Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive198

Needed: USB turntable in UK.

Long story short: I have two records, provably Public domain in both Britain and the US, that I'd like to have transferred for use on Wikipedia. One is a selection of opera recordings, the other the 1936 D'Oyly Carte Mikado. [Long story short: EU copyright law says that sound recordings enter the public domain 50 years after recording; These are from well before 1946, so they are out of copyright, even with the Uruguay Round Table Agreements making things annoying for US copyright for things in copyright after 1996.]

If anyone has a USB turntable, and lives in the UK (I'd rather not trust international mail), please contact me on my talk page. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Erm, try Craigslist or eBay? This really isn't the appropriate venue in any sense.... --MZMcBride (talk) 04:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, nobody said the T-word or the FU-words--why call this inappropriate? Steveozone (talk) 07:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't afford to buy one right now. I'm busy trying to improve the encyclopedia. That's why I want to mail someone the records. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I might be able to help. I've sent you an email. Leithp 14:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested as to what the T and FU words are. :/ weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

In the play "The Odd Couple", "FU" meant "Felix Unger" -- although Oscar initially misunderstood the meaning of the abbreviation. -- llywrch (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Cognition requesting unblock

Cognition (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is requesting an unblock. They had a pretty long rapsheet, but were indeffed back in May, 2006 based on multiple civility problems and repeated violations of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2. I have no background on the case, but am bringing it here for further discussion by anyone who may know whether or not this is a good idea. I am inclined to support an unblock at this time, especially if there is no evidence of sockpuppetry or dodging his initial block; 3 years may be enough to have learned his lessons. What does anyone else think? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Looks like a reasonable unblock to me. You'll keep an eye out I'm sure... ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Any unblock must be done with the topic ban in place. It would be crucial the someone ensure that he stays away from people he's had bad interactions with in the past. Note that one of the suspected socks (I'd like more details on how that was determined) was in Jan 2008. So it that's true, s/he hasn't simply been quiet for the last three years.

  I remember Cognition as a troublesome and uncivil editor. What reason do we have to believe that he's changed? Guettarda (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Three years and no sockpuppets found? Other than "where have they been?" I see no reason why an unblock cannot be done - as with another case, if the good faith of the community is abused then reblocking is a simple solution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• User:Cognition was one of the most extreme LaRouche editors we've seen, or could even imagine. He said British philosopher Bertrand Russell was planning a genocide, and the Queen was the "whore of Babylon." [1] Please read his magnificent statement to the ArbCom. It's odd that he'd want an unblock, rather than just creating a new account, which no one would notice if he behaved, so this sounds like drama-mongering. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There was a discussion on ANI regarding the blocking of User:The Noosphere in January 2008. [2] His other three accounts made few edits and were active immediately before he registered his main account. Compared to another person who edits in the same topic and has created dozens of socks (WP:LTA/HK), Cognition hasn't been a major puppet master. Regarding an unblock, has he said that he's learned his lesson? Since he was blocked for gross incivility, it'd be appropriate for him to return under a civility probation and/or mentorship, should he be unblocked.   Will Beback  talk  20:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Dang, he was right about about the world economy's being on the brink of collapse, though. Deor (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

As SlimVirgin implies above, there was a long-running dispute over attacks on living people on Cognition's user page, which he was using as a soapbox in violation of an ArbCom remedy. See this version: [3] Cognition did not seem to accept the idea that this is intended to be a neutral encylopedia.   Will Beback  talk  23:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yeah - I forgot about that lovely collection of his. Of course that was, iirc, before the BLP policy existed, so it was harder to deal with problems like that. He didn't "get" Wikipedia back in those days. At the very least I'd like to see some indication that he "gets" it now. Guettarda (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Prayware

Someone delete or afd this, it doesn't belong on an encyclopedia. 86.136.203.27 (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This matter is under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prayware 87.113.26.43 (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Administrator Advice

I'm seeking advice on an article. The video game Dissidia Final Fantasy has seen frequent edit warring in the past due to the English voice actors. The Japanese voice actors are directly named in the game itself in the credits, but the English version of the game isn't going to be released until August. Until then, trailers and gameplay clips are being released, and that's where the problem has begun.

To date, only two English voice actors have been confirmed in print, and those are sourced. Various other characters can be heard in the trailers, and in the community and forums and such, their VA's have largely been identified by ear. But, they haven't been identified any other way - so far, none of the other VAs except the sourced ones have a reliable, written source identifying them, but the article has repeatedly suffered vandalism as registered and anon users alike add unsourced claims to the article regarding VAs. At times I was removing such unsubstantiated infor on a daily basis, but the page is currently protected.

Now, in a few days the protection will expire, and I will go on the record to promise the anon vandalism will begin right where it left off. In the meantime, as arguments on the article's talk page will show, everyone is intent to add the VA information back to the article with no source but for the users recognizing the voices by ear. Short of permanent protection from all editing until the game comes out I can't think of anything to stop these sorts of edits, but I really don't want it to come to that, especially since with the game nearing release we likely will get reliable sources for VAs soon. So....what can be done? The Clawed One (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep protection going, warn everyone about WP:OR and start blocking if they keep it up? Realistically, perhaps add an comment in the section saying "do no add voice actors based on mere speculation, i.e. without a source. It will be reverted and considered vandalism. Repeating it may result in a loss of editing privileges." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've said "source it" repeatedly in edit summaries and on the talk page. The general reply to such on the talk page seems to be "but listen to the voice, that's so obviously him!", at which point I just feel like slapping someone. But thank you for the advice, I'll keep the reverting, and will get ready for the third protection request. The Clawed One (talk) 06:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Put the hidden comments on the page. Make it clear there. That might stop some people and those it doesn't stop will definitely be on a shorter leash. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Now, I say do it in a way that they can't not see it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This looks appropriate for use of an editnotice. Let me know if you need help. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if I shouldn't have taken this back from the Archives, but there's another side to the problem. Not only is the Dissidia page being vandalized in this manner, but many pages for the characters and the VA supposedly voicing them are being similarly edited. Am I just gonna have to watch two dozen pages now, or is there something else that can be done? The Clawed One (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

we can easily protect all of them till the film is released later this summer, after which this will become moot. DGG (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, protecting two dozen pages seems a bit drastic. Also, it's a video game, not a film. But yes, it comes out at the end of August and then this will all be over. Until then... The Clawed One (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want them protected, I'll do the work. Let me know.DGG (talk) 08:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Hobartimus

I am reporting user:Hobartimus for either some kind of nationalist bias or harassment of other users. I (initially as an IP, I have created an account now) have fixed an important legal mistake in two articles (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austria%E2%80%93Hungary&diff=300580727&oldid=300338411 and Kingdom of Hungary, talk:Kingdom of Hungary) and have even provided the text of the law in question, in which everybody can verify for himself that the law did not apply to Hungary. While user Hobbartimus seems to have recognized his mistake in the Kingdom of Hungary article (where the mistake was located in a footnote), he keeps reverting this in the Austria-Hungary article (where the mistake is the main text). In the Austria-Hungary article, I have also added "fact" tags, because the whole paragraph in question is IMHO nationalist POV - it should be deleted, but provision of sources would be acceptable as a last resort (so that anyone can see, who claims these things). I do not understand, why it is allowed to delete such tags, and why such tags exist then in the first place, when they can be deleted. In sum, the user exhibits a completely (or deliberately) irrational behaviour, I do not know how to deal with such people. I hope someone can help here. Thanks. Pantotenate (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Try to get consensus on your side in the article talk pages, and accept whatever consensus develops there - this appears to be a textbook case of a content dispute. Collect (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I have not been clear enough: The law in question , right in its first sentence, lists the countries for which it is valid, the country called Hungary is not included there (this is a standard case for almost laws adopted in Vienna in Austria-Hungary). The user keeps reverting both this simple fact and the source - i.e. the text of the law - I have added. Where is the content dispute? What exactly am I supposed to discuss here? Whether he is able to identify the countries listed in the law text? This is vandalism. I have also addessed him on the Kingdom of Hungary talk page, where he did not react and corrected the SAME error as discussed here (because there - unlike here - it was just a footnote which nobody can see). In addition he has deleted the fact tags I have added. Is that allowed? I suppose no... A content dispute would be, if there was some issue of interpretation or ideology or competing sources, but there is definitely no such problem here. Am I supposed to cite the whole introductory sentence of the text of the law in the article or what (although that would be ridiculous)? Pantotenate (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Review of HanzoHattori continued if illegal editing

