So I am now slightly at a loss to understand Zscout's assertion that "The terms of the website do not allow their images to be used now under our new guidelines". But perhaps he can clarify.

What is recognised as a potential problem for Commons is any copyright remaining in the underlying heraldic specification. In very many cases this will now be PD. Where it is not,

WP:NFCC

#1 would not apply (we wouldn't be able to redraw our way around it), so we would then need to consider whether fair use was appropriate.

However, that no longer seems to square with what Zscout is saying, so this may need a further looking at. Jheald 08:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I clarified for Jheald on my talk page; anyways, many of the images tagged now are Commonwealth arms and I am not sure what is the copyright status of those. While I said two weeks in the template message, I honestly believe that it might take longer than that. Plus, there is always deletion review if I managed to make a boo-boo on one. However, if there is one thing I wish to say, El C, I wish you spoke to me first about the situation before you came here. I could have clarified it for you and would have helped you through the process. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've followed this up on Zscout's talk page. In particular, I don't think he's entirely correctly interpreted the discussions on Commons. Jheald 10:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Even after playing email tag with the site owners, people still agree that they will review each image on the Commons and will determine what will be kept. The main goal of the whole notification thingie is that this tags purpose as a license is depreciated. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Read the Commons discussion more closely. The problem is not with Vector Images' copyright, nor their release. The problem is whether, for some of the images, there may be copyright in the underlying heraldic design. That is what the Commons images are to be reviewed for. Jheald 17:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The deletion page for the template is a mess anyways; people are just voting to keep pictures and not about the template. The Commons is already killing new uploads with the template, they want to depreciate the use of the template as a license. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Y'Know, BetaCommandbot in general really annoys me for some reason... David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I expect that Betacommand's official spokesperson, Durin, will soon be by to explain to us why the notice didn't include a link to the "decision," which dosen't even appear to have been concluded yet (!). Needless to say, I await it with an especial trepidation. ;) El_C 01:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What, no spokesbot? Mackensen (talk) 01:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

:D El_C 01:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok why am I getting drug into this? Zscout370 asked me to notify all the users who uploaded images with that template. The task and text was generated by Zscout370, not me. Please address all issues to Zscout370.

∆

01:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You are ultimately accountable for the actions carried out by your bot, as the bot owner, even if they were requested by someone else. That's why. It's ok to direct questions to ZScout, but should something go wrong, you can't just claim no responsibility. pschemp | talk 01:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that I am responsible for the bot, But the issue is not with the bot, but the message and the fact of the message. As the saying goes dont shoot the messenger for the fact that you hear bad news. Shoot the creator of the news.

∆

01:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Providing "the news" isn't suppressed in the message! El_C 01:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen, leave Betacommand out of this. As I noted at the bottom of the notice, which was composed by me, I said that any questions or comments should be directed towards me. It seems you ignored the last part of it. I also signed the message that BC issued, because he had a notification bot that worked well. I even got messages from this round of notification. Please, come on, stop beating up on Betacommand on this issue. Remmeber, my talk page is open, let's go there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Care to comment, here, about the "recently, a decision was made" bit? I do find that mode of communication problematic and I wish to see it addressed in a venue that's wider than your talk page, especially seeing how the discussion is already somewhat under way. Thanks. El_C 01:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I mainly wished yall came to see me first before the bot was getting attacked again. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Whenever you're ready... El_C 03:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I was born ready. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want to comment that's your prerogative, just be straight-forward about it. El_C 03:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought I made it clear in the message that I wrote that was sent to the talk pages. Anyways, many of the images from the website were accepted in Wikipedia, especially on the Commons. Some people, like myself, decided to copy the template license over from the Commons to here because some just don't have Commons accounts (in my case, en.wp is my test ground for images). There has been email discussions in the past between Russian admins and the site owners, asking to clarify the license. Before the March 2007 decision by the Foundation, the only thing the site asked for was a reference to the website and that was it. This was the basis for many of the CIS based images we got. But after the Foundation set down their new image policy, the Russian admins decided to play email tag again over the template. While they gave the same statement as last time, our asking of the image license clarification went on deaf ears. We also had Belarusian administrators email the company to no avail. Then, it was decided in May 2007 that all new images uploaded with the license are going to be speedy deleted. Later on, on the talk page, they decided to depreciate the template and put it up for deletion. Right now, many users are not understanding the deletion debate. People want the template gone, but the images kept. Here, I was looking for a review of the images and it would have been best to notify all who uploaded images from the site and see what happens. You got hit by it once, I was hit by it three times and others were told about it. I have begun to review some of the images now, but many of the ones that are left are Commonwealth coat of arms. I am not sure how long the review will take, but I hope it doesn't take very long. If you think the image makes fair use, write up a claim. If you can find a free image, then use it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I entirely follow that, but thanks anyway for the detail. Again, my problem was that you write "recently, a decision was made" but fail to link to this decision. Do you not see anything wrong with that? El_C 03:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was an oversight on my part. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

adopted Bus stop, but problems continued at related pages until I opened a second thread for a full community topic ban (with Fred's approval) on Judaism-related articles. During that discussion Bus stop's behavior degenerated so badly that I reimposed the original community siteban and edit protected the user's talk space. Feedback at that thread after I implemented it was overwhelming in support.

Then Dweller attempted to broker a second compromise. I went along with it, reduced the indef block to 3 months, but IMO Bus stop's next posts just weren't up to par. Not extreme enough to normally merit the banhammer, but here's someone who's already been sitebanned twice and looked more interested in settling scores than moving forward. IMO the block reduction had been a courtesy. I don't think I should need a third consensus to reset to indef again.

Bus stop is fully informed of his/her right to bring any grievance to ArbCom through e-mail. Have I overstepped? I don't think so, but I'm open to comment. Durova^Charge! 22:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• original ban discussion
• new ban discussion
• a few choice words (others have been forgiven)
• the current state of things

Durova^Charge! 22:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have taken a cursory glance. If the editor proves and promises through the contributions that they will spiral back down, then the disruptions to the project must stop. Especially if that is the communities consensus. In my opinion, I do not think you have overstepped. Navou ^banter 22:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I can't understand why people are making such efforts to make Bus stop their darling pet project. He has been indef banned twice already and nothing has changed. I would drop it like a hot brick and move on. Its not worth anyone's valuable time and energy. Drumpler 23:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No comment on previous sitebans, but since then (in fact only one day ago) Bus stop was unblocked under the mentorship of Dweller. We know what has happened in the past, but Bus stop has apologised to Durova. It is not appropriate to wield old diffs as above. The idea is to attempt to move forward from this point. Bus stop has not repeated remarks of the kind he made previously and an instant re-ban is premature. At the very least, Dweller should have been involved in this decision. Durova has been criticised by Bus stop and immediately re-bans. Better to have left anything like that to a non-involved party to avoid even the appearance of a personal motive. Tyrenius 23:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Correction: Bus stop was not unblocked one day ago. I reduced a block from indef to three months. Then I set it back to indef. Durova^Charge! 15:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with both Drumpler and Tyrenius. Like Drumpler, I don't understand why anyone would bother with this, and IMO it is not worth the trouble.

On the other hand, my own understanding of what other people might do is irrelevant. Some people enjoy hopeless causes; and who knows... maybe it will turn out not to be a hopeless cause. Given that other people might like to be more helpful for Bus Stop than I think worth bothering about; the question is whether Durova was premature in preventing them. I agree with Tyrenius that Durova was premature; and as an involved party she is better to back off entirely and let Dweller deal with it under the mentor process. If she is unhappy with any recent activity — and the recent activity precipitating this latest ban seems pretty mild overall — then she should contact the mentor and perhaps the mentor can give some useful advice to Bus Stop about how to let it go. Good luck to them in that; but they should be permitted to try out this mentoring process. I'm not 100% sure I'm working on full information, but that's how it looks to me at present. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Bus Stop made a half-hearted apology to Durova ('"OK I apologize"--if that will get be unbanned' is what it sounded like) only after repeated prodding by Dweller that's it's a mandatory condition to get him unblocked. Furthermore, to this date he has not shown a scintilla of contrition for his actions. After every block/banning, he seems to be fancying himself to be a victim (of some Christian conspiracy, evidently) and stayed combative and insulted/accused others of wrongdoings against him. In the interim administrators, for whatever reason, have been taking turns making him a pet project, and try to get him unbanned/into mentorship--at the expense of the community. I guess quite a few admins believe they can play psychiatrist and change an individual's personality and morph him into a non-disruptive editor and create some sort of a feel-good-story--however how is that fair to other editors who already bore the brunt of his disruption, and will continue to be subjected to his disruption as he go right back to his old ways after every unblock? Tendancer 00:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

How many chances do you get? From reading the discussion on Bus stop's talk page, it appears that he's still under the impression that everyone's out to get him in some way or another. Until he realizes that it's his disruptive behavior, not a vast conspiracy, that led to this situation, he's not going to change it. I see nothing to indicate he's come to that realization. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Tendancer, that's a very poor characterisation of Bus stop's apology, which in full reads:

OK, I apologize to Durova for the comment that I made last, containing the profanity. I retract it, if that is possible. And I apologize for using such base terminology. Thanks for the chance, Dweller.

I fail to see how that doesn't show a "scintilla of contrition". Your post is mainly irrelevant to the current situation and quite insulting to other users and admins. I was able to work constructively with Bus stop without major problems in a contentious editing environment on Michael Richards, and editors on art articles (which is his other interest) have not had these problems, so there is no need for any morphing or psychiatric practice there. One wonders exactly why it has become so difficult elsewhere. Certainly an editor who continues to post on Bus stop's talk page after he's been banned, because "it's at least a bit amusing", is not without blame for exacerbating matters.[4] My participation to date has been fairly minor: I was not involved with unbanning or mentoring Bus stop. I am not saying he should have been unbanned, but the fact is that he was and it was agreed that Dweller was to mentor him. That then needs to be allowed to run its course. Tyrenius 01:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Tyrenius, first I was referring to his complete lack of attrition for his disruptive editing. Now even assuming we take into account the "apology" for his vile insult of Durova--first if Bus Stop is a reasonable person he should've made the apology without any prodding after making such a statement. Then even after Dweller had to ask him to apologize, his immediate response was to bargain that "[he] will apologize to Durova in exchange for an apology from Durova." After Dweller stayed firm that the apology is "not negotiable", we get a half-hearted apology primarily addressed to Dweller and referring to Durova in 3rd person just to get himself unblocked. The moment Durova accepts it, the response is "Apparently Durova fails to accept responsibility for even one iota of her wrongdoing." Combine that with the complete lack of admission he has done anything disruptive, and the continuous accusation of other users of supposed wrongdoing; I do not see how any fair minded person can deem him to have shown contrition.