HanzoHattori (talk · contribs) was permmbanned in Feb 2008. Since then, he has created several socks, and seems to keep returning to Wikipedia; there is no indication that he will ever stop. His newest sock, User:Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji, was just discovered and banned today (although I cannot seem to find the CU request/evidence page...?). Yet I am not posting to complain about futile attempts to keep him away; instead I am posting here in order to request the review of the permban on him. Long story short, it appears to me upon a cursory review that his socks have been performing constructive, not disruptive edits; none of his socks has violated our polices, been blocked of even warned for anything as far as I can tell - they were editing constructively for weeks or even months, up to the point they were banned upon being confirmed as socks of HH (presumably due to editing the same articles/subjects). An unban of him was proposed by another admin already few months ago (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive470#Productive_socks) and since than we have accumulated more evidence (based on his continued pattern of editing via socks) that he wants to be a constructive member of our community. He is making constructive content edits (creating and expanding articles), he is not edit warring, and doesn't seem to be flaming or otherwise disruptive (which IIRC was a major complain against HH). As such, I believe we should review his behavior once again, since its shows signs of improvement, and consider unbanning him, perhaps under some restriction/mentorship. In the end, if Hanzo wants to help us build encyclopedia in a constructive manner, without repeating his past mistakes (as he has shown us he can), why should we not allow him to do so? Not to mention that blocking his successive constructive socks is making a mockery of our ideals that blocks/bans and such should be preventative, not punitive. PS. I'd like to strongly encourage all who had bad experiences with HH to review his behavior in the past year and so instead of remembering old grievances. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No offense but are we looking at the same sock? OKSK has edit warred, been ridiculously uncivil (including after his block), and has not shown a single solitary sign that he has learned from his past mistakes, but instead continues acting exactly the same. He hasn't shown any desire to follow Wikipedia's guidelines and policies and his "good contributions" include tons of original research and copyvio's taken straight from IMDB! What constructive editing as he done? Making a glut of unsourced video game stubs? Sorry, but I support leaving the permaban in place, and I never had interaction with HH so I'm speaking only from new grievances, not old ones. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have the diffs for his edit warring and incivility? The only incivility I saw was after his block, which I consider understandable (which doesn't mean excusable, of course). I did review his video game articles, and they are fine - as noted in relevant discussion, there is no obvious copyvio. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring (for which he has a huge glaring warning on his talk page for and which is how I got introduced to him) was on Naga the Serpent[4]. His response to the warning? "oh geez, come on. Do we need a drama?" [5] I left him a sternly worded note about his attitude during the edit war with another editor (and his edit summary offering to violate copyright to prove his OR is still OR). In addition to falsely claiming he wasn't doing anything but rewriting what's there (when clear check shows he added OR content[6]), he basically responded with "No U are edit warring"[7], then saying he didn't write the info he added[8] implying another possible copyright violation. When the other editor started a discussion asking for reliable sources instead of just original research, OKSK responded demanding to have one item pointed out one thing "you EXACTLY have a problem with, I'll prove you wrong, and you will go away" even though the editor had already done just that[9]. Later, having received the warnings I already mentioned, he responds to calm, rational discussion with "I guess it may be done, but this is idiotic. I only tried to clean-up this article (actually deleted only the stupid stuff about how cosplaying Naga is banned), then cleaned-up more and asked what exactly I'd have to prove, got a warning and you guys ganged-up on me, so now go and play but without me. Bye."[10] (but of course continued the conversation).

In Talk:Game Over (video game), his "starting a discussion" on his marking the article as censored, along with post a picture of a human nipple.[11]. He was asked to actually post a clear discussion of what he felt was wrong with the article[12], and instead asked if nipples were evil and later continuing to dodge the issue of what he actually felt was wrong with the article.[13][14] He left a note on the talk page of another editor he was disagreeing with using "You're doing it wrong" as the subject and a message of "Look what you're doing." (with no context, anything)[15] With another, he left a note saying "Please stop lying. Thank you"[16] in response to that editor having left him a note asking him to conform to the MoS and explaining why his edits to Jonestown were reverted[17] Said article was Jonestown, another place he edit warring in which two different editors reverted his image moving[18]. His history really speaks for itself. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Few reverts don't equal edit warring, but if you think his return should be conditional upon 1RR restriction, that may be a good idea. As for his talk posts, they are a bit childish sometimes, but I am not seeing any serious personal attacks? But again, a civility parole and a mentorship could be beneficial for him. The point is that a user who is mostly editing constructively can benefit from our attempts to reform him, and the project will benefit from that more then from banning and rebanning user who is, most of the time, peacefully working on good content articles (ex. Lublin Ghetto). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Must say I am absolutely (not) amazed that Piotrus is going in to bat for the foul-mouthed editor that was HanzoHattori. Evidence? Look at the block logs...for example. User talk:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog/Archive 1 is full of warnings and blocks for edit warring, uncivility, etc. User talk:RamboKadyrov is full of typical HH tirades, telling the community at large fuck you on no less than 6 occasions -- this is brilliant and typical of why this user should never see the light of day again -- Quote -- "I think I am one of the best and most active users but I never looked for recognition for all my work (never cared to be whatever moderators are called here), but now I'm called "sock puppet" by some idiots (fuck you, your mother is a sock puppet) and barred from working, repeatedly. So, either I am officially allowed to return and someone says "sorry for that" to me, or fuck you, Wikipedians, for the last time.". I say let this child continue to say "Screw you guys... I'm going home!" and continue to block their socks at every opportunity. --Russavia ^Dialogue 00:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Unlike Collectonian and Russavia, I interacted with Hanzo for years, and he was one of the most dedicated and productive content editors I have ever seen. While editing under several accounts, he made around 70,000 edits and created hundreds new articles (some precise data can be provided if needed, this is only a tip of the iceberg). I am mostly familiar with his contributions on Russia, Caucasus and Chechen wars related articles. I thought he lived in this area - so intimately he was familiar with the subject (I personally visited North Caucasus many times as a hiker/mountaineer). Hanzo was very cooperative, and we talked a lot about editing a number of articles. He did high quality work, as one can see, for example, from Beslan school hostage crisis, where he was one of chief contributors. He was very cooperative with me. If we decided to create an article, it was enough just to start it, as he was coming to help (see this article, for example). He was a very neutral editor and corrected my POV many times. But there was another side of the coin. He worked with extreme dedication (sometimes 15 hours non-stop) and definitely overworked here. He also had a lot of trouble explaining what he is doing to others, especially if they were not familiar with the subject (I remember helping him to explain others the difference between War crimes, Crime against peace and crimes against humanity). This led to tensions when he had a trouble controlling himself, which ultimately led to his ban. He also has an unfortunate habit of using foul words on talk. I would strongly support him coming back, but only under two conditions. First, he should make a promise and really to make an effort towards more polite and cooperative conversation with other users (I personally had no trouble communicating with him, but some others did). Second, he probably needs a mentorship and some form of civility parole.Biophys (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes the administrators face a tough dilemma: an editor who is obviously dedicated and able to contribute productively, yet who also--one way or another--has difficulty within a consensus environment. Per Wikipedia:Standard offer HanzoHattori seems like the kind of editor who would be a good candidate for a return, yet would go about it a different way than this. Overall, we've gotten better results in the past from bringing back banned editors who went several months without socking, than by unbanning in spite of recent socking. So here's an offer: if HanzoHattori goes six months without socking at all, or makes at least 500 productive and unproblematic edits at another WMF site within the next three months, then at the end of the time frame I will initiate an unban discussion for him and support his return. If he wishes, he is welcome to participate at any of the three sister projects where I am a sysop (Commons, Wikisource, or Wikinews), although any WMF site would be fine. Best wishes, Durova²⁷³ 18:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Could somebody inform Hanzo of this? He gave no indication he is following this thread, and due to his block, he obviously cannot reply here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Normally I wouldn't support unbanning someone (indeed, someone who's sock puppet I've been reverting), but having checked Piotr's arguments, I tend to agree with Durova on the solution.

if HanzoHattori goes six months without socking at all, or makes at least 500 productive and unproblematic edits at another WMF site within the next three months

looks fine to me. E.g. Polish, Russian or some other wiki (I have no idea of which nationality he is in fact) would be OK, too? --Miacek (t) 15:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with him coming back, as long as he is placed on 1RR and civility parole upon his return, for a period of at least 6 months. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Serious Issues and Pervasive Abuse involving Falun Gong and related articles

I will try to be as concise as possible here. Firstly, what I am about to bring up is a systemic, on-going, pervasive issue about the POV and disruptive editing issues present within articles related to Falun Gong. It has become very serious over the past few years, and I don't know if this is the right place to go. The amount of POV-pushing on Falun Gong and its related family of articles (Li Hongzhi, Persecution of Falun Gong etc.) has grown to a point where it needs dire attention from not only an administrator, but much higher Wikipedia authorities. Questions you may ask at this point are:

1. What has been done about this issue in the past?

- Numerous editors have reported instances of pervasive pro-FLG editing habits by several users to this noticeboard, to the Arbitration Committee, and various other Wiki-policy enforcing authorities. An arbitration on this issue has been conducted before, but its rules have not been enforced. In fact, if you search the administrator's archives, the issue of constant pro-Falun Gong editing has been mentioned no less than on ten separate occasions. None of the resolutions have yet become effective in keeping the contents of these articles NPOV.

2. What exactly are the issues here?

• Disruptive editing, severe degrees of Wikilawyering, whereby sources critical of Falun Gong are constantly removed, regardless of where they are from.
• POV-pushing. A read through the article and you will see that some of the POV-laden phrases are hidden quite subtly, are within the boundaries of the letter of applicable policies, but are outright against the spirit of these policies.
• Article ownership. Critical responses to Falun Gong on the talk page have been constantly defended by four specific editors.
• Abuse of other users. A look through the archives of the talk page (of which there are now 24), it is apparent that many editors have been branded as "agents of the Communist Party of China" and discredited as such. Much of the responses to any postings critical of Falun Gong involves very personal attacks, or personal swaps at credibility.
• Various other abuses that are visible as soon as you take a look through the article's edit history and the history of its talk pages.

3. How can we verify that this is true, and not just an attempt at reverse POV-pushing in itself?

• Go visit the article's edit history beginning around 2005, and especially since 2008. Visit the article's some 24 archives of disputes, unseen anywhere else on Wikipedia.
• For one, the users that have taken ownership of the Falun Gong article have gotten very adept at bypassing Wikipedia policies. They will likely come to this very noticeboard after I post this notice and attempt to defend themselves vehemently. In the event this happens I urge you to listen to every word of their defence and assess their credibility yourselves.

4. What is being proposed at fixing the issue?

• As other options have been attempted in the past and have been exhausted, an investigation led by neutral, third-party administrators or higher Wikipedia authorities, must be conducted thoroughly into the sheer abuse of Falun Gong and its related articles by Falun Gong and its related editors.
• The issue is extremely serious. It would not be unfair to say that the continued existence of the articles in their current state severely compromises Wikipedia's credibility in these controversial topics. To my knowledge, nothing of this scale has ever occurred on Wikipedia. It has persisited for several years now and will continue if nothing is done. Something enforceable must be done.

Colipon+(T) 20:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

To be honest? I think that, without even looking at the dispute, I think there may be an issue here. Wikipedians tend to be, among other things, a little too pro-Amnesty International. An admirable real-life stance, but on Wikipedia taking AI's word as gospel can severely affect neutrality; they have a bias themselves. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, in many cases the only thing approaching objective reporting on the cases AI reports is AI itself. (Responses like this one, while of interest to some users of Wikipedia & worth a link, don't merit more than a passing reference.) Where there is a more-or-less independent news media, Wikipedians can -- & obviously should -- present other points of view on the case. -- llywrch (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I would draw your attention to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong. You may wish to review the findings, and see whether they encompass your complaints above and whether the principles expounded are being adhered to (it doesn't matter if the parties names are different). If you believe the principles or findings are being violated you may take up the matter with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, and if you believe that the findings and principles require clarification then you may find Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification useful. If none of these seem to resolve your concerns you might consider opening a new Request for Arbitration. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm one of the accused. It would probably do no good to give a point-by-point response. I welcome an investigation into both my conduct and editing behaviour, and into whether the Falun Gong article adheres to wikipedia's content guidelines and is an accurate reflection of reliable sources on the topic. Let's hash it out. (note: the page in question has mostly been in its current form for about two years) What's next? --Asdfg12345 04:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I will comment briefly: the Falun Gong articles mostly contain references to high-quality academic sources, many of them peer-reviewed. As a rule of thumb, such sources do not resort to sensationalism, and seek to understand Falun Gong based on fieldwork, facts and solid arguments. This is apparently very disturbing to those who have different notions. In most cases, such editors have been unable to back up their views with credible and verifiable sources (for instance, we've had endless discussions about the personal website of Rick Ross, who clearly fails WP:RS). Referring to Wikipedia policies and guidelines frequently gets called "wikilawyering" and "rule-page bashing" (without concrete elaborations on the accusation), because the proponents of fringe views a) are usually not familiar with the Wiki policies and what they entail, b) find it frustrating that the "other party" is able to back up their claims by references to existing policy, c) are on the losing side of almost any debate, because their sources do not qualify, and what prominent academics say is not consistent with their anti-Falun Gong ideology. Just like Asdfg12345, I welcome any outside investigators. Enjoy yourselves — this is an interesting show. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 09:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

apart from the admin fireStar, who may have retired, basically all those who edit those articles are SPAs: either devotees of this organisation, or strongly pro-CCP/nationalist people. The articles are basically always going to be a joke, more or less. ArbCom can't change this, apart from deleting the article, unless they decide to read up on FLG (or anyone else) and fix it themselves. This actually would apply to a lot of new religious movements. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 13:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with most of the sources currently used in the Falun Gong articles. As for myself, I am not a "devotee" of any "organisation", and I find such labels insulting. I practice Falun Gong, just like some people practice tai chi or martial arts; I have never joined any organisation, as there is no organisation to join. I am also majoring in religious studies, and I am well-read in the scholarly works on the topic. I know the Wikipedia standards of conduct, and I know what it means that Wikipedia is a tertiary source. As long as all sides adhere to the rules and justify their stances through references to policies and guidelines, the articles will naturally be good and comprehensive.

Objectivity and neutrality are methods in themselves: a fair and balanced article does not mean equating low-ranking sources with high-ranking sources. Wikipedia has explicit criteria by which to judge the quality of a source. Even in their present form — which undeniably leaves some room for improvement — the articles are far from being a "joke". They contain references to most top researchers in the field and quite accurately describe their position. Abstract accusations and generalisations cannot help us get forward; we need people with a rigorous, methodical attitude, tangible suggestions, reliable sources, convincing arguments, knowledge of the policies and guidelines, and good faith. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 13:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey, I would welcome you to point out how, exactly, the Falun Gong fails to comply with wikipedia's content policies. You have read it, haven't you?--Asdfg12345 18:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for admin help in creating an archive page for my talk page

Hello. I would like to create the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jamielang77/Archive3. Wikipedia is not allowing this; but says I need to get admin permission. Could I get some help, please? Thank you for any assistance/direction. Jamie L.^talk 03:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

 Works for me see User talk:Jamielang77/Archive3. MER-C 04:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Sounds like it might have hit the title-blacklist somehow. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, MER-C. Yes, Stifle, I was running into the title being blacklisted. Regards, Jamie L.^talk 16:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

New user makes request

I'm new to "Wiki" but I've just registered an account . I want to request whoever responsible to "EDIT" The Republic Of Ghana's political history, the later part between 1996-2008 . I will give you a clue; Lieutenant Jerry John Rawlings won elections 1992(4yr term) and 1996(4yr term).In year 2000 elections John Agyekum Kuffuo won the electon two terms 2000-2008 . Current it is Arthur Mills in power after winning the recent election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OWUSU-BOATENG (talk • contribs) 09:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It does look like Kuffuo or John A Kufour as the Electoral Commission of Ghana states [19] won in 2000 & 2004. And that fact is covered well in theHistory of Ghana article and the President of Ghana article. The main article can't possibly contain all of the details, which is why there are sub-articles. You perhaps should discuss this on the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Ghana was indefinitely semi-protected more than a year ago. Protection is now removed. Thatcher 17:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Request review of MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist request

I left a request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#astore.amazon.com/onthemargins-20/detail/0029347807 for white-listing (rather than WP-blocking) the site, that is, URL

http://astore.amazon.com/onthemargins-20/detail/0029347807

That site contains an extensive sole-source excerpt of ch. 1 from the book Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications by Oliver E. Williamson. Action on the request was in the "not done" category with the note 2 Edits later that:

I'm still not convinced; if another admin viewing here thinks differently they can go ahead and add it. Stifle (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Upon the generous counsel of Stifle yesterday at User talk:Thomasmeeks#MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#astore.amazon.com/onthemargins-20/detail/0029347807, I am seeking a review of my request. I have found only 2 subsequent admin actions of any kind at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist since June 21 other than by Stifle, suggesting that the request might have been overlooked rather than rejected.

I did add a note on June 21 after Stifle's ccmment at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#astore.amazon.com/onthemargins-20/detail/0029347807, bottom. It makes the case for the request succinctly and I hope more clearly trhan before. Thank you for your consideration. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Unrelated to the above but related in general, why don't we funnel all our Amazon links through an affiliate link (which would be the only whitelisted one, so no one could do any games) that funneled to the WMF directly for the profits to be 'donations'? rootology (C)(T) 21:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Portal image

Might be a good idea to protect File:Wikimedia-button1.png. It is used at the bottom of http://www.wikipedia.org - Gurch (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

And File:Bookshelf-40x201 6.png. Seriously, is nobody keeping track of these things? Gurch (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No. I'm on the phone to Grawp as we speak... you might get a better response at WP:RFPP. Majorly talk 19:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I got a five-minute response for the first one, I usually get three to five hours for protection requests done the normal way. Gurch (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Second image protected too. EyeSerene^talk 19:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yikes. Thanks for the heads up. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking into this further, the images on the portal are scattered across enwiki, commons, and meta; looks like several of them are protected only by virtue of being transcluded on commons:Main Page, which is cascade protected. Didn't find any other currently unprotected images, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Did everyone just forget about WP:BEANS? Nobody did it because it hasn't been used that way before. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Unilateral banning of everyone one side of an editing dispute

One noticeboard is enough, thank you. This can now be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Admins vs contributors, where the context is more apparent and the discussion was already occurring. Uncle G (talk) 23:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Question

Resolved

 – The user in question has had their username change request processed; the account no longer has an offensive name. Other issues (edit warring, incivility) can be dealt with seperately now --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to pose this question to my fellow admins: If a user is blocked for an inappropriate username, then requests unblocking to change their name and the request is granted, is it ok for the editor to request their username change, then continue editing before the username change is put into effect? Toddst1 (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably a tough call. If the user filed a properly formatted username change request in good faith, then they probably have no reason to avoid editing. Have you judged the quality of their edits? Are they generally disruptive, or are they editing in good faith? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It's actually more complicated. The editor Fhue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked for 31 hours for edit warring, then the block was changed to indef for username violation. After unblocking to file a username change, the editor filed the name change request but editor returned to the previous conflict, (on a talk page this time). I reblocked because the unblock was specifically to change username and I'm questioning my own action.