While you and some visual arts editors find him easy to work with (probably because visual arts is far less of a hot topic for this editor, and the inherent subjectivity renders his POV tendencies less problematic), I think it's fair to say it's beyond clear dozens of others editors, admins and non-admins alike, find Bus Stop extremely disruptive. I stand by my statement: I think your and Dweller's apparent attempts to get Bus Stop unblocked are, while certainly well-intentioned, unreasonably unfair to the community. This is not just between Bus Stop and Durova, as Durova banned him based on community consensus--and the community, with some editors who had months and months of experience having to deal with his disruption, has already twice now opined he should be banned after being subjected to his disruption and incivility, and now we're spending (wasting?) time on a third time because admins propose (again) to put him through mentorship (again) as a pet project. Maybe to some admins it's just "giving someone a second third fourth chance", to the editors who have been/will be on the receiving end of his disruption and actually deal with the brunt of the consequences, it's not quite such a noble and magnanimous venture. Tendancer 02:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Am I being put to blame for exacerbating the problem? I'm sorry, but when you try to explain to an editor why he's in his predicament, and why other individuals have tended to disagree with him, and he simply continues to believe that his opinion is the only acceptable one, it is painfully amusing, and unfortunate.

The simple problem is that Bus stop doesn't listen to anyone else's argument, and he doesn't understand the concept of consensus. He'd make accusations that we'd simply voted to get him banned from the original discussion because his argument was "too cogent". This, if anything, is at least a show of narcissism (or simple naivete) which leads me to question if the user has a Jekyll-Hyde editing pattern when exposed to Judaism-related topics. After all, he does seem to make positive contributions to art topics. Take a look at his Judaism-related edits, and you'll begin to notice that he pushes his POV as authoritative even when everyone else is opposed to his changes.--C.Logan 02:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I do believe that the problematic point was after Bus stop apologized- and then requested an apology from Durova. See, Durova invited him to join the discussion on

WP:CSN

, and later banned him from that discussion, as it appears, for making several distasteful comments which compared the discussion to the Holocaust (and this is a habit of his; both user Drumpler and I had been involved in a long discussion with this user, and he often attempted to malign our arguments by comparing the situation to medieval events and calling our actions "proselytization"- unique, because Drumpler and many other users involved have no religion, AFAIK).

The problem lies in the fact that Bus stop wants Durova to apologize to him for banning him from the discussion, as he claims he could not defend his case because of that. Sorry to say, but considering the comments he was making, Durova owes little apology to Bus stop for the ban. The fact that he's asking for an apology in this instance hints at the fact that Bus stop still doesn't realize that what he's doing is disruptive.

Concerning the prematurity of the re-ban... yes, I believe it was a little premature. If anything, an explanation of the reasons for the ban should have at least been given to Bus stop beforehand. He may just drop his attitude to get out of trouble, but if this second mentorship works, we could have a very useful editor involved in art-related topics. Better that than a total ban. However, I'm still unsure about allowing the editor to edit Judaism-related topics- seems like it's simply too hot-button for this user to handle without pressing his POV.--C.Logan 01:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Dweller's terms were a three month block, followed by a (minimum) 3 month ban on Judaism-related articles for Bus stop, so that is not an immediate concern. We don't need penitence; he doesn't need to realize he's done wrong - he just needs to act differently, whatever his motivation to do so. Asking for an apology and sounding off a bit doesn't merit a re-ban. It might merit an explanation of the type you have provided above. We can't expect someone to change totally overnight, but we can expect a move in the right direction, and certainly the new remarks are a distinct improvement on the earlier ones you have referred to. Such extremity has not been manifested in other subject areas, as I have said above, or I would be less sympathetic to his cause. Tyrenius 02:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

He apologized, which is great, but it's another story if he's going to be a wrench in the gears about things unless Durova apologizes to him for banning him from a discussion in which he was being rather disruptive (and if someone isn't able to see how he was being disruptive, they have little experience with this user's habits). We shouldn't expect a brand new user within the course of a night, but unless he starts over by (first and foremost) swallowing his pride, it may just end up being another course where we cater to a user who still believes his POV is the law about things. Bus stop is wrong- he doesn't deserve an apology for being blocked for disruptive behavior. Again, though, I agree that Durova's ban this time around was a bit of jumping the gun.--C.Logan 02:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Frankly I wish people would have given

  Durova to whom I apologize for Bus stop's rude language as I didn't like seeing that, and Dweller and Bus stop can diffuse this tenderbox. Tyrenius and I have worked with Bus stop and he is capable of doing good work. Although I think he has to let go of the past, things need to settle down, obviously feelings are still raw. Modernist

  02:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd trust Dweller (talk · contribs) to handle this; his conditions seemed fair enough. I agree though that ideally something would be worked out by Dweller, Durova, Bus stop, and perhaps Tyrenius after a cool down period and preferably away from situations that will just continue to heat up the rhetoric.--Isotope23 ^talk 04:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Bus stop at the otogar

Hey, did anyone check if this[5] was really Bus stop, or some jokester trying to smear his good name? Those "pedophile" comments seem a little goofier than the Bus stop I know and love, but if that was really him, you might want to take that into consideration.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 02:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about that, hmm. Who the hell would impersonate Bus stop for that specific purpose? When I'd seen his last comment before bannage, and then saw "his" comments as Bus stop at the otogar, I thought he'd finally gone off the deep end. Someone should definitely check that out.--C.Logan 02:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Büyük Otogar is a bus terminal in Turkey, in case anyone cares. Anyway, I don't think that was him.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 02:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

04:56, 1 August 2007 is the start line for a new start, and that is a prior edit, however it came about. Leave it. Tyrenius 03:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That's generous of you, I guess.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure: any second/third/fourth/whatever-it-is-by-now chance is generous. But having decided to go ahead with another try — and there does seem to have been a general consensus on that from all concerned — it's just common sense to draw a line in the sand and leave prior history out of it as already having been considered. The question is really only whether the most recent contributions since 04:56, 1 August 2007 are grounds to re-ban. I don't have any great hopes for the new process, but I also don't think the subsequent contributions are grounds for the attempt at rehabilitation to be unilaterally revoked by someone so deeply involved in the disputes. (No offense intended Durova; I just think you are better to leave it to others not so involved.)

There are only two contributions to consider. They are 15:26, 1 Aug and 15:48, 1 Aug. Both contributions indicate that the mentor has an uphill task in explaining the principle of

No angry mastodons. Neither was worth immediately revoking the attempt to help, however futile you think it might be. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont

) 03:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone could checkuser this if they really wanted to, but I doubt Bus stop at the otogar (talk · contribs) is the same individual as Bus stop (talk · contribs). Bus stop was previously blocked for a fair amount of time and never sockpuppeted. Plus, Bus stop at the otogar (talk · contribs) seemed to be going well out of their way to make sure everyone "knew" it was "Bus stop".--Isotope23 ^talk 04:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think Durova jumped the gun too much. Bus stop immediately came firing back again with the same old accusations. I would consider maybe giving him more cooling time before deciding to bring him back. Maybe a few months. Drumpler 06:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The question would seem to be, at least to me, whether the editor in question has learned that his or her own actions which precipitated all of this were incorrect and unallowable. The appearance of these most recent comments would indicate that no such lesson has been learned, and that, on that basis, it is extremely unlikely, at best, that the editor's behavior ever will improve. Basically, if s/he's still insisting his/her own violations of policy are and were justified, it's reasonable to assume such violations will continue. The only way I can see in which there would be any hope of redemption of this editor would be to get it through to him or her that his/her actions were clearly well outside acceptable guidelines. Whether such is possible is, to me, an open question. I can't at this point fault Durova for the follow-up block, although I wouldn't object to seeing it rescinded if the editor in question ever acknowledged that his/her violations of etiquette, guidelines, and policies were extremely problematic, and indicated they would try to adhere to good conduct standards in the future. Right now, though, it don't look real likely. And I can see how someone with pronounced self-aggrandinzing tendencies, as this editor has displayed, would compare their being banned/blocked to Turkish repression a la Midnight Express. I wouldn't mind seeing a checkuser on that account. If it was Bus stop, s/he should be made to understand at least that such conduct is also explicitly unacceptable. John Carter 15:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Dweller's response

Sheesh. Look what happens when you're offline for a few hours. I guess I should apologise to those who feel that my intervention to give Bus stop another chance has caused disruption to the Project; although I'm not entirely sure that's a fair characterisation, I'm happy to apologise for inadvertently being the cause of upset to other editors in good standing.

At this point, my main concern is with Durova. I'm not doing anything to trample a well-respected contributor in favour of my efforts to rehabilitate someone with a block history that doesn't augur well for the future.

This may be arrogant, but can I please request that everyone stops discussing this, as any further disruption is now entirely being caused by admins discussing the disruption! I will discuss this with Durova and with Bus stop too. When I have a clear picture, I'll post a new thread here or at CS, whichever seems more appropriate at the time. --Dweller 12:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

NB This may take some time. Durova's actively editing at a time when I'm <ahem> supposed to be sleeping, so dialogue will necessarily be rather clunky. --Dweller 13:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Dweller and I have exchanged a couple of e-mails about this. First I want to clarify that I didn't restore Bus stop's editing privileges the other day: I shortened the ban to three months, then restored it to indefinite. I have a standard offer to community banned editors that I'll support their return after half a year if they don't violate

WP:SOCK

, promise to abide by site policies when they come back, and don't go around bashing Wikipedia at other websites. At Dweller's request I cut that time frame in half, and as a gesture of goodwill I put it that into the block log, which is a notation I almost never make.

Upon reflection I decided I'd made a mistake by resetting that expiration time formally. Return from an indefinite ban is something that needs to be earned. Bus stop's demand of an apology is right in only one respect: I owe an apology to the rules-abiding editors who couldn't improve a page I edit protected after he gamed an unblock offer I had extended. I owe an apology to the people who attended second ban discussion I opened, and now for my actions that necessitated this AN thread. Why did I bend over this far for an editor who acted like he was doing Fred Bauder a favor by accepting an unsolicited offer of mentorship? I should have seen where this was headed and cut the losses sooner. I hoped that a few positive contributions to visual arts were enough to build on, but obviously they weren't. And it should have been obvious sooner. I apologize for wasting the community's time. If anyone wants to unblock his user space or restore his editing privileges again, that's up to them, but until a few months pass I think a return should be out of the question. Durova^Charge! 15:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't think that any apologies are owed to the community by Durova for giving this editor another chance. Hope springs eternal, and all that. Apologies from Bus stop are another matter entirely. John Carter 15:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Y'know, John, (and thanks for the affirmation) I do. It's no secret that I don't like the current policy language on community bans. I argued against it, now I work within it, but it still rubs me the wrong way. Adminship is supposed to be no big deal. I just don't like how my opinion about a ban or an unban carries more weight than that of any other editor in good standing, particularly since they're the ones who have to deal with the fallout when sysops try a lenient approach that doesn't work. Durova^Charge! 20:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

For my part, I want to make clear that Durova has my complete support. If and when the community should decide to accept any future request by Bus stop to return to the Project, I would be happy to pick up my offer to monitor and mentor an effort at his "rehabilitation" to full editing rights. --Dweller 16:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope this doesn't seem in any way confrontontational, because it isn't intended in that way, I'm just seeking clarification. Are you saying that, if at some point in the future Bus stop requests again that he be unblocked, and this request meets approval, you would be willing to do so? If yes, are we to understand that you now consider the most recently made request void in some way? Again, just seeking clarification. John Carter 17:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the most recently made request ended in an agreement to reinstate after 3 months. I posted a statement to Bus stop's talk page that I'd go back to my usual offer of 6 months if I thought the opportunity was being gamed. So basically we're back to the standard deal: I'll look at how things shape up after half a year. It's possible I might be persuaded to dip that again, particularly if Fred's persuaded too. But I don't think a time frame of just a few days or weeks is realistic. Durova^Charge! 17:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been reverted several times on 42 (number) by Numerao (talk · contribs) (see history), with the rationale that I am not a member of the appropriate Wiki project, and thus have not thought the issues through. I have been deeply disturbed by the amount of incredibly trivial information that number articles tend to accumulate, and I've started occassionally pruning them down to something approaching sanity. I've left a comment here, on their project page. I am deeply concerned about a WikiProject being so exclusionary. --Eyrian 17:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see you complaining about this when someone added a rookie's jersey number and got reverted on the grounds of criteria given at WP:NUM. Anton Mravcek 21:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This pushed me over the edge. The criteria given by WP:NUM are bad, and should not be listened to. --Eyrian 21:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Good grief. The jersey number of random sportsmen? One of the six "Lost" numbers? Battlefield 2142 (huh?) .. the number of illustrations in Alice in Wonderland? I think you were quite right here. You've since been reverted for the third time, btw.
  ELIMINATORJR
  18:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Eyrian was right about random sportsmen but wrong about Jackie Robinson. Volunteer Sibelius Salesman 19:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Now then. The above user, who in over two years has edited nothing but music articles, has just put all that (non-musical) trivia back in again, in his/her first edit for nearly four weeks. (Numerao would've broken 3RR). Not too suspicious, really...