To answer the question more directly, the confrontational user has a confrontational username. Toddst1 (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

In interests of full disclosure, I undid Toddst1's reblock (rather brashly). IMO, it is not unreasonable to ask an editor with a particularly offensive username to refrain from editing until they are renamed... but if that isn't done, we should stick to what we say. This case was further complicated by the fact that the new username the user picked was taken, and the request is now at WP:USURP. It's been approved but won't be carried out until July 14th. Mangojuice^talk 04:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. I was trying to keep it as simple as possible and to be sure, I am not questioning Mango's action here. Toddst1 (talk) 04:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I marked this one resolved, as the name change request has been processed so this is no longer an issue. If other issues with this user exist, they can now be dealt with seperately, as this is no longer a valid problem. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sure that microbiologists around the world will sigh in dismay to learn that Wikipedia administrators think that FhuE, the E. coli receptor protein for ferric coprogen, is a "particularly offensive" word that mustn't be used on talk pages. Either that or they'll laugh. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 05:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Editcounter

The editcounter is displaying "Gateway Timeout - Processing of this request was delegated to a server that is not functioning properly." preventing access. Browser = Safari. Don't know if this is a browser problem or something; but the edit counter has been apparently down from the start of July 7. Shannon1^{talk contribs} 01:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest posting this at the Technical Village Pump? We're pretty knowledgeable over there, and this problem has hardly anything to do with administrators. Most importantly, however, what edit counter are you referring to? See here for a list of them. Thanks, The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 01:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Should be working now. Mr.Z-man 02:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD in need of admin action

Resolved

 – deletion discussion closed, result was delete. Consensus was pretty clear; only support came from the article creator, who likely had a WP:COI. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Can an admin either close or relist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Mehr (2nd nomination)? It appears the nomination was never properly finished and thus didn't appear on the deletion log for June 29. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Since it was relisted, it is now properly shown in the deletion log for July 6. Looks OK to me. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

My bad, I apparently missed the re-list notice. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: RFA reform

I have created a proposal for reforming many aspects of RFA, including some new processes, in order to address what I have seen as the major ways in which the process is severely bent if not actually broken.

The proposal is here, talkpage here.

I have kept this in userspace for now as I feel it would only make sense to put it in projectspace if any parts are generally approved by the community and edited to reflect such possible approval. I would have no objection to the pages being moved out of my userspace if someone else thinks I am mistaken in that. I invite discussion from all sides. Crossposted at WP:VPP, WT:RFA, WP:AN. Please repost if I have missed anywhere. → ROUX ₪ 06:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Question

Resolved

 – The user in question has had their username change request processed; the account no longer has an offensive name. Other issues (edit warring, incivility) can be dealt with seperately now --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to pose this question to my fellow admins: If a user is blocked for an inappropriate username, then requests unblocking to change their name and the request is granted, is it ok for the editor to request their username change, then continue editing before the username change is put into effect? Toddst1 (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably a tough call. If the user filed a properly formatted username change request in good faith, then they probably have no reason to avoid editing. Have you judged the quality of their edits? Are they generally disruptive, or are they editing in good faith? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It's actually more complicated. The editor Fhue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked for 31 hours for edit warring, then the block was changed to indef for username violation. After unblocking to file a username change, the editor filed the name change request but editor returned to the previous conflict, (on a talk page this time). I reblocked because the unblock was specifically to change username and I'm questioning my own action.

To answer the question more directly, the confrontational user has a confrontational username. Toddst1 (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

In interests of full disclosure, I undid Toddst1's reblock (rather brashly). IMO, it is not unreasonable to ask an editor with a particularly offensive username to refrain from editing until they are renamed... but if that isn't done, we should stick to what we say. This case was further complicated by the fact that the new username the user picked was taken, and the request is now at WP:USURP. It's been approved but won't be carried out until July 14th. Mangojuice^talk 04:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. I was trying to keep it as simple as possible and to be sure, I am not questioning Mango's action here. Toddst1 (talk) 04:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I marked this one resolved, as the name change request has been processed so this is no longer an issue. If other issues with this user exist, they can now be dealt with seperately, as this is no longer a valid problem. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sure that microbiologists around the world will sigh in dismay to learn that Wikipedia administrators think that FhuE, the E. coli receptor protein for ferric coprogen, is a "particularly offensive" word that mustn't be used on talk pages. Either that or they'll laugh. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 05:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Editcounter

The editcounter is displaying "Gateway Timeout - Processing of this request was delegated to a server that is not functioning properly." preventing access. Browser = Safari. Don't know if this is a browser problem or something; but the edit counter has been apparently down from the start of July 7. Shannon1^{talk contribs} 01:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest posting this at the Technical Village Pump? We're pretty knowledgeable over there, and this problem has hardly anything to do with administrators. Most importantly, however, what edit counter are you referring to? See here for a list of them. Thanks, The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 01:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Should be working now. Mr.Z-man 02:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD in need of admin action

Resolved

 – deletion discussion closed, result was delete. Consensus was pretty clear; only support came from the article creator, who likely had a WP:COI. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Can an admin either close or relist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Mehr (2nd nomination)? It appears the nomination was never properly finished and thus didn't appear on the deletion log for June 29. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Since it was relisted, it is now properly shown in the deletion log for July 6. Looks OK to me. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

My bad, I apparently missed the re-list notice. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: RFA reform

I have created a proposal for reforming many aspects of RFA, including some new processes, in order to address what I have seen as the major ways in which the process is severely bent if not actually broken.

The proposal is here, talkpage here.

I have kept this in userspace for now as I feel it would only make sense to put it in projectspace if any parts are generally approved by the community and edited to reflect such possible approval. I would have no objection to the pages being moved out of my userspace if someone else thinks I am mistaken in that. I invite discussion from all sides. Crossposted at WP:VPP, WT:RFA, WP:AN. Please repost if I have missed anywhere. → ROUX ₪ 06:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing on Lyme disease

Resolved

 – Unfortunate co-incidence in timing. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

See this forum. Coincidentally User:Simesa just opened a RfC on the talkpage to address "NPOV issues" and stated that they were basing their complaints on "comments from others in another forum" (diff). Could somebody talk to Simesa about canvassing? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This has been an issue before (see most of Talk:Lyme disease/Archive 3) - not with Simesa in particular, but with extensive off-wiki canvassing, activism, sockpuppetry, and meatpuppetry designed to use Wikipedia to further a specific agenda at Lyme disease. Outside eyes headed this off in the past and would be useful again. I suppose that editors or admins thinking of getting involved should be aware that emotions on the subject run high. MastCell ^Talk 19:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Are you suggesting that one of the forum posters is Simesa? Although off-site recruiting and POV pushing of fringe material is an old problem on the Lyme Disease article (exacerbated by the fact that the Lyme activists/conspiracy theorists seem to think we're all in the pay of the US political-military complex), as long as Simesa is editing within Wikipedia rules and isn't a sock of one of the many blocked editors that have haunted that page, I don't know that there's much we can do. If they become disruptive by trying to circumvent WP:UNDUE, edit-war over content, or game consensus, that's another matter. EyeSerene^talk 19:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

PS: forgot to mention that I've watchlisted the article and will be happy to help out with the tools if required - give me a kick if I'm not paying enough attention ;) EyeSerene^talk 19:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Writing this up, I've decided there's enough evidence to strongly suggest sockpuppetry, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Simesa. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Could be - FIKL advocates socking on the forum, and I remember that name... though having looked at Simesa's edit history, it's unlikely. EyeSerene^talk 19:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, probably a case of Simesa making a well-intentioned attempt to deal with issues raised by people that they know from this forum. However, as the original poster did state that they'd been banned, I've reminded Simesa about the dangers of appearing to edit on behalf of a banned user. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that's the most likely interpretation. However, your reminder about the possible consequences of proxying - even if done in good faith - is timely. In the light of your second diff above and the history of fringe-group activism on that article, I'd also urge Simesa to be scrupulously careful about their edits on Lyme disease and punctilious in selecting reliable sources to support them. Proposing them on the talk-page to gauge consensus, before applying WP:BOLD might be a very good idea ;) EyeSerene^talk 20:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a misunderstanding - I meant a forum outside of Wikipedia. I'm on the Mensa forums, two Lyme-Aid groups (who did not ask me to edit here), Facebook, and several other "forums". No Wikipedia editor or reader asked me to edit Lyme disease. I've heard of sock-puppets but never known one personally. I've only known one Wikipedia editor who had to be temporarily suspended (let alone banned), and that was partly through my actions.

I asked for an RfC because, frankly, it seemed obvious that unbiased eyes were needed. Since, as I recall, the article is semi-protected I thought we were guaranteed of getting experienced ones.

Although, based on both research and personal experience (my wife now has chronic Lyme disease despite many weeks of doxycycline), I am concerned that the Lyme disease article seems so heavily slanted in favor of laboratory studies as opposed to actual patient experiences I am still not unduly worried - the real action on this topic is now at the federal level. I fully expect that the article will have to be 60% re-written in maybe 18 months. Simesa (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

ADDENDA - Just looked at the link. I didn't know that Healingwell.com existed. Simesa (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm still a bit confused, when you said "comments from others in another forum", which forum were you referring to and who made these comments? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to modify a statement above - My wife has done far more informal reading and research about Lyme disease than I have, and I had her double-check her notes and e-mails. We found that a number of months ago she joined Healingwell.com, but has not posted to them nor received posts from them (after the initial "hellos"). As for her reading the website she says she hasn't since joining, but I have no way to verify that. (This may seem like an odd post, but I have a policy of correcting all errors.) Simesa (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm running a check so as to accurately answer Tim's question with correct times. Simesa (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The check has taken over a half hour so far and hasn't completed. I'm continuing it, but won't be able to monopolize our line endlessly. Simesa (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The check is taking too long to wait for completion, I'll just report the times as shown. Specifically, the forum I saw a note on was Yahoo's Lyme-Aid group. My first edit on Lyme disease was at 07:05 on 27 June. I made a change there at 14:19 on 5 July and then worked on a large number of changes that I posted cumulatively at 21:44 on 5 July (dial-up is a slow way to research and I have to share the line)(times are as reported in my Wikipedia histories, which are 1 hour earlier than current Eastern Time). The (on the Yahoo group) post "Wikipedia entry on Lyme" was made at 19:15 on 5 July by a "Sara R..." (I can't tell what that time means, if it is when entered or when actually shown or Eastern or Pacific) - in any event, I didn't see it on 5 July as I was researching (my attention was called to it the next day). Simesa (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, that checks out fine. Unfortunate coincidence that two people on different forums were trying to recruit advocates simultaneously, one a banned user. You might tell Sara that it wasn't the case that "Wormser" wrote the article, it is just that we have to follow WP:NPOV and report what the reliable sources state on a topic. You might also point her in the direction of WP:TRUTH, but she might not see the humour in that essay. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Tim. By the way, my check finally completed long after I'd gone to bed (my wife stays up later, partly due to Lyme pain) - the Yahoo group time is when shown on the board (current Eastern Time). (I had to change this note after double-checking - my wife's note is wrong.) Simesa (talk) 09:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of completion (I'm somewhat anal-retentive on getting details right), I need to modify the above statement. Each Yahoo post apparently comes with TWO times. Inside the post is the time when submitted (which for Sara R...'s post was 19:15 on 5 July). On the list of posts page is the time that the post is actually shown - which for Sara R...'s post was 04:05 on 6 July (which is similar to the delay my own check experienced). I apologize for the confusion. Simesa (talk) 10:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible problem link

Resolved

Can someone check the link that User:Goatsemarathon posted on their userpage, as I suspect it's NSFW (which is where I am)? The name popped up at UAA and I doubt the user is here to contribute anything useful. TNXMan 13:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Definitely NSFW and non-encyclopedic. It's exactly what you think it is.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Just as I thought. Page deleted and user warned. Thanks, Fabrictramp. TNXMan 13:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have indef blocked the account as a vandalism only user, although the account could have been blocked as a username violation. Edison (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Mr Taz

I'd like to bring to your attention the constant stream of misleading/nonsense redirects, edit warring and other unacceptable behaviour by Mr Taz. The following examples are really just the tip of the iceberg.

Yesterday the redirect England Government, one of a number tagged by me which had been created by Mr Taz, was speedily deleted by Tnxman307. Twenty four hours later, it reappeared, the work of the same editor. This is not the first time he has done this with his highly original and misleading redirects (see his Talk page), about 80 of which I had speedily deleted a couple of months back. He also engages in edit wars to reinstate the indefensible, such as "national days" invented by him (see Talk:British Day and also the edit history of Foundation Day) etc etc. Despite having been banned for a week for his edits at the latter he was back again today trying to reinstate his imaginary "Foundation Days", as this edit shows. His latest creations included Flag of Great Britain and Ireland as a redirect to Flag of the United Kingdom. I've got so tired of it that I now tend to let the purely nonsense or illiterate redirects such as Regional Development Agency for the Yorkshire and the Humber ‎ (redirected to Yorkshire Forward) pass by as I just don't have the time to keep up with it all. Other recent POV (not sure exactly what it is!) redirects include Great British Central Bank ‎and Great Britain Central Bank (redirected to Bank of England). I should add that these redirects, together with minor edits, are all that Mr Taz "contributes" here. He just will not listen to reason. Something needs to be done about this; all he is doing is creating work for others who have to deal with his edits. Could you please look into this, bearing in mind that much of the worst has been deleted so isn't on his contributions log? Administrators involved thus far include DGG, Bencherlite and Tnxman307. Enaidmawr (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the imaginary "Days", you might also consider these requested articles, just posted. Enaidmawr (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with the pattern of edits pointed out by Enaidmawr. Many of these redirects are not helpful. See, for example, Governor and Company of the Bank of England (which redirects to Bank of England) or James VI of Scotland and James I of England (which redirects to James I of England) and are very unlikely search terms. TNXMan 17:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm off to check WP:ANI's archives, but I think there was an issue with Mr Taz raised there (maybe even here) in the past month or so - a mission to invent "foundation days" for the United Kingdom and also the Kingdom of Great Britain. The consensus at the time, if I recall correctly, was that it was bizarre behaviour. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Aye, and apparently I got involved, which is obviously why it rang a bell ;-) Full gory details here: Mr Taz was blocked for a week. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Enaidmawr about this long standing disruption of Wikipedia by this editor. For further background into the Foundation Day edit war in particular, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive542#Persistent disruption by Mr_Taz, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive544#Continued disruption by Mr Taz and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 May 8 (top two entries). Since the beginning of March Mr Taz has embarked on his disruptive crusade to add a day or days he has made up to the Foundation Day disambiguation page, and despite two previous blocks for edits to that page or closely related to it, today he returned to his usual disruptive ways and added his nonsense again. I believe it is time he was told that any further attempts to add those days to that page will result in a block. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It isn't only redirects, it's all sort of needless or plain wrong little changes,e.g. [20]. some of the work he does here is useful e.g. [21], or [22] I even think some of the redirects are defensible--as East New Jersey. But the general pattern shows lack of judgment, and the insistence on them is unconstructive. (I finally protected the "English Government" redirect to prevent re-creation--but there are 100s of them. ). I don't think he's working in bad faith, but I don't know how to get him to understand. DGG (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Bleargh, I'm currently working through his contribs and reverting the crap (like his bizarre addiction to creating '______ Day') and putting up multiple redirs for speedy. Indef until he understands how to contribute please. → ROUX ₪ 18:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

After continuing to review this user's contributions and seeing previous blocks for the same issue, I have blocked Mr Taz indefinitely. I am, of course, open to changing/reducing this block if the user can agree to contribute constructively. TNXMan 19:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Good block, imho. That he kept arguing that Foundation Day isn't imaginary after being blocked is pretty much all we need to know about his intentions. As for the other pages.. I've gone back as far as mid-May-ish to nuke the more useless/pointless edits and request speedy on the more useless/pointless redirs. I haven't got the strength for more.. → ROUX ₪ 20:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(comment from sock removed)

• • Most of them have now been deleted. They were nonsense, along with the user's stubborn insistence on including a nonexistent holiday, as well as e.g. renaming Prince Charles' investiture to Investiture Day, amongst a host of other largely nonsense and/or useless edits. Also, I don't believe it is within the purview of WP:SOCK for alternate accounts to participate in internal discussions. → ROUX ₪ 22:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Can an indefinitely blocked user remove the indef block template from their user page?