ELIMINATORJR

19:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of coming under your suspicion, I'd like to point out that Volunteer Sibelius Salesman's 50 most recent edits also include two articles about episodes of The Simpsons and an AFD vote on the Red Sox's #55 draft pick, Nicholas Hagadone. As for the music articles he's edited, at least in the most recent 50, many of them are about symphonies with numbers, such as 2, 36, 3, 48, 4, 29, 97, etc. PrimeFan 22:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Even so, that edit had my

ELIMINATORJR

23:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've left a short note for Numerao, about the behaviour being inappropriate WilyD 19:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• The lack of a 42 (disambiguation) seems to be generating at least some of the links there and a quick review of Category:Lists of ambiguous numbers indicates that most numbers don't have dab pages. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Eyrian only pays lip service to general policy. His goal appears to be the enforcement of his will over a concensus built months ago by project members who didn't just think about reader expectations for the topic at hand but also considered general policy and even made concessions to fanatic deletionists. What would happen if Eyrian succeeded in enforcing his will on 42? Would he then expect WP:NUM members to re-shape the other number articles according to his established willfulness? Anton Mravcek 21:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, rhetoric without evidence is of little worth on this board. —Kurykh 21:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't require other users to enforce any policy anywhere; only abide when the changes are made. --Eyrian 21:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What I'm hearing here is: "The criteria given by WP:NUM" (Eyr.) made by concensus "months ago by project members who didn't just think about reader expectations for the topic at hand but also considered general policy" (Mrav.) "are bad." (Eyr.) The opinion of one admin trumps that of several users. PrimeFan 22:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"The opinion of one admin trumps that of several users." - I don't think so. Adminship is no big deal and provides no extra clout in content disputes, only in dealing with policy violations such as

WP:3RR

.

That said, I think the WP:NUM gang needs to provide a diff to prove to Eyrian that there really was a consensus decision "months ago". Eyrian is then free to challenge that consensus by making proposals to change the guidelines currently in effect and thus forming a new consensus around his position if he can. Any admin worth his salt will defer to a consensus that is not in violation of policy. The standard

dispute resolution

procedures are available and should be used if necessary.

And, please. Discuss this on the Talk Page, not here. This page is not for resolving content disputes.

--Richard 22:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "diff" is, but if it is what I think it is, then the following constitute a small sampling. PrimeFan 22:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers/Archive_1#Astronomical_numbers
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers/Archive_2#Saros_numbers:_what_to_do.3F
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers/Archive_2#The_Lost_Numbers
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers/Archive_2#RFC:_Numbers_in_Currency
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers#NASCAR_numbers
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers#NASCAR_Numbers_Part_II

I'll explain what a "diff" is on your Talk Page. On reflection, they're not that relevant to this dispute. What you have provided is a good first step. I'm not going to read all the links. It's not an admin's job to resolve content disputes. Here's the key thing, though. What the WP:NUM people need to do is provide evidence to Eyrian that the pertinent issues have been discussed and decided by consensus (see

for a definition). Eyrian has the right to re-open the question and challenge the consensus but, until he succeeds in changing the consensus by convincing other editors that he is right, he should not edit against consensus. If you prove that there is a consensus, he should abide by it. Have you guys proven the existence of a consensus? If not, do so quickly.

Be nice to Eyrian. Don't obstruct him if he tries to re-open the discussion on the Talk Page. He may be right, if only partially. However, if he edits against a documented consensus, come back here. Show us the proof of a consensus and show us the evidence of repeated edits against consensus and we'll consider corrective measures.

But, please, don't try to win the content dispute here. This is not the appropriate forum for it.

--Richard 23:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Have any of you deletionists thought of putting this on the

18:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Went ahead and did it myself. Durova^Charge! 20:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is an appropriate username, because it is very similar to that of the serial killer/child molester

01:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why, but I have reservations about having people who take their names from fictional characters, like Sandman (Wesley Dodds), told to change their names. I personally never heard of the serial killer in question, and Wesley Dodds is one of the more historical notable DC comics characters. John Carter 01:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It's funny, most people don't get where the name comes from, even though you can do a quick search for it through Wikipedia (although this makes me wonder how many other people believe it's my real name). In short, my username is emphatically not a reference to any serial killers. Quite the opposite, as John Carter pointed out. WesleyDodds 01:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Good to know. Sorry for the inconvenience.--24.153.177.210 01:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

So, John, are you from Mars or from an emergency room? ;-) --Thespian 18:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

In the future, we have Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The Daniel Brandt talk page had been deleted as a courtesy. It was recreated by Bryan Derksen. An IP claiming to be Brandt blanked it, saying "Blanked due to BLP violation. Those AfDs are full of defamatory statements. -- Daniel Brandt". Anittas reverted, saying "rv, so what if they're defamatory?". Another IP blanked it again, with "remove trolling", and Anittas reverted with "trolling restored".

The last thing we want is an edit war over this. I've deleted the page again. I bring this here for review. I personally think it should remain deleted, simply because it's the decent thing to do. However, I'm not prepared to fight over it. If admins agree that it should be deleted, I suggest that someone who knows how to should add it to the list of protected deleted titles. If admins decide it should be kept (and I really don't think that's a good idea), I suggest it should still be protected. But I'll wait and see what the general feeling is.

This is the history, prior to my deletion, but subsequent to the previous deletion:

10:20, 3 August 2007 . . Anittas  (trolling restored.)
09:38, 3 August 2007 . . 86.151.127.32 (remove troling)
06:32, 3 August 2007 . . Anittas (rv, so what if they're defamatory?)
02:15, 3 August 2007 . . 68.91.89.209 (Blanked due to BLP violation. Those AfDs are full of defamatory statements. -- Daniel Brandt)
16:24, 1 August 2007 . . Bryan Derksen (article deletion discussion history)

ElinorD (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe it was deleted, as a courtesy, per Jimbo. If it needs salting perhaps a note on his talkpage would be polite? LessHeard vanU 12:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I would keep it deleted, and protect it. The article is not coming back, so the talk page has no purpose. If Mr Brandt ever becomes obviously noteworthy enough that an article really ought to be created (ie, something to the level of murdering a congressman, hosting his own talk show, or winning the 100m Olympic gold), then and only then would we need

╦

12:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I have gone ahead and

╦

13:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this action. I also find the edit summary "Anittas (rv, so what if they're defamatory?)" to be more than a little disturbing, as it shows a complete disregard for, or ignorance of,

WP:BLP. - Crockspot

13:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely. Keep this page deleted, and salted. It's gone, and it's not coming back. I'm also very concerned with Anittas' total dismissal of Mr. Brandt's concerns. (So what if they're defamatory? I think we know the answer.) Sean William @ 13:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Support deletion and salting... have we had this discussion before? I just got the strongest sense of déjà vu that I've felt in a long time while I was responding to this.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Endorse salting. I previously created the page with the same deletion history and then deleted it when I thought better of it. If we're going to have these kinds of problems, salting is the best solution.--Chaser - T 13:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Salt can be good.

(1 == 2)

13:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Endorse salting, and I too am concerned with Anittas' "so what if it's defamatory" comment.

^{Denny Crane.}

15:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

He's no stranger to controversy... Will ^(talk) 15:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've warned him about his actions.

^{Denny Crane.}

15:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the salting, fair play to Neil for doing this. {{

assume good faith

on this one.

Remember the delete/undeletion wars over

talk

15:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I endorse Neil's salting action as it was the right thing to do. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, keep it deleted. Let it rest. Durova^Charge! 17:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Fracture (video game) has edits that are an exact copy of this which has a copyright by Lucasfilm, see [6], I think this needs to be removed from the edit history (that's possible, right?), I don't really know who to ask so I'm posting it here, also, I don't know what took me so long to do this. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 18:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

They don`t really need to be deleted per Wikipedia:Copyright violations on history pages. Sasquatch t|c 18:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey all, just wanted to drop a little note about the flower/animal genus talk pages popping up in

19:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems they are mostly deleted now and the last I saw was Talk:Zygogeomys...¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I requested for account name Milk-maid to be made ages ago in may at Wikipedia:Request_an_account but i cant remember what email I used to register (that the password was sent to - it was an anonymous one if i remember right) - and so the forgotten password thing is also useless

is there anything i can do or is the name lost forever now :(

If you can't access the email you registered with the account, we cannot help you get back to it. That does not mean the name is completely useless though - if the account has never edited, you can usurp it by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. Natalie 01:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It hasn't edited, so it can be usurped. Viridae^Talk 01:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

A new user cannot usurp a username. Usurption is for established editors. I suggest you use an email address you remember next time. Secretlondon 01:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I am experiencing a similar password issue. The number of people handling this type of issue is, low. I was advised to e-mail brion-at-wikimedia.org about it.

Anynobody

01:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a little trivial to be dealt with by Brion.. Secretlondon 01:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as the request was made through

WP:ACC, the email is in that page's deleted history, and admins can access it (admins, search for "milk" in the preview view of [7], then hover over the create link on that section to access the email in question). However, it's not clear how we could establish that you truly are the account holder of that account, so for security and privacy purposes unless this could be established somehow we couldn't give you the email. I have to go now, but maybe some other admin could think of some way to proceed from here? --ais523 17:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC

)

The City Drive

Emeraldweapon is editing The City Drive, despite admitting to be a member of the band here. Warning was previously issued. Brianga 01:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

What are you asking administrators to do? Natalie 01:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Besides the copy and paste move (and a couple edits leading up to it), which I fixed, it does not appear he is doing anything wrong.