Here's the diff: [23] - I can't find anyplace that says they can't do this, but it seems sensible that their user page should show their indef blocked status. Dougweller (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(Non-admin response) - That is generally from my experience a big no-no. I would revert it and if they keep it up, request protection on the talk page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if it is an indef blocked user ... then the anon is either not the user in question, in which case they shouldn't be editing the content of an indef blocked user's page ... or it is the indef blocked user, in which case they are logged out to get around the block and shouldn't be editing regardless. In either case, I think reverting is appropriate. And, if it continues, temporary semi-protection of the page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Per WP:BLANKING, "Important exceptions [to allowing users to remove talk page content] may include declined unblock requests and confirmed sockpuppetry notices". I would say that indef-block notices fall under this as well and should not be removed. TNXMan 21:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm tired. Obviously a blocked user can't edit ther user page. The IP is clearly the blocked user, he just put an indef block notice on the Admin who blocked him. I'll give the IP a week's block right now and deal with the user page. Dougweller (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Block request

Resolved

 – Thread started by sockpuppet of banned user. → ROUX ₪ 08:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz continues to edit articles with which he has a COI. Please warn and put a stop to this. -- Rickywatcher (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Please repost this to WP:ANI (the incidents noticeboard) including what articles Hullaballo Wolfowitz has COI over, how, and what edits they have made against policy. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Been there. Done that. Didn't even get a T-shirt, no less a block. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive193#COI_User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz. Note that Rickywatcher was indef-blocked as an abusive sock shortly after posting here. User_talk:Rickywatcher. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Anna Anderson

Third-party opinions are required at Talk:Anna Anderson#cleanup. In the words of User:Gwen Gale, there is an "edit war" between two administrators. DrKiernan (talk) 12:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Stricken. DrKiernan (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Postcard Cathy

It sounds pathetic, but it is still an issue that needs resolving. Despite four pokes [24] [25] [26] [27], this editor is refusing to use edit summaries. I have also bought the editor up on their position of maintenance templates on a page, guidelines clearly state that they should always go at the top (except for a handful), yet this editor seems to randomly position them on the page wherever he/she feels. It's not so much the minor infringements which are the issue here, but the editors blatent disregard to listening to comments made by other users, not replying to messages, blanking the messages shortly after.

They were recently blocked for similar disregard and refusing to listen to what people say by User:SarekOfVulcan [28] (relevant discussion on talk page [29]) Jenuk1985 | Talk 07:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• First, have you asked Sarek about it? If someone gets blocked for something, and continues doing it right afterwards, that's worth adding another block. Blanking messages are not an issue (annoying) but by policy, we just assume they've been read. Comments like this aren't productive at all. I'd like to see others who have an issue over their edits as I don't see too many issues with the orphan tagging that's currently being done. The talk page is a little light on issues, is there something I'm not seeing? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • No, I havent said anything to Sarek, as its not exactly the same situation, its just similar (showing disregard for what is being said), I pointed out the blanking to show that the messages are at least getting read, just blatantly ignored. The recent taggings should now be OK if you are viewing the live article, as I have been through most of todays and done a cleanup. It would be nice if said editor would justify why they feel they are exempt from using edit summaries, and why they feel the need to place maintenance tags in random positions on articles! It does nothing for consistency. Jenuk1985 | Talk 08:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • They do it because they don't care. It's easy to just do whatever you want, and there's plenty you can do without interacting with anyone. The difficulty here is the actual interacting with the other human beings part. Hell, a bot could goes around and list orphan articles all day (and I thought one did). That's not difficult. It's the "hi, let's talk" part that drives some editors nuts. There's plenty of editors for whom nothing sort of an indefinite block will make them respond or even acknowledge that other people here exist. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      • As it stands, I don't think there is grounds for a block, unless the user continues on disregarding attempts to put him/her on the straight and narrow, then it becomes more of an issue. He/she went inactive shortly before I posted this, I presume they have gone to bed, so its only fair to wait and see if this brings any response from the editor. In the mean time, would it be considered canvassing if I alerted Sarek to this thread? As he has had past experience with this user, his input may be useful. Jenuk1985 | Talk 09:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Oh, Jenuk, but the user continues to tag articles like a tagbot (actually, even worse than one. Less considerations, and no edit summaries!). Just look at her contribs! She isn't inactive, she just doesn't want to be disturbed with those complaints. So, Cathy isn't responsive at all, and continues this annoying behaviour, which leaves many newbies puzzled over what to do, and about if Cathy has any competence to harass them (I'm still quite a newb myself, I know the feeling). And about 20000 articles plastered with tags is a lot of nuissance! The whole business of orphan tacking is questionable in the first place, because its not a required policy. It should be better left to a bot, and everybody would be better of of Cathy would concentrate on the more productive parts of her work, like correcting caps issues in Article titles, and mocing them. Imho it would be good if at least some warning would be applied! Gray62 (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• PostCard Cathy seems to use edit summaries for edits that need an explanation, and no edit summaries for edits that are self-explanatory. Although I believe that people should use edit summaries for all edits, I think that's a pretty reasonable way to use edit summaries, and it doesn't seem to be necessary to badger her about it (disclaimer: I only checked a random sample of edits from the last couple of days). Kusma (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:FIES doesn't give an exemption for self explanatory edits, however that's being pedantic, and its only a minor side of why I started this thread! Jenuk1985 ^(talk) 09:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I posted a comment about the maintenance tags since that's a simple issue that's not too bad. No edit summaries are annoying but it's not like we're talking about giant edits though. We'll see. I doubt things will change. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Uh, no giant edits? Everysingle one for himself, certainly not. But we're talking about up a user with 21200 edits, the majority of those are tags, judging from the contribs. Many o those tags were placed in violation of Wiki guidelines (surnames aren't tagged!), leaving other editors to do lenghty reverts. That a huge nuissance. Gray62 (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem here actually seems to be that other people aren't understanding what Postcard Cathy is saying. I can sympathise to an extent if xe thought that xe was talking to a brick wall at User talk:Postcard Cathy#Orphan tags on {{surname}} pages, because there was a problem with quite a number of other people not comprehending a point that xe did make twice. Since I make no claims to being a member of Mensa on my user page, I'll try to explain what Postcard Cathy was saying to the editors who are making personal remarks about stupidity here:

Postcard Cathy is using the toolserver-generated list of orphan pages. In the list's description, there is a clear statement of the possibility that 'bots will go through this list and tag the pages. Postcard Cathy is working on the basis that this happens, and is stating that you should work on the basis that this happens. If you don't want to have certain pages not tagged by such automated processes, then you should fix how that list is generated. Complaining about automated or semi-automated processing of the list is a mis-directed complaint. Fix the way that the list of untagged orphan articles is actually generated in the first place. Then any automated or semi-automated processing of it will fall into line with your desires without need for any further effort on anyone's part.

For what it's worth, I did once suspect Postcard Cathy's edits of being 'bot-produced, and in the same class as my long-time wikistalker, SmackBot. Treat xem like a 'bot in this case. Doing so will obtain the result that you desire. Fix the input that is going in to the 'bot, the actual list of untagged orphan articles that is being worked from, and the output will as a consequence fix itself.

As such, a block for "refusing to listen to what people say" is not quite fair. Because the problem here in part is also other people not paying attention to what Postcard Cathy is saying.

And Ricky81682 and Jenuk1985, please use some sense of perspective. Placing a notice in a position that you personally don't like isn't "disruptive". People place article tags in all sorts of positions. I've seen {{prod}} at the very bottom of a long article before now. The encyclopaedia has yet to break from this kind of thing happening, in my experience. The advice to not sweat the small stuff is actually good advice. (Only sweat it when there are a lot of instances of the small stuff.) If you start calling for blocks of WikiGnomes because they aren't on your particular vision of what the "straight and narrow" is, you will end up losing the benefit of the WikiGnomes' activities.

Understand the fact that not everyone agrees on these things. (There's plenty of evidence that people disagree about such things. There are style issues that have gone to Arbitration, for goodness sake!) There are, further, good reasons for placing tags in different places in different circumstances, and legitimate reasons that one size — one vision of the "straight and narrow" — does not fit all. (I place certain tags in more appropriate places than all together the very tops or very bottoms of articles, and I've been recommending such placement to others, because experience has shown that it helps novice editors who are creating new articles, for about three years at this point.)

This is strongly recommended reading, too. Further understand that style warriors make life difficult for and annoy the WikiGnomes who are trying to keep up with what this week's fashion might happen to be. That isn't necessarily the WikiGnomes' faults. It doesn't improve such a situation to start calling for blocking the WikiGnomes. It only serves to turn the people calling for blocks themselves into additional annoyances.

Also understand that the goal is to deal with the issues represented by the tags, rather than to waste a lot of time mucking about with disagreements over exactly where the tags go in the article. Again, treat Postcard Cathy in this case like the 'bot that xe sometimes gives the appearance of being. Make the articles not orphans, or not listed as orphans, and then you won't have to care where Postcard Cathy might place {{orphan}} in an article. Uncle G (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• At least our bots use edit summaries. If I had any of those articles on my watchlist, I would have no clue what's going on. What is so difficult about "tagging as orphan"? If there's a style policy and other people have to redo it, it's becoming disruptive. Being a WikiGnome is fine, and being a very productive one is really fine, but not responding to questions doesn't help people. I'm not suggesting a block and I don't care where the messages are placed. However, it is generally done at the top of the page and if putting the tags where most people put them and actually using edit summaries is too much for someone, then I really don't care for their edits here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• If people don't like the guidelines that are in place, surely its more productive to get them changed, than to blatantly ignore them? Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 23:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I read FIES as a recommendation, not a requirement. Af least that's what the guideline says. "It is good practice to fill in the Edit Summary field, " It always helps to do it, but if we want to make it a requirement, that would need to be proposed as a change in policy. DGG (talk) 07:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
    • David, as I read through this, that's exactly what I kept thinking. Look, Jenni & Ricky, I'm a big believer in edit summaries, and have been nearly 100% with them over the past three years, but it is a recommendation, after all. There are real vandals out there who are devoting their energies to destroying good work here. Cathy may appear to be a bit on the misanthropic side, but she is trying to do what she considers to be valuable work for the encyclopedia. My advice is to spend your energy fighting the good fight, not the petty fight. _{(And, by the way, I know what it's like to believe that everyone else is missing the point, to believe that you are the only one that realizes that this issue is important. But withdraw from it today, and then look back at it in six months. I have found that I felt rather silly about some of the issues that I thought were "vital" to properly wikipedializing.)} Good luck to you. Unschool 14:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Gettind rid of orphans is "preferrable", but not a requirement, too! So, with which right does Cathy editwar other editors when they simply remove the tag for a "not required" Wiki polciy? Imho she should better help people to get their articles linked, instead of doing a bots job, and even worse than bots. Orphanbots don't tag surnames, for instance! And they loeave edit summaries! And anyhow, what'sa the point of bullying other people with tags thaqt are not required, making articles look horrible? What would you think about if Jenuk1985 would start tagging articles w2here tags are in the wrong place? It's not a required policy, but same rights for all! Don't you see that this uncontrolled tag business is about to go beyond being a mere nuissance, but becoming more and more of another turf of edt warring here, keeping good editors from doing more productive work? Gray62 (talk) 10:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
        • That you keep talking about "the wrong place" shows that you have still failed to grasp a basic point, stated and re-stated above. There is not a single right place. As Postcard Cathy has pointed out, what there is is a succession of people with ill-considered views of the right place, each trying to enforce their narrow and mutually contradictory views of the right place. As Unschool has pointed out, there are good reasons for putting tags in various places, according to circumstances. Uncle G (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
          • I obviusly raised the point of "wrong" placement of tags only as an example for Jenuk having equal right to tag articles that don't comply with that guideline. It's only a recomendation, just like Cathy's point that articles shouldn't be orphaned is only a recommendation, too. And My point is, where do we get if everybody tags articles that aren't completely in sync with rules and guidelines? Do you have any problems understanding my argument? You didn't really address it at all. Gray62 (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Imho "no sweat" should apply to Postcard Cathy, too. Why does she jump into articles she doesn't know much about, and then changes features that are important for the regular editors, like the sorting keys? [She should assume that the regulars had a good reason for doing it this way. With her semseless interfering, she only distracts those productive editors! And why does she make this orphan tagging her business at all? Could be easier and faster done by a bot. She even admits it: "If I don't tag them, a bot will." So, why does she waste her sweat on that? She not even leaves spome helpful advice to the editors, who often are newbies at WP: "How to NOT get them listed as needing a tag is something I know nothing about."! And then she puts orphan tags even on a list of surnames, totally useless! No, sry, but from looking into her contribs, all I see is a user that annoys editors who try to do their best with all those tags, without really helping them one bit, and often disrupting their work, leaving them alone to deal with her mess. And who doesn't want to be disturbed, and doesn't even show the tiny bit of courtesy to add edit summaries (~95% edits without sum.). And who prefers to let conflicts escalate (with Giant27) instead of talking to him, and to leave the mess to the admins to decide on the noticeboard! Also, btw, it's rich she advises others to concentrate on serious issues - where is her serious work on an article? Afaics her actions annoyed lots of people, made their work more complicated, and so imho a call to order would be good. Gray62 (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Already addressed above. Please go back and read it. Uncle G (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I've already read everything here. And I added some points that haven't been mentioned before. Pls adress the issues, instead of making such unhelpful comments.Gray62 (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it appears that the editor in question has chosen to either retire, or go on a wikibreak. ponyo (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No, she didn't. Check her contribs? She's still playing the human tagbot...Gray62 (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolution?

So, we still have an editor who adds orphan tags and doesn't use edit summaries. Most people here seem to be of the view that it's not that big a deal (note that I as an admin don't actually need any sort of consensus to block someone, but I'm going to hang back a bit) with a few noting that it's very difficult to work with. I'm reminded of this essay (particularly the social one). The notices about edit summaries in particular go back quite a few years in fact [30][31] with the more recent ones.[32][33][34]. So I ask, since the only reason method to make people change is block, do anyone have an alternative? I asked here about why it's so concerning, but if anyone has any alternatives, I'm open. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

As to the orphan tagging, I guess it's the same concern but since it was here just a few months ago with no resolution, I don't think that's changing either. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, an editor continuing to be not helpful, unresponsive and often outright disruptive, especially creating totally unnecessary additional work for good editors, not participating in correcting her own mistakes, sure is good reason for a renewed review. The fact that nothing really changed since last time is grounds for concerns. And then there is the edit warring complaint against Giant 27 still pending, which raises questions if orphan tagggers have the right to insist on their tag not being removed, since its only a "recommended" policy, unlike the mandate to source facts. Imho it would be a good idea to wait for the findings in that case, before deciding this one. Personally, after having spend some time looking into Cathy's "contributions", I think it may be helpful if a "tagging ban" could be imposed, for three days or so, giving the user a chance to break this somewhat fanatical habbit, and to concentrate on more useful work instead. But that's only my personal opinion as a normal editor, of course. Dunno if there are rules supporting such an administrative order in such a case, though. Gray62 (talk) 11:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(comment from banned sockpuppet removed) → ROUX ₪ 11:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Too biased? Where is the evidence for that? Btw, Cathy seems to have been involved in tagging articles for deletion, too, so Rick may be actually be too biased for her! And WP:BITE? What does this have to do with this case? Cathy is around since 2006 or so. If anybody is "guilty" of driving newbs away, it's her, because she constantly intimidates newcomers, who just build their first stub, with her tags, but doesn't offer any help to them in coping with the alleged problem.Gray62 (talk) 09:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Please ignore the various trolls that seem to enjoy following me. Especially ones with names like that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolution will come when you change, Ricky81682. As I wrote before, please use some sense of perspective. Go back to the above, and read and think. Think, in particular, about why you're threatening to block someone whilst at the very same time stating that the issue is minor. It is minor, and you should be practicing what you preach about it. Uncle G (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh, since I already wasted some time discussing one sockpuppet troll, is this another one, Ricky? Gray62 (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if that was a serious question -- Uncle G is an admin. Looie496 (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(who has an unfortunate tendency to write in an overly condescending tone sometimes, I might add). Looie496 (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Governance review

A review of governance on the English Wikipedia has been started here. The input of everyone with any interest in the project is welcomed and encouraged. --Tango (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Not getting the results wished for at Wikipedia:Arbitration Role of Jimmy Wales in the English Wikipedia so trying it again? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The results are very interesting - the fact there are now several pages all of which are heavily subscribed and dedicated to variation of this theme, show that a concerningly high number of people are interested in the subject or are you just criticising Tango for posting it here? Giano (talk) 07:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm criticizing Tango for posting it anywhere, since the sentiment of the community has already been determined. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Hendyrk

Wrote a hoax article that was speedied; now he's going around adding nonsense to articles like Knoxville, Tennessee and Palafox Battalion. This the right place to report that? (Apologies; I'm new at this sort of thing, still.)

(And yes - I did hit 3RV in reverting his edits; I figured it might be a mitigating circumstance in my favor that they were obviously hoaxes.) --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 16:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

3RR isn't relevant to blatant vandalism which is what that was and the user is now blocked. Next time, WP:AIV would be the best place to go. Regards, Woody (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Danke much...and thanks for the advice. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 17:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Archiving Resulting in Page Deletions

Somebody (or somebodies, I haven't looked into who yet) has configured ClueBot III incorrectly for talk page archiving across a lot of Talk: pages. This has caused ClueBot III to archive a whole bunch of talk pages at "Talk:Page Name 1" instead of "Talk:Page Name/Archive 1". As they show up as orphan talk pages, Orphaned talkpage deletion bot is deleting them. This is really content that should be kept.

I've asked both bot's operators to update their bots to fix this problem. Archiving at a non-subpage (especially in the Talk: namespace) should be pretty rare. ClueBot can easily add a check (extra key, etc.) to avoid this configuration error. Orphaned talkpage deletion bot can easily check to see if the talk page was created by ClueBot and if there exists a page at "Talk:Page Name". If so, it should flag the page for fixing vs. deleting it.