WP:V. His edits seem to be helpful. He added a discography and a source. The fact that he admitted it is actually preferred. Mr.Z-mantalk¢

01:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible Overzealous Use of Adminstrative Priveleges

I posted a question on a discussion page which did not equate anyone on here with an external identity.

WP:CIVIL

before threatening me some some kind of 'punishment' for something I and at least one other editor clearly felt was not trolling.

He promptly removed this request from his talk page and now has placed a "final warning" [[10]] on my user talk page, insinuating I restored the original edit in question as the basis for his "final warning" (it repeats a variation on his original accusation against me).

Could somebody please make some sense about how warnings over an edit that has remained reverted can escalate simply for making a reasonable request that

? I cannot follow this logic.

Thanks. 68.7.66.56 02:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing

N (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as an admin in the user rights log. Additionally, you were adding a name to a user talk. Also, you cannot compel an editor to participate in a discussion, can't make him/her answer. I don't really see any overzealous use here. Navou ^banter

03:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to make sure I am conveying this: Original edit of mine notwithstanding, I was given a "warning"; I asked N (aka

03:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Not only were the comments you were warned for uncivil, rude, and totally unrelated to maintaining an encyclopedia but your response to the basic

template warning N gave you was borderline uncivil: "Otherwise you risk being perceived as ignorant of Wikipedia rules and eager to engage in inapproriate behavior." - coming from a user who seems to have made no constructive encyclopedic contributions. Users are only supposed to assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Mr.Z-mantalk¢

03:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• .*.*.56, Is there a specific administrative resolution you'd like? If he ain't an admin, it 'tain no thing. Also, consider creating an account. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

What I find troubling is not so much as what he is doing, as his apparent attempts to hide things - as well as his avoidance of coming forth to state his side of things. Sadly, I have seen such numerous times.

N, I officially call upon you - come forth and state your case.

Psycho Samurai 16:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... This whole thread makes me tired. ---

WRE

) 16:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked this IP, as its first ever Wikipedia edit was to harass and attempt to out another editor, and all subsequent posts are attacking other editors who are attempting to point out this behavior is unacceptable. Crum375 16:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see here for a proposal about unblocking users and giving them parole. Feel free to comment/add. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 03:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should you also put this on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) for wider community input? LessHeard vanU 10:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Call It Arson
• Kill Normal Records
• The Flaming Tsunamis

Hoponpop69 02:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It must be happening somewhere. How is slamming new user's talk pages with endless bot notices about image uploads not a violation of

01:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, an editor who doesn't read / can't be bothered with / doesn't understand / doesn't care about / the instructions on the upload wizard probably isn't going to change their ways X days later. On the other hand, it would stop a lot of one-shot editors / attack images etc.
  ELIMINATORJR
  02:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it appears to me anecdotally that some folks upload images that might be fair use -- screen shots, etc.-- because they see them on a lot of other articles, but they don't understand how to provide a fair use criteria so they get slammed for it. I can't abuse them for not understanding the criteria -- I understand it exactly enough to know that I simply won't upload an image using the fair use criteria because it's a frickin' minefield from what I can see. But I do see a lot of attack images, blatant vandalous copy vios (porn, etc.), pics of friends, plain old stupid pictures etc. that could simply be avoided if you couldn't upload images without waiting a period of time. I mean, has an image ever been uploaded by a user on their very first day that didn't end up deleted? I suspect very few. And the good faith folks would probably benefit from the x number of days and at least then they would be more likely to get a welcome before 12 warnings on their talk. Dina 03:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

A welcome message is... not a priority. Also, the messages from the bot are informative, they're telling the user how to fix something. It's not leaving notes like "You motherfucking idiot, you just screwed up BIG TIME", it's saying "Hello! An image you uploaded is missing a licensing blah blah blah, we need blah blah etc." It's not a bite. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not the content of the messages from the bot that I object to, they are fine. It's the profusion of them. New editors who ignore the instructions on the upload page seem, in my anecdotal experience, to upload more than one image. Perhaps that's the solution? You can upload one image as a new account. Or one a day? The restriction might motivate some folks to read and figure out why that's the case. They can learn how to do it, and the learn how not to do it, all in one step. Because it seems that they will inevitably do it wrong the first time anyway. And more interested editors might click a link that says "Why you are only allowed to upload one image right now" than a list of rules and regs that they are clearly not reading Dina 05:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

And while welcome messages are not a priority, as someone who was welcomed myself once, they do let a new user know that there are basic guidelines, places to go for help, and other people out there, not just bots. Mine mattered to me frankly. If I had just gotten 12 bot warnings first, I probably would have said fuck it, you know? Dina 05:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

(Undent) Nah, I'm with Dina on this one. Welcome messages are kind of cool - they let a newbie know that this place is run by humans, and not by bots, and they provide really, really helpful newbie links. I mean, what newbie on their own is going to find the

MC

♠ 07:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

But they do see policy, when they go to upload an image - and obviously choose to ignore it. Then they do it again, and/or get a warm orange banner across the top of their page telling them they have a new message, which they ignore too... Maybe its the upload page that needs to change? Or the software, not accepting an upload unless something has been filled in for licensing/fair use? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 18:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The upload page certainly does need to change. I was nearing 1000 edits when I made my first image uploads, and for the life of me I couldn't figure out what to do. I was baffled, and after 2 years on the site and a half a year of intense editing, started messing up again. I found it difficult. The other issue is the assumption that, as in other sections of Wikipedia, people will correct your mistakes. Unfortunately too much of the image rules, even if its clear to more experienced editors where the issue lies, even if it would be of benefit to Wikipedia for someone else to just straighten out the tangles, we're *not supposed to*. Image issues tend to be a seriously toss 'em in, see if they sink or swim issue. --Thespian 08:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, the simplest solution would be to disable file uploads for new users the same way page moves & page creations are. It may not be a complete solution, but it would be an easy first step. And it would give the Wikipedia Welcoming Group a chance to educate the newbies. -- llywrch 04:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Per the request of several users, and over a dozen implementation plans that were scraped I now have a beta version of WikiProject support if your wikiproject wants notified about images that are under its scope please leave a note on my talk page with the template names that your wikiproject uses and the page that you want BCbot to leave messages on.

02:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Job Betacommand. Hopefully this will reduce the number of images that get deleted and could actually be justified. ---

WRE

) 16:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Remember this is a opt in feature, projects will need to come to me.

β^_command

22:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's great! Is there any place to explain how this works? By "templates" do you mean the bot will look for the project's template on an article discussion page when it's tagging an image from that article, or are you saying we should give you the name of a template for the bot to alert us on the project page that an image was tagged? Please forgive me if I'm missing something obvious here, just a little unclear. Wikidemo 00:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

what ever template name(s) the project uses to tag articles. IE {{wikiproectfoo}} and the page where you want BCBot to report to. Please remember that this function is just being tested and that it may not work right yet but as comments come in Ill modify the code.

β^_command

00:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There's an ongoing discussion that should never have started encased in archiving templates at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Jossi's revert. Jossi (talk · contribs) mistakely made an unnecessary revert (something was added to the page after discussion that had nothing to do with the ongoing policy dispute), and mikkalai (talk · contribs) started stirring up trouble. I warned Mikka and added archiving templates because this was uncalled and absolutely inappropriate to put there, but the discussion keeps on and is just worsening what already looks like a sour situation. The more I look at it, the more I just want to either nuke the entire thread or give mikkalai a block for disruptive/inflamatory editing. Any thoughts? Circeus 14:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a valid attempt to deal with real issues to me.

(1 == 2)

16:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is closed with the archive templates now. I'm not sure what you think needs doing. Blocking Mikkalai for a punitive reason is not the answer though. He's not persisting the issue right now, so just let it the conversation die out without going and removing it, causing more unneeded drama. — Moe ε 17:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I closed it right after my comment. It continued for 14 hours within them. Circeus 19:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears to have ceased now, right? Mikkalai is off editing other things, nothing should be done unless he actually goes back and stirs it up again. — Moe ε 19:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Just so all the admins know, a straw poll has been started for

) 20:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• ... which is pretty pointless since this is a feature request. Just go and talk to the Devs. >Radiant< 10:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really sure what to do with this. I found User:Wartime1 a long time ago as a http://bugmenot.com account, logged in and changed the password. I guess it could be blocked, but no one can use it, and I forgot the password long ago. I just came across it since I was cleaning out my watchlist and realized I totally forgot about it. More than likely this message is unnecessary, as the account will just sit there, but incase I'm not thinking of something, there ya go. -- Ned Scott 09:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

And just thought to check bugmenot again, http://www.bugmenot.com/view/en.wikipedia.com . Two of the four are blocked already, one is wartime that I mentioned, but not sure about User:danglinger. -- Ned Scott 09:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess this one is active as well. -- Danglinger 09:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. This account

needs to be blocked. --Danglinger 15:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC) (Confirming that it was I who made the edit. --Calton | Talk

15:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC))

Danglinger is now blocked. ---

WRE

) 16:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I just checked my talk page and saw that this account had posted their password there... once the major "huh?!" moment passed, I was about to block as a possible shared/compromised account, but I see the real story and that it's been done already, so thank you. I don't particularly care to speculate as to why I was the first person this editor decided to contact after creating the account... --Kinu ^t/_c 16:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

After looking at the bugmenot site, the user is apparently just a new sockpuppet of the banned User:Resaurusb (who seems to have a vendetta against me, so the attempts to contact me were probably just trolling) anyway. I have no idea how posting the accounts' passwords on the web is of any value, but eh. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

user:Danglinger needs blocked as well. See bugmenot. ~ Wikihermit 16:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC) (blocked already)

Of course, if someone at Wikimedia would spend an hour with the bugmenot exemption page, this could be permanently fixed. Wikipedia is clearly in their possible exemptions. It just needs administration from the server side and an hour or two to just remove all wikipages and save admins some time on this. --Thespian 20:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Even more doable since en.wikipedia.org is already blocked by Bugmenot, it seems, so that demonstrates that bugmenot maintainers probably see what's the problem. =) Though it would probably make more sense to just ask them to block all Wikimedia domains in one fell swoop... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

08:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If you believe this material to be copied, use the {{copyvio}} template, stating the suspected source. It says what the authpr should do if he/she is the owner of the material.

Once that's dealt with, feal free to place a {{

coi}} tag on it. Od Mishehu

12:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Screw it - I've provided all the information I have. I have no idea what the source is, merely that an anon IP has claimed to be Lichtenstein and claims to have created one of the pages using material for which he holds the copyright. If I thought the COPYVIO template was applicable in this case, I would have used it; it's a hell of a lot easier than trying to get through to process-bound minds. But if the hoops are more important to you than the use of copyrighted material, fine. 24.4.253.249 18:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What action were you requesting be taken? It would appear that more research would be needed, no matter who acts on it. How does that equate to "the hoops" being more important? Leebo ^T/C 18:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the "hoops" that required admin attention by posting here included looking in the article history for a copyvio tag that showed the source material. I've stubbed Bill Lichtenstein to get rid of the copyvio because a random IP "releasing" this for use doesn't cut it in my book. This didn't require a post here though...pretty much anyone who can edit a page could have taken care of this.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Isotope23; I wasn't comfortable making changes to the articles because of 1) my unfamiliarity with copyright law and the Foundation's interpretations of it, and 2) ignorance of the process when a source for alleged copyrighted material is unknown. Despite that, it seemed obvious that further attention was needed outside of the template resources available. 24.4.253.249 19:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

RDNS is "web-proxy.beale.af.mil". My guess is this is a gateway between a secure DoD network and the Internet. It has a history of some vandalism but mostly good edits. Is there a tag to apply to the talk header to alert people dealing with it? Also (I'm assuming) it's not considered an "open proxy" (although it may in fact be open to a great many people)? -Nard 22:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I tagged it with {{

SharedIP}}, noting the squadron and Air Force base. I do this whenever I come across IPs registered to military bases and many turnout to be shared computers in base libraries. Probably just bored/unsupervised kids. - auburnpilot talk

00:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Checking page history of deleted version of

relief sculpture

I recently created a redirect from

23:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There were only two edits to

relief sculpture: The first was a string of gibberish, the second was a speedy tag. IrishGuy ^talk

23:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly right. Cat on your keyboard type keyboarding. --FloNight 23:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Often, users see a link, click it, and find it doesnt exist and it asks them to create it. These users often insert random nonsense, then it gets deleted. That's likely what happened in this case. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I'm guessing the first version of the page got deleted very soon after it was created? If that's the case, don't bother replying to confirm, I'll assume that was the case. Carcharoth 01:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

As my request at

07:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Note the two users were in discussion at

╦

08:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, I have not asserted that "I am correct". What I have said is that Chris' point of view, and the "alternative" point of view are both 100% legitimate. Because of that, I have proposed a neutral solution. This is starting to spread like a virus and I'm close to taking this to the ArbCom. If someone wants to advise me otherwise, I'm all ears.
   ►Chat 
  08:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• If Chris' point of view is acceptable, and he really really really wants it, why not just let him get his way? This would surely be better than going to ArbCom over something so minor.
  ╦
  08:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't actually think it's minor at this point. Chris has expressed
   ►Chat 
  08:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm going to take this to your talk page, there's nothing that particularly needs admin attention.
  ╦
  08:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems SeraphimBlade has decided to take it to Arbitration anyway. Then I shall not bother.

╦

09:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Some humour

Thought people might appreciate that. Viridae^Talk 11:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

And this (Mind you this is just in the latest 50). Viridae^Talk 11:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's probably a better use of the AN, but xkcd has a good one too: clicky!. James086^{Talk | Email} 11:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hahahaha. Viridae^Talk 11:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Great stuff. Does anyone collect references like that and put them in

23:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Might start a subpage of my userpage. Viridae^Talk 00:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If you do that, Viridae, I will surely watchlist the page. The comic was so great too, because it's true.  hmwith  talk 19:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll do it tonight, when I'm not at work. Viridae^Talk 04:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a six-day backlog on DYK. Lots of valid nominations are discarded daily, because very few DYK regulars are still active these summer days. If there are some idle sysops, they are welcome to make their DYK update debut. --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I was partly responsive for the large discard,and initiated a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Circeus 02:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Cannot say I'm very familiar with the DYK stuff (only one submission ever) but I'll try and help out with anything I can. David Fuchs ^(talk) 19:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This RfC about me has passed the 48 hour threshold. Please approve or reject it. --Eyrian 19:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. At least two users claim to have tried to resolve the issue with supporting evidence; that is sufficient to continue with the RfC. Sr13 is almost

larity

19:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with that assessment, but the point is that it has neither been formally moved into "accepted" nor deleted, which the RfC process dictates should have happened by now. --Eyrian 19:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I believe Eyrian is referring to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. This RfC is still listed under "candidate pages" and is looking for it to either be moved to "approved pages" or be deleted. For Eyrian's benefit, admins look at the user-conduct RfC page fairly regularly, so I don't think you will have to wait very long for one of those outcomes. Newyorkbrad 20:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again, we see the misuse of conduct RfC with respect to a priori efforts to resolve the dispute. Prior efforts to resolve the dispute are not optional. One of the users has failed to do so, entirely, whereas cited efforts by the other, hardly appear sufficient. This would become immediately clear to the casual observer if some sort of accompanying summary were to follow those diffs (that, however, is optional; but it would go well to illustrate this point). Adhering to RfC certification rules is not bureaucratic, it is necessary to keep it grounded in the spirit of our dispute resolution system; to prevent the bureaucratization and easy circumvention of conduct RfCs as indictment-like pages that are a shortcut to, rather than a consequence of, the parties talking to each other, with dr in mind, about the dispute. In short, deleted and delisted. El_C 20:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an increasingly common feature of user conduct RfCs. People say they've tried to resolve the dispute, when in fact they're lying through their teeth. Most likely they've never even talked to the person in question. Moreschi ^Talk 12:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Even more disturbing is when administrators encourage the practice, as was the case here recently. El_C 19:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagreeing with one of your administrative decisions, as at least 4 admins did on the thread you cite, is not equivalent to encouraging the misuse of RfC's. If you're still upset about your actions there being questioned, it might be more constructive to discuss it with the involved admins rather than sniping here. MastCell ^Talk 22:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to learn you view this criticism as sniping; I do reserve myself the option of touching on it here, in this related case. El_C 22:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody please speedy delete this nonsense article and close the AfD that is becoming overrun by SPAs? Corvus cornix 21:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

•  DoneChrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Corvus cornix 21:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, is there a template to close afd's? I've always cut and pasted the code from other closed AfDs to do it, rather annoying. David Fuchs ^(talk) 19:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

{{Afd top}} {{Afd bottom}} and add the closing reason immediately underneath the first one - that works for me. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yea, thats how its done. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally like the Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD.js script... — Scientizzle 20:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that... David Fuchs ^(talk) 04:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

hi all - would someone mind swinging by and taking a look - there's been a very slow burning edit war over the last few weeks concerning the weight to give King's sexual convictions, and it's in danger of deteriorating rapidly - help and advice would be great (obviously including a take on my edits and contributions.....) thanks.... Purples 09:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, in regards to your edits: the summary "oopsie - this is better, at least you're not claiming that this is nonsence, but you are still removing large sections of sourced important information, which isn't a good thing... stop it!" might have been a little judgmental and dismissive (altho removing large amounts of information without discussion shouldn't be encouraged)... As to the actual article... slow burning is like it. From what I can tell, the debate is about the length/detail of King's jail time/crimes section, correct? David Fuchs ^(talk) 19:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

These exact words are used in the

16:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• This is an unsalting request; The version deleted in March was a one-liner, but the previous version, deleted in January, was deleted with "No evidence of notability". However, looking at their website now, they appear to have at least a few notable bands signed to them (
  ELIMINATORJR
  00:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This user left Wikipedia two years ago. Recently I noticed the user's account on Commons had been hacked the same time (January 2007) his user page here on Wikipedia was the target of vandalism. Given the potential this is a hacked sleeper account, I'm wondering if it shouldn't be reblocked. (or in the alternative, looking at the block log, apparently this was a vandal using good guy/bad guy personas... The vandalism on Commons in January should be the proof the unblocker was waiting for.) -Nard 01:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Could someone with Foundation access please capitalize the word "internet" in http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees?

00:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you may get a faster response if you post on feedback page. Majorly (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done but please request it on the feedback page in the future! The English Wikipedia admin's noticeboard has nothing to do with that site! :) However, thanks so much for the heads-up! Cbrown1023 talk 03:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and apologies! (By the way, this is my new username.) --

Thomas H. Larsen

04:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What was the reason for the request? As I noted on the feedback page, the actual change made was to lowercase some occurences, which I believe is a good change. Capitalization would not, in my view, be appropriate. ++Lar: t/c 11:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. For the sake of consistency, could some admin please modify the interface of

05:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

... and the caps in "please use the Sandbox" when editing an article as an IP. Fairly minor, so I won't complain if these changes aren't made. --

Thomas H. Larsen

05:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the IP message, but for the raw signature it's the start of a sentence, even if it is in brackets. Also for the raw watchlist it says "Update Watchlist" on the button (with the capitals). I'm not sure how to change the button text, I think it needs a developer. It's not that vital anyway. Here are some links incase anyone is planning on changing anything: MediaWiki:Watchlistedit-raw-explain, MediaWiki:Tog-fancysig and MediaWiki:Anoneditwarning. Trust me, it saves time rather than sorting through Special:Allmessages. James086^{Talk | Email} 08:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh mighty administrators, I hereby humbly request that you delete the page

09:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Done ;) >Radiant< 09:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• For the record, you can tag it with {{db-move}} instead. (That way you don't have to beg.) Hut 8.5 17:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I've recently noticed that some users thought RFC was a formal and bureaucratic process, to the point where these people created a new process (ironically almost exactly identical to RFC) that was supposedly less formal. Since content RFCs were never intended as formal, I've taken a flame thrower to the warnings and caveats and other instruction creepy stuff on that page accumulated over the years, and making it simple again. Please copyed. >Radiant< 15:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

(1 == 2)

18:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

*applause* rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to unprotect

08:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No objections raised, so I have gone ahead and unprotected. IronGargoyle 15:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Re-deleted. With both the AfD and the DrV showing strong consensus to keep this deleted, you really should have known better. Take it to DRV if you must, but without STRONG new evidence that additional notability/verifiability has shown up since the last DRV (which was just a week or two ago), it has no chance. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I salted it too, since it's been recreated far too much. --Deskana (banana) 15:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I would like to point out that I used new and reliable sources that were not available at the time of the last DRV. To quote from CSD G4: "the copy [must be] substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes to it do not address the reasons for which it was deleted". I don't think that was the case, and I invite you to look at the deleted revisions. Best, IronGargoyle 15:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the deletion at this point, although I was one of the people arguing for it earlier. The authors and proponents of the article at first claimed youtube and google as sources and evidence of notability, both for the main article and mentions in other articles. When told these were not verifiable or reliable sources, they objected to Wikipedia policies and basically called us a bunch of nitwits for denying what they considered obvious. People repeatedly vandalized various pages with mentions of Chocolate Rain. In the deletion review some calmly repeated our position that rules must be followed, whereas others who were apparently fed up from dealing with the unruliness of newbies said the video and other Internet memes can never be notable no matter how much coverage they get. I and others prevailed on the editors to go away and come back when they could find newspaper articles about the phenomenon, and they dutifully complied. The new article, though not perfect, does have multiple verifiable sources. As such, I feel like a hypocrite for having told them they can write Wikipedia articles if they will only do things the right way. It is untenable, and breaks NPOV, to say a topic is non-notable per se due to its subject matter, even if it has multiple reliable sources and fits all the other criteria. Notability and sourcing are there to enforce process and quality, not to shield us from articles on subjects we don't like. I have no idea why some feel so strongly that the video needs coverage but they do. There is a lot of interest in this. We're setting a bad example, and perhaps proving right the accusation that we're biased, if we categorically refuse to listen. Like it or not, it is a major Internet phenomenon and articles are rapidly beginning to appear. I haven't read these in depth -- that's the job of people who actually want to write the thing -- but I see substantial-looking mentions in Gaming Today, Daily Telegraph, Minnesota Daily, Undercover Music News, Ashland City Times, The Sun, MTV.com, Business Standard, and the New Zealand Herald. That is more sourcing that most music articles have. Most or all of these articles appeared after the deletion and subsequent review. It's only a matter of time before it gets mentioned in USA Today or CNN. Whatever threshold you may have for sourcing the article will likely cross it, whether today or next week or a month from now. Wikidemo 16:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It was also a topic on VH1's "Best Week Ever". Chocolate Rain isn't Tay's best work, btw. That would be Edelweiss. OMG, the young man needs some real musical training and to sing opera. He's got raw talent there. Kyaa the Catlord 16:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a casual google indicates that this article may now be sourcable. We should be less into "sticking to our guns" and more into realizing that situations change. With a topic of recently-exploding popularity, it's entirely reasonable that a few short weeks may drastically change what sources are available. This should be unsalted, etc. It's a shame that such tripe becomes popular only for being so horribly bad, but it's not really up to us to judge. Friday (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need a shrubbery if the new article meets inclusion standards. G4 is for substantially identical versions.

(1 == 2)

16:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if someone wants it we should give a user the article to put on userspace until it can be slam-dunk verified and notable? David Fuchs ^(talk) 18:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That's where it was until I moved it. I thought it was pretty much a slam-dunk. Apparently it got slam-dunked into the trash bin though. I have put it into my userspace again (sans image) so that editors may, more easily, evaluate it. IronGargoyle 19:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I copy-edited the article for language and encyclopedic tone just before its latest deletion, and saved a text version of that if anyone is interested. I didn't add or remove any major points or references, just cleaning up. I thought I was doing a favor to people....I don't want this nonsense in my user space but if anyone is willing to host it, I'm happy to post it back there. Just let me know. Wikidemo 19:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

An edit of my draft? Or the one that was DRVed a couple of weeks ago? Either way, feel free to make any edits to my draft that can add to the encyclopedic tone. Sourcing has always been a stronger point of mine than tone. IronGargoyle 19:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, done. I added some section headers, took out words like "perhaps" and "however" and "admitted," and removed the attempt to show notability via the number of parodies, covers, and views -- that just seems a little forced. Once it's notable people will know it from the references. Is the matter closed for now? Come back once you have a few more sources, which will inevitably come? I don't know how much more you want this to gestate. A major publication reference? A detailed article somewhere? A Congressional Medal of Freedom? However did I get sucked into this... Wikidemo 19:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not closed as far as I'm concerned. I'm seeing if this thread attracts any more attention, because right now there seem to be a good number of editors who seem to support its recreation now (I have a hard time seeing how this does not pass at least two criteria on

WP:WEB). If somebody else doesn't take the initiative and unsalt it themselves, I will send it back to DRV. IronGargoyle

21:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

A DRV should quickly determine that G4 did not apply. Agathoclea 21:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if G4 applied or not, but a DRV would still have to be performed for inclusion (particularly one where an admin went forward and undeleted the article himself)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't undelete. I re-wrote from scratch. The only issue was the unprotection and no one objected for 7 hours (the salting admin was on wikibreak...and I closed the DRV, so the salting order comes from my lips anyway) so I thought I was fine. IronGargoyle 21:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted

I have listed Chocolate Rain on DRV per the new draft and the addition of new and reliable sources. IronGargoyle 22:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I first noticed this page because of the use of images in userspace. After looking at it, I thought somebody else might want to review it. 24.6.65.83 08:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Riana deleted it.[24] Acalamari 21:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked

) 18:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody please shut down Betacommandbot?

It keeps messing up

04:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Instead of trying to stop the bot you should have looked into the human factor, and the usage of {{

β^_command

14:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

PS the complete text of {{

β^_command

14:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That strikes me as a

WP:OWN problem. You're suggesting that your bot should be the only account allowed to edit the page, and backing that up by reverting everyone else who tries. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ

05:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No its not OWN, that template is automatically generated from users use of certain templates. {{

β^_command

05:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Beta is suggesting that this is an automatically generated log page. We have several more of such pages (e.g. the PROD list, or the ArbCom election tally) and yes, all of them will be automatically overwritten whenever the bot that generates them runs, that's pretty much the whole point of such pages. >Radiant< 12:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, maybe this isn't the proper forum for this, but I find myself frequently thwarted by the

while trying to maintain the encyclopedia. Oftentimes, users will insert material that is in clear violation of policy (particularly original research), and keep forcing it back even after I comment it out or delete it with an explanation. I find this very discouraging, and it seems to me that it really gives the upper hand to the people who insist that such things are present. Now, I am well aware of the fact that I should not consider my judgments about policy to be perfect. I am generally happy to allow other editors to take care of such things, but sometimes they're not around. Should I let inappropriate material slide by just because the person putting it in is persistent? Should I run to some other high-traffic forum and try and get someone else to do it? I really don't think that I should protect the page. I am... dismayed... by what I see as an unfortunate concession to people who insist on material that violates Wikipedia's policies. --Eyrian 15:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Or you could call for help. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard are sort of designed to deal with this. Moreschi ^Talk 15:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - if several editors are involved in an article, usually you can rely on other editors to keep the material out as well - a non-responsive editor will always "lose the 3RR war" against two or more editors. Or try filing a

request for comment to get assistance. WilyD

15:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

My concern is that RfCs are too large a process. And some articles I watch aren't overseen by very many editors, certainly not very frequently. And I don't want inappropriate material to remain longer than it must. I will however, look into

WP:FTN. Thanks. --Eyrian

15:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Depending on the article in question, it can be helpful to involve a relevant WikiProject to get additional experienced eyes on the topic. Of course, that also depends on how solid the WikiProject is. But I will agree that I'm occasionally frustrated at how easy it is for a dedicated single-purpose account with an axe to grind to singlehandedly stall an article. MastCell ^Talk 15:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Remember the Claire Danes image discussion from this board a few days ago? Good news: Claire Danes has a professional photo now.

Wikipedians often hope more celebrities would release images through GDFL. I'm in a position to communicate that to the PR folks and I'd like your help. If your volunteer time focuses on images, please contact me via e-mail. Tell me the things you wish they knew. Durova^Charge! 20:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

(refactored) LessHeard vanU 21:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh? This has nothing to do with releasing anybody's phone number. I'd just like to double check proper procedures for attribution, see what types of images are in particular demand, and common mistakes to avoid. Durova^Charge! 22:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

What's with the Photo courtesy of Robin Wong Photography caption and an external link? I thought that this sort of stuff belongs on the image description page, but not in the caption of articles. Take Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome, and the image with a very similar license. Why no photo credit in the caption there? Perhaps that could be an incentive to get more photographers to donate their work (or release it under a 'free' license) by saying we'll link to them from encyclopedia articles. However, I don't think we are at that point, and was wondering if I was missing something by wanting to remove the photo credit/weblink from the Claire Danes article.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's one question I'd like to ask: how appropriate is that caption? If consensus would prefer a different credit format then I'd like to know. The Claire Danes image issue is an example of what I'd like to explore. I'd like to explain what methods are compliant with consensus. Durova^Charge! 02:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Attribution of the image is found on the image description page -- we needn't reproduce attribution everywhere the image appears. It's redundant, distracting, and smacks of advertising. I've removed it from the Claire Danes and MuchOnDemand article, and will probably poke around to see if other links like that have cropped up. -- Merope 12:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't like seeing attributions and external links in the caption either and usually remove them. I think attribution on the image page should be sufficient. The thing that concerns me most is that it has the real potential to become a problematic form of spamming articles. Sarah 11:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can upload with a CC-BY license that requires those using the image elsewhere to attribute the creator in the manner specified. For instance, the owner can request attribution by name with a link to their web page. This doesn't look like advertising in Wikipedia, but if somebody copies the image from Wikipedia to use elsewhere, the owner will get a publicity benefit, as well as a bit of search engine optimization via the additional link. Jehochman ^Talk 12:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally I would prefer not to see image captions in articles cluttered with photo credits. I have no problem with the image description page having detailed information about the photographer (name, address, phone number and web site) as a form of attribution and to give the photog something in return for their donation. (I have no idea what actual policy is, but since policy comes from what we do, rather than the reverse, it should be no big deal.)

Thatcher131

14:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

So what can the business community do to facilitate image use compliant with Wikipedia policies? Releasing more stuff via GDFL or compatible copyleft seems to be tops. Have there been other common mistakes you'd like to make them aware of so they can correct? Or particular requests that would be to their benefit as well as Wikipedia's? Durova^Charge! 15:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

They could select a mildly lower quality image amongst the press kit to release under a copyleft license of some sort. That way, it wouldn't be abused commercially, would still be satisfactory for web use, and it will please the free content community greatly. It's not like they don't want those image to be reused anyway. Circeus 22:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Videmus Omnia has just written

22:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Chocolate rain

, but the page is protected, so I'm asking here at WP:AN instead.

I suppose I could ask for adminship so I could do things like this myself, but self-noms are supposedly a prima facie indication of power hunger, and RFA is a circus anyway. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Aw come on... you know you want the constant abuse for making decisions that someone, somewhere will find to be wrong... Come and join

the dark side my padawan and together we will rule the galaxy!

... or not.

I deleted the dead end redirect. I didn't salt it as I'm not overly familiar with the main issues pertaining to Chocolate Rain, though if someone else feels it necessary they can do so.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

See the discussion "unprotection of choc. rain" a couple of headers above this. David Fuchs ^(talk) 18:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as

) 21:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review outcome: Restored by User:Friday per overwhelming consensus. — Edokter • Talk • 20:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I know this was asked about a month or two ago, but

16:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

A few users asked arbcom for checkuser status, independant of each other. I was one of them. We've not heard back yet. You could e-mail their mailing list, but I'm not sure what you'd say. can't imagine "Hurry up!" would work :-) --Deskana (banana) 16:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, we'll have to wait and see. I know arbcom has a pretty large case load at the moment, but who knows right now. Thing is, on the RFCU page, for "You want access to the checkuser tool yourself" it says "You may contact the Arbitration Committee, but due to legal and privacy concerns be advised that such access is granted by invitation only." That may be part of the problem, no offense Deskana.

(Ni!)

16:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, and asked and spoke to an arbcom member about it, and they didn't say no, but they've not said yes either. So we'll just wait and see. --Deskana (banana) 16:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That statement may be misleading. We consider requests, but anyone who watches RFAR knows full well how swiftly things get decided. Mackensen (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed that. Although VoA hasn't been around lately, and he usually handles a lot of them along with Dmc, who also has been inactive. But hey, least the logs are sort of getting cleaned up now.

(Ni!)

20:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at the talk page of this

00:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff AfD

Resolved

 – AFD closed

GRBerry

14:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

| The Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff AfD is being plowed by anon ips and suspected

19:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That is an ugly mess. No time to deal right now. I considered semi-protecting the AFD, but wasn't sure if I should.

GRBerry

22:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be 15 comments by IP editors in the AfD right now, which compares with 60 or more edits by logged-in editors. Unless the AfD closer is half-asleep, shouldn't he be able to sort this out when he closes? EdJohnston 23:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: Poindexter's analysis may shock you. Discretion advised http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Poindexter_Propellerhead/Sandbox/Afd James Luftan ^contribs 03:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to call attention to the disappearance of

07:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

See the current thread at WP:ANI#JzG -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 07:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheers! Dfrg.msc 07:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have username blocked User:维基百科不欢迎中国人!百度百科万岁!. This is not because it contains non-Latin characters, but because it translates from Chinese as "Wikipedia does not welcome the Chinese people! Baidu encyclopedia hell!" I feel this is both too long and unnecessarily combatitve for a username. Thoughts? Leebo ^T/C 13:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's disruptive, in violation of point 3 of

WP:UN. The block is appropriate. --Eyrian

15:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not "Baidu encyclopedia hell", but "Long live Baidu encyclopedia". I endorse the block. Kusma (talk) 06:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

So... does that mean the characters for "hell" and "long live" are similar? Pinball22 14:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please take the "protected from recreation" notice off

09:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. --DarkFalls ^talk 09:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I found a bunch of Wikipedian by politics categories and nominated all of them for deletion. I cannot see any use of the categories other than canvassing all editorial discussions. Please discuss the proposal at its CFD. Alex Bakharev 13:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I've moved the discussion

DrKiernan

14:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Can someone keep an eye on user:Childhoodsend? His edits to global warming and related articles have been uniformly negative. Other good contributors have to constantly take the time to respond to his false comments (I started making a list here). He edits wars on the topic, and generally is a negative influence on the articles. Raul654 13:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that William M. Connelly, one of our best editors on the subject, agrees fully with my assessment that CE is basically a huge time waster for the people who do productive editing on that topic. Raul654 14:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Arritt, another one of our best global-warming editors, posted his take on Childhoodsend's role: If people would ignore CE's provocations he'd likely go away and find his fun elsewhere. Unfortunately there is a steady stream of people who haven't twigged his MO, and keep

reacting to him. He's a strong net negative but clever enough to stay just within the rules. Raul654

14:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think a community ban for CE from global-warming related topics is in order. What does everyone think? Raul654 14:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Consider bringing that suggestion to
  dispute resolution might be a preferred route in this case. Best regards, Navou ^banter
  14:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

So much for Noam Chomsky... "If you're in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech" (1992)

I dont want to get involved in such a witch-hunt, but I would like to point out that my "negative" contributions have nonetheless led to reclassify at least 2 statements listed in

, among other things.

Oviously, I have not always been right, and some discussions I have raised or fueld have shown me to be wrong in the end. But then, who is always right?

I wish such a request by a WP administrator could not only be turned down, but declared improper to Wikipedia and its spirit of community and reconciliation of diverging viewpoints.

In any event and for whatever happens following this, my regards to all. --Childhood's End 14:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

(1 == 2)

14:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and I fully agree, but to deny this was not the point nor the essence of my previous edit. --Childhood's End 15:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, your previous edit is not contradicted by my previous statement.

(1 == 2)

15:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Per Navou's suggestion above, I have posted to the Community Sanctions Noticeboard Raul654 17:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Check out recent edits by Bason1. He's basically edit-warring against multiple editors. I've filed an

14:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

He's also been filing bogus AN3 reports & there's also a CheckUser ongoing. He's also immediately removing warning messages from his (two known, serially used) accounts and has some strange POV thing going on regarding Korea and Japan and the order in which names associated with them appear - Alison ☺ 14:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just blocked

Islands of Korea, as well as a number of other articles - Alison ☺

14:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Durova's latest article about Wikipedia

Durova's recent article The Right Way To Fix Inaccurate Wikipedia Articles got 762 Diggs. It's wildly popular. Many, many people read this. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a better place for this then the admin's noticeboard? I really don't think this needs admin attention/intervention or help of any kind. Secondly you should link to the actual article, not to dig. In any case, please find a better place for this. Congrats to durova for getting your theory published ;). ——

Need help?

06:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh its mentioned above by durova, I'm going to move this up there so it makes sense I suppose. Revert if you wish. ——

Need help?

06:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I moved this up here so this is with the actual section it belongs to. ——

Need help?

06:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this exactly needs administrator attention. I've posted here because this article demonstrates a way that we can help improve Wikipedia. Many of us are playing whack-a-mole with spammers and COI-impaired editors. Durova has found a way to fight spam and COI through public awareness and education. If you're not familiar with Digg, getting 762 votes is a huge accomplishment. I appreciate all that you do with automated spam detection systems, but that's only part of the solution. Social engineering to prevent spam at the source is also a valuable strategy. Our administrators need to be aware of this. That's why I've posted here. - Jehochman ^Talk 06:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I still disagree, there is not a darned thing I as an admin (with the buttons that is) can do. But hey, thats just my humble opinion. :) I would really suggest that this whole thing be moved to a page where non-admins are more likely to see and take action on.... Village pump or the old Community noticeboard (before it got changed into the community sanction noticeboard >.>). ——

Need help?

06:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Minor note: the article refers people to the

Counter-Vandalism Unit, which appears to be defunct (it was just deleted and restored as "historical"). MastCell ^Talk

16:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops, never mind. It's being discussed above and at

WP:MfD, and Durova has commented about the link from her article there. MastCell ^Talk

16:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Durova has some really fervent fans out there, judging from the comments section of those articles, and a couple of related ones. *headshake* Great articles, from what I've seen, and hopefully the spam community reads them and realizes how things can work for them around here. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

For some reason I can't fathom, when a non-Wikipedian complaining about an error or statement in Wikipedia is told that anyone can edit it, they often react with some variation on "Why should I?" As if complaining should be enough to make things happen. In a way, I've been spoiled by Wikipedia, & often find myself wishing I had the ability to fix typos and misspellings I see on many websites. It beats writing up a suggestion & hoping someone will act on it in the next few days! -- llywrch 22:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Eagle 101/FU

I just started listing all fair use images found outside of mainspace (see

Need help?

23:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of these images are in the Portal: namespace. What's the policy on fair use in Portal: space? Is that considered article namespace? WP:FUC doesn't say. — Edokter • Talk • 10:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If fair use images aren't allowed on the Main Page, I don't see any reason why it'll be allowed on portal... --DarkFalls ^talk 10:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images aren't allowed anywhere than the article namespace. Period. If

WP:NFCC doesn't clarify on the Portal namespace, we should fix it to reflect this understanding. — Moe ε

14:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually there are a few rare exceptions (and a process for exempting), see

WP:FUE. — xaosflux ^Talk

03:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I resolved those that were on subpages of Portal:Trains by removing them from there. Please let me know if there are any others that pop up on this portal. Thanks. Slambo (Speak) 18:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see

Need help?

06:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit

Note: Zscout370 went ahead and revived the page with the historical tag placed on it.

Recently Moreschi had decided to deleted the Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit because he felt the page was a bit defunct and encouraged a "para-military" stance toward handling vandalism. I sort of agree with Moreschi sentiment but honestly feel that this is a project that many Wikipedians may be concerned about if deleted with no discussion what-so-ever. Rather than wheel-war and restore the page, I feel that a little discussion on this board with other admins would help ultimately decide whether to keep this project page or not. According to the previously deleted talk page the deletion results of this Wikiproject were as follows:

This page was previously nominated for deletion:

• Speedy keep, 23 June 2006
• Speedily deleted, 29 August 2006
• Deletion overturned, 2 September 2006.
• Keep, 10 September 2006

¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I would have liked to have seen an MfD for this first, it's not covered by any speedy deletion criteria and many users would not want the page deleted. I'm all for being bold with things, perhaps this was just a little too bold. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think anyone will much care. Do you? It seemed pretty dead, as of late. People can speedily restore the CVU if they want - I don't mind - but I would prefer that they didn't unless they felt it really has a place on enwiki. IMO it had outlived its purpose. The place seemed nigh-on dead, anyway, so I don't think we're missing out on much. (AFAIK it also used to be Essjay's personal fiefdom, and it's always attracted controversy). Personally, I never saw it do anything useful, and

WP:RCP seems to cover everything your budding vandalwhacker needs to know. Moreschi ^Talk

21:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I would most probably comment to delete on an MfD, but many others will probably disagree with me. I would just like to see a bit of discussion here before we delete a wikiproject that many users claim to be members of. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. The page is still linked to by a large number of pages in both Wikipedia: and user: namespaces. Circeus 22:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Then remove the links. Majorly (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, people, it's not that hard! If you really, really want the CVU back, just restore it! But if you don't, then we don't need it. So, I didn't tick every box I'm supposed to. Big deal. If you want it back, fine. If not, process for the sake of process is evil. Moreschi ^Talk 22:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

To me, that sounds like...so I didn't follow process...who cares! Process is there for a reason. It's not generally accepted to delete pages just because you personally don't find them useful or that you find that it has outlived their purpose. That's not your call. It's the community's call. Attitudes like this is what leads to wheel warring and the idea in ordinary user's heads that admins are unchecked power hungry users. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This was a bad call- we have

WP:MFD for a reason. Mainly to cut down on the amount of drama caused by the deletions out of process. In the end they cause more drama and process than that which they seek to avoid. And the attack on a departed editor is completely unnecessary. WjBscribe

22:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Come on, you have my express permission to wheel war! No need for DRV! No need for teh drama! If you want it back, restore it - though I notice that no one here has expressed a deep love for the CVU yet. Moreschi ^Talk 22:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I find it odd that no-one has actually objected to the summary destruction of the CVU, but rather that it was deleted without an MfD. Frankly, if no-one actually cared about the continuing existence of the CVU, than an MfD would simply have turned into a fight between all the sane sensible people who saw an organisation who outlived its usefulness, and all those who invariably vote "Keep - is harmless". Such MfDs always cause bad blood, and if one could be avoided without bitter recriminations from the organisation's members, then that is great. Moreschi did the right thing. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The MfD for Esperanza was an unlimited fiasco all the way around. As far as the CVU is concerned, anyone can fight vandalism at any time. Belonging to the CVU (and advertising it) was just people's way of attracting attention to themselves. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, exactly. If someone wants it back, just restore it. I'm not fussed! But does anyone? Really? What relevance did the CVU have? It was virtually dead. Other pages have the relevant information. Does the CVU really belong here, in the modern enwiki? Does everyone love it that much? Moreschi ^Talk 22:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

How about restoring it, and tagging it as historical then? --Deskana (banana) 22:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That's brilliant Deskana, I see no problems with that.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

An excellent choice and likely to create less drama than a 5 day MfD and any subsequent deletion reviews. Nick 22:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That would work well, if there's any issues with it being tagged, then we can move to MfD. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we've had enough problem with organisations being tagged historical and then warred over for months that we should realise deletion is always the better option. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I realise this isn't what you mean at all Dev920, but I see a problem with this. Deleting it hides it from admins. Sure, it may reduce the drama, but it may also seem like administrators trying to supress things in such a way that non-admins can't do anything about it, which could cause drama on its own. --Deskana (banana) 22:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The only drama currently being raised here is by admins claiming that non-admins will be annoyed (I am certainly not). I have yet to see anyone, admin or non-admin, who has objected to the end of the CVU. Maybe we should wait until someone is actually annoyed and there is a problem before we start trying to propose solutions? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's only been deleted a few hours. There are now objections now, but there may well be later. --Deskana (banana) 22:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, yes, it is a problem when Wikipedia appears to be run by a process of individual fiat, "I decide, deal with it" followed up by cat-calls to sink to the same level. The only thing missing is "It's okay, I discussed it on IRC!" (which, by the way, he did). To quote Moreschi himself from his co-nomination at the

True or not, the fact that such a perception could exist is perturbing." It also seems odd that you're complaining about an edit war you helped to create, ahem. If you're waiting for someone to be annoyed, count me. That said, I support Deskana's proposal and Zscout370's implementation of it. – Luna Santin (talk

) 22:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not fair: discussion of the CVU on IRC happened only after I pressed the delete button. My decisions are mine and mine only. Moreschi ^Talk 08:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Why would it seem odd? I hated every minute of that dispute with Ed, as did everyone who had the displeasure of dealing with him, and its precisely because of that experience, and precisely because people such as yourself have deemed me an edit warrior because I refused to let someone extremely persistent disrupt the consensus of everyone else that I emphatically do not want anyone else to suffer the same. That fight happened because Esperanza was marked historical, against my advice, and if we're going into pre-emptive solutions, ouright deletion solved a heck of a lot of foreseeable problems. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a fair point. My obvious reply is probably the usual "takes two to edit war, go to dispute resolution blah blah" speech that tends to get thrown at people, but that assumes I understand everything about the past situation (I don't), and somewhat misses the point you're making. Hopefully we can avoid having that happen again, if we know what to look for. Apologies for the offense. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Accepted. Though I should point that we did go to dispute resolution, and consult the community several times, who came down on my side every time. Even the mediator admitted Ed was being disruptive. But water under the bridge and all that - he's no longer editing under that name, the page is stable, and there's so many interesting things to do... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I support the deletion, but I don't particularly support the method. About all the redirects- could they be pointed at Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol?-Wafulz 22:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Do we redirect all the CVU subpages back to the main page? —Kurykh 22:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No. I restored the page, marked it as historical, and since the last 50 or so edits were vandalism and reverts, I locked the page to admin only edit and move. I also put a note saying if people still wish to help with vandalism issues, they should read the RC Patrol page. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest a proper MfD be conducted, as other have said above. It removes all controversy. David Fuchs ^(talk) 22:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually an MfD might cause more controversy, with the same ultimate result. —Kurykh 22:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If anyone objects to the historical tagging, by all means, we'll MfD. An MfD is not a requirement in any way to tag something historical, you just do it, and if someone objects, you discuss it (at MfD or elsewhere). AMA actually went out with a whisper after going inactive and being tagged historical since no one really cared enough to fight it, I think the case may well be the same here. That's what the historical tag is for. (I do think at least for the moment the page should be unprotected, however, so that if someone does object they can actually remove the tag. Protection might give the mistaken impression that the matter is already done and decided.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The CVU has outlived it's usefulness and is basically unused. Delete or tag as historical, both describe the current situation, MFD for MFD sake is a waste of everyone's time. Why ratchet up process where none is needed?

RxS

23:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Several past MFD's has shown lack of consensus to kill this project, but that doesn't mean that moer MFD fun is needed. I've changed the {{

WT:CVU#Inactive.3F to discuss this with the project, rather then trying to hash it out on AN. — xaosflux ^Talk

23:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've restored to the July 23 version. Now before anyone starts steaming at the ears, please hear me out. In a column I wrote for Search Engine Land that got published this past Tuesday I recommended that project as a point of contact for editors who had a conflict of interest to request help with vandalism and watchlisting at pages they had qualms about editing directly. "Why would anyone hesitate to remove vandalism?" you might ask? Well, have a look at this news report from last month and

this scandal retrospective

.

It's relatively simple for us Wikipedians to watchlist that project and respond to requests as they appear, but it's bad form to delete the project and then mark it historical two days after that piece runs (and to do so with hardly any discussion at all). By and large that business community regards Wikipedians as a bunch of fickle kids. And today - to anyone who followed that link - that's exactly what we look like. Since we want these people to respect

WP:COI let's show some consistency about how to comply with our guidelines. Durova^Charge!

00:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that the name "Counter Vandalism Unit" may seem a bit... harsh, military, etc. And I'd support redirect to RC Patrol page. However, I feel there needs to be a place that new editors delving into the vandalism front are able to go for assistance or advice. I would certainly hate to see the entire "group" of people who have devoted their time and pledged to help clean up Wikipedia be "disbanded", but I do understand the concerns about the name, and questions about the usefulness. Whatever is decided, I hope something fills the gap. My biggest concern is the "vigilante" actions that seem to be taking place, with brand new users less than a day old, romping around placing level 3 and 4 warnings on pages for first offenses, without any regard to the offense type, and with no research into the user they are warning. Much of the time it is simply a new user's basic mistake, lack of knowledge, or simple experimentation. In some cases, it is established, valuable editors, and they certainly don't appreciate that kind of treatment. Certainly they are edits not worth of a "Stop now or you're getting blocked" message. That bothers me greatly, and without a community for people who want to learn how to handle vandalism properly to go to, I fear that may become more and more commonplace, and I wonder just how many potentially valuable editors have been (or will be) lost because of it. Ariel♥Gold 03:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd have no objection to a rename/redirect. In the longer term it may be a good idea to put together a COI wikiproject - someplace where people who have COI can come for assistance when they want to participate in accordance with site standards. I've been brainstorming ideas with a few editors toward that end. Durova^Charge! 04:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The name isn't the problem (I know it is supposed to be a play on the CTU unit that is on the American show "24.") While I have no feelings either way if the project lives or dies (I was invited to join the CVU when it first began, but passed) and I still don't see it as Essjay's little playground. If many of the users who are doing this now are gone or going to be on a break, and just duplicating the efforts of the RCP, then I think the groups should be combined. (About the new users who are doing the vandalism warnings too early, we can't do much to stop them. Even if we are not here doing this, they will still do it to play the Wikipedia MMO and grind their way to adminship.) User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

So, everyone's comfortable with a redirect to

talk

) 05:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A soft redirect, maybe. -- Ned Scott 05:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi just redirected the article, which I've undone. He cited consensus here (I see none, and there's certainly no consensus for such a redirect at the place where this discussion should be taking place: Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit#Inactive?) Waggers 08:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In one of the links above the vandalism wasn't recent at all. It sat on the page for four months until the congressman's staffers went to the press in desperation. CVU makes sense as a separate entity for situations where RC misses stuff on the first pass. Remember

John Siegenthaler, Sr.... Durova^Charge!

08:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Durova, the CVU is a virtually inactive project. Nothing happens there! You'd have been better off pointing the people who read your article to ANI, or even

WP:ASSIST. Moreschi ^Talk

08:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that the CVU actually does (or did) what you think it is good for? Kusma (talk) 08:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you have a better place to send people then by all means add a soft redirect to the better location. The basic question is, if some company sells widgets and RC misses some sneaky vandalism, where can that firm's PR folks go to lodge a legitimate, "We don't want to step in and muddy the waters, but would some people please cleanup and watchlist this?" And I guess I should add, it can't hurt to wait a week or two before implementing a change to see whether things pick up over there. Durova^Charge! 08:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, I came across something vaguely similar a while back. Some troll from a sports forum was adding very nasty stuff about the moderators to the article on the forum. On that occasion, the moderators turned up, very politely, at

this place, asking for help - which of course I gave. Strikes me ASSIST could deal with similar scenarios? Moreschi ^Talk

09:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

OTRS. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)}

08:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, MfD'd. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (4th nomination). Moreschi ^Talk 09:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Zscout, OTRS was the first resource I described. OTRS, however, doesn't watchlist articles to guard against future vandalism or issue userblocks on long term sneaky vandals. The two examples I highlighted were both U.S. congressional representatives, both incidents made statewide news, and neither article was getting watchlist attention. The one from South Dakota not only flew under our radar, the same IP vandal still causing trouble a year later and hadn't been blocked until I checked it out while researching the piece. Sure, there's a BLP noticeboard, but that only covers biographies. I respectfully request that you withdraw the MFD, Moreschi. Put this on the block in a month if things don't pick up - I've no objection to that - but it makes Wikipedia administration look foolish to create so much turmoil over this venue at this particular time. Durova^Charge! 14:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The users from OTRS that edit the articles watchlist them for future problems (I personally do that, but I am not sure how others will do it). Plus, OTRS users are administrators anyways, so we can lock pages and block users if needed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. If someone files OTRS about how many watchlist entries does that typically generate? Durova^Charge! 18:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

At least one, but we have other methods, such as IRC channels and mailing lists, that monitor OTRS related actions so we can observe changes made. Mailing lists are generally used for wide attention stuff. But I don't expect OTRS to do everything, plus people don't like it being all secret and stuff. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I really didn't think the MFD was needed right now, especially with Durova's mentions of the news article which names this Wikiproject specifically. After a reader finishes this article and comes to the CVU page; it looks a little controversial that the project is being run through an MFD. Not exactly the best impressions of editorials which praise Wikipedia.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

CVU versus RCP iconography, compared

• 
  Stop! No Independent thinking allowed. The Ruling Class knows best. You will be assimilated!
• 
  ♪Cleaning up the chess board♪ ♪Cleaning up the chess board♪ ♪Cleaning up the chess board♪ Hi!

El_C 06:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if this matters for the debate above or not, but I am sure we can change the iconography if needed. The CVU logo was changed a few times to excise Foundation-held trademarks and symbols. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well obviously Wikipe-tan is mopping up with with the usual CVU combo of mustard gas and BZ (aka me-get-busy), the mop handle as anyone 'in' the unit will tell you, disassembles and converts into an AK-47, the extra clip is in the pinney, but how exactly that encourages a para-military stance toward handling vandalism, I really don't know :p--Alf ^melmac 10:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Saw a comment above that bothered me a bit: "So, everyone's comfortable with a redirect to Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol?" (empahsis mine) What everyone are you referring to? You slap a declaration on an administrators noticeboard that a project is inactive, and suddenly this becomes truth? No input from project members who might not happen to be spending all their time scrolling through noticeboards to find such decisions being made? It disturbs me that the result of a non-publicized discussion on a noticeboard may have an effect on a Wikiproject like this. As was said above, this entire discussion basically belongs on the talk page of the project (which is NOT inactive by the way: please stop saying it is!) Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 21:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:SNOW

The discussion is around 80% keep. Any other outcome looks very unlikely. Snowball close, anyone? Durova^Charge! 00:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Working on it now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Done now, I went ahead and closed it as no consensus. My reasoning is this; there are some who want the project to be gone. There are some who want the project re-named or re-focused. (I like the refocus idea myself). A lot of the keep voters mainly wanted to keep it, because they think someone is going to restart it or that vandalism never dies, neither should we. I faced a similar experience when I tried to delete the Belarusian portal, my own creation. Using all of that, I closed it so the discussion going on the talk page of the CVU now can just continue without the cloud of deletion hanging over their head. That will, IMHO, cause for saner discussion and not having to worry about the Zerg-rush (sorry) of many clamoring voices. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)