Meanwhile, there are a bunch of deleted talk pages that need to be restored, moved to the correct place, and the ClueBot archiving parameters fixed on the source Talk: page. Looking at Orphaned talkpage deletion bot's deletion log, pages that need to be examined are the ones of the form "Talk:Page Name 1". It looks like about 100 pages are so. Anyone want to help? -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like all the deletion were from today. I have done the ones starting with A & B (plus a couple assorted before I figure out what caused it). I'm done for the moment. If anyone else could help work this off, that would be appreciated. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've shut off the bot so I doesn't delete any more pages, and I'll try and clean up the rest of the pages in a moment --Chris 00:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Restored all the pages, now time move them to their proper archives. --Chris 01:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok moved to their correct pages, and archive configs cleaned up. --Chris 02:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I traced back to this discussion because I was about to ask User:Ibaranoff24 why he placed these archive bots on dozens of Talk pages when, at a glance, none of them seem to be nearly active enough to require archival. I mean, I noticed it at Talk: Michael J. Nelson, which was 3.5k and got taken down to 1.5k by the bot. That's ridiculous. I changed the parameter on that page but I'm not going to manually go through a hundred other Talk pages to see if they all need fixing, too. Propaniac (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Because I thought it would be helpful for posts to be archived after being inactive for so long. I am sure that I posted the correct configuration. I seriously have no idea what happened here. Looks like these bots went haywire. The content is not lost - it still exists within the history. If any talk page has an archive problem, the missing posts can be added to the correct archival pages by editing the old revisions. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC))

Your configuration was incorrect. You set the "archiveprefix" equal to the talk page name which caused the archive page to be created at "Talk: Page Name 1" instead of as a subpage. The archive bot did exactly what you told it to do. The archiveprefix needs to specify a subpage. It has already been fixed by Chris G. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll see about fixing it later today or tomorrow. I actually check that the page name is a substring of the archiveprefix -- I guess I just forgot to check for the '/' as well. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 05:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you pls tell normal editors, unfamiliar with ClueBot, who came up with this idea of archiving talk pages, without the user's stated intent, at all? Was there a discussion about that, and consensus established? Imho user's talkpages shouldn't be subject to robot interference. And while sure some users like the help in getting their old stuff archived (me, too), I think it would be preferrable if tose users add their accountnames to a "to Do" list of the robot. Only my two cent, but, really, Cobi, where is the discussion about that bot? Gray62 (talk) 10:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken. ClueBot only archives pages that it's been told to archive. If someone wants it to archive their talk page, they have to add it's archive configuration template to their page. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't not be for administration!

There is no specific way I cannot be an administrator. I've gotta be there.

---

PRIVATE TO OTHER USERS---------- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcreeves (talk • contribs) 03:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Pardon? You may wish to read this page if you are interested in becoming an admin. Other than that, this board isn't really for very random comments.. → ROUX ₪ 04:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Just in case you haven't heard it yet - welcome to Wikipedia :) I'm glad you're so excited at the idea of helping out - give yourself a few months to learn your way around and then take a look at the Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. Shell ^babelfish 04:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

See WP:RFA and WP:ADMIN. While there are no minimum requirements to be an admin, you have no chance at the current date for being one. However, get some experience in both article editing, vandal fighting, and policy discussions and come back in a few months, and apply. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

User has a curious edit history, to say the least. See here, here and here. An RFA is unlikely to succeed... Manning (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Right now of course not. But in the future there is no reason why not. Prodego ^talk 17:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It might be worth noting for the record that yesterday, this editor created several pages (one of them multiple times) which were all speedily deleted. User:Gogo Dodo then posted a {{uw-create4}} on the editor's talk page which stopped that particular activity, but the editor then replaced the talk page contents with

Please, no blocking me or I will block you from all Wikipedia.

I don't see a successful RFA any time in this editor's future... — Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Dukedom of San Donato

On the talkpage of Dukedom of San Donato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an IP/anon editor is alleging a bunch of problems with the article and its authors. Unfortunately, I know nothing of the article's subject, and I don't read Italian and don't have access to tools like OTRS to check what is being alleged. Can someone take a look at their allegation and raise a sockpuppet incident if appropriate and/or do something with the article. Thanks. Astronaut (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This indeed seems to be a fraudulent page, apparently part of the imposture of the soi-disant Prince Michael of Albany, wherein a claimant gets "recognition" of his claim in the same way that "Kris Kringle" got official recognition as "Santa Claus" in the movie Miracle on 34th Street --a scheme to which the Italian authorities seem particularly defenseless. Further investigation is indeed warranted; Wikipedia is being used to advance untenable claims. - Nunh-huh 02:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed ban for Elance user Tayzen

• http://www.elance.com/experts/tayzen
• Yaromunna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Vpopescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Cinagua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Chabaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• NEW - Desiphral (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

If you participated in the paid editing RFC, you might have come across User:Ha!/paid editing adverts. Unfortunately that only scratches the surface with respect to Tayzen's paid spam. You'll find the evidence at WT:WPSPAM#Tayzen. Differences from what was posted in the RFC:

• The spam is cross-wiki.
• Found several more confirmed and suspected paid editing jobs. These are marked new.
• I also found several clusters of suspicious edits that look like paid editing jobs.

The four accounts above are (sock|meat)puppets operated by this user.

Furthermore, there are more jobs in the pipeline: [35], [36]. These comments suggest he has no remorse. I think it's time to use the banning policy to stop this nonsense. MER-C 12:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• I should note that if you want to get the full text of the Elance postings, you can append a referrer string such as &rid=18J3T to the URL. MER-C 12:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

it is only fair to mention that the sponsor of the 2nd job listed just above --the academic bio--withdrew the offer after being informed of the circumstances.DGG (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering where that one went. Thanks. MER-C 06:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support ban proposal (which I'm assuming will essentially amount to a carte-blanche to indefblock all identified role accounts, such as those above, on sight). It wouldn't be so bad if the articles created followed Wikipedia policy, but blatant non-notable vanity and puff-pieces have no place here, and maybe if the editor has to return enough fees when their rubbish is deleted they'll find something else to do. EyeSerene^talk
• Oh Good Lord. Support ban proposal/eradication project. This stuff should be discouraged and made unprofitable for the advertisers. Fine fine detective work there which deserves some sort of award. --Calton | Talk 21:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, the copyright violations noted at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Diablo Tranquilo Bar.JPG, and the editor's subsequent willingness to misrepresent xyrself as the copyright holder when challenged, make the editor problematic irrespective of the issue of whether xe was paid to make these edits. Uncle G (talk) 05:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. The spam is bad enough but there's also sockpuppetry in disruption of our processes. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support due to the socking and misrepresenting themselves as copyright holder. Probably worth getting a CU, if not done already. Good work Mer-c. Sarah 17:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. In addition to the sockpuppeting and copyright issues, Desiphral is a notorious POV-pusher when it comes to Roma articles, and is quick to accuse others of racism. He has long shown disregard for Wikipedia policies. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support I usually don't take a hard stance towards banning editors but he has very heavily abused our system in a way that typical POV pushers and vandals have not. I also recommend further action being taken with regards to his position on the Romanian Wikipedia. ThemFromSpace 02:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oh, my eyes, my eyes! Support ban on this spamhaus. Has anyone notified WP:OFFICE of this thread, or anyone on the Vlax Romany Wikipedia? This could have serious implications given his status there. Blueboy96 17:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support Ban all .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support Sockpuppeteering and spamming should be enough reasons to ban. Paid editing isn't illegal just not particularly ethically defensible.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• comment Why can't i find a user:Tayzen ion en.wikipedia? I wanted to check whether the users blocklog and his talkpage for warnings but I can't find the users page. Can someone provide a link?·Maunus·ƛ· 17:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • See the five usernames linked at the top of this thread. Tayzen is a name the same person uses at elance, but not here. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

One more question, maybe stupid: how do we know its all him? Has there been a sock investigation? Or is it purely on the editing pattern evidence combined with the elance evidence?·Maunus·ƛ· 23:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The latter. The first four accounts spammed noclaimsdiscount.co.uk (see diffs at User:Ha!/paid editing adverts). Editors who spam the same site are almost always sock or meat puppets. The fifth is by admission. MER-C 03:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Two more potential problems: [37] and [38]. MER-C 04:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support ban because of the puppetry and the role accounting (see below), but not solely on account of the paid editing, for the banning of which I believe we do not currently have community consensus.  Sandstein  21:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Strong support This way we can speedy all the spam Triplestop x3 02:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Bad news

[39]

Hi there,

I would like to apply for this project, possessing three years of experience in this field, now with about 11000 edits, accumulated in creating wiki content in Wikipedias in various languages, under the username Desiphral (at Romani Wikipedia I am also admin). Only on the English Wikipedia my work counts currently about 4000 edits in 1300 distinct pages:

http://toolserver.org/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Desiphral&site=en.wikipedia.org

I have a good knowledge of organizing a new Wikipedia article, if you provide me the links for citing and processing the info in Wikipedia style. I may provide articles in English, Spanish, French and Romanian Wikipedias (the languages that I know well). Usually, more Wikipedia articles, better for the subject they treat.

I am currently available Monday through Sunday and can be reached online by Yahoo Messenger or Skype.

[[File:Facepalm.jpg|150px]] Desiphral is the only administrator on the Vlax Romani Wikipedia. Does anyone here speak Vlax Romani? What do we do now? (Toolserver cross-wiki contribs and access to s3 are borked at the moment :( . )MER-C 08:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I've long known that Desiphral is the only Administrator on the Romani Wikipedia, but didn't think it was possible to do anything about it. With him in power I shudder to think what sort of a point of view that Wikipedia must be putting across. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the most straightforward way is to get a steward to globally lock the accounts. Not sure of the best way to approach this - perhaps through a blacklisting request of all the spammed sites. MER-C 04:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything that would suggest POV pushing issues.©Geni 03:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This still leaves Romani with no administrators except one who apparently shares his account with paid editors. Anyone know what to do about this? I know this is just the English WP and we shouldn't be asserting jurisdiction over other languages, but is there a place on Meta to bring this up, and would anyone ever see it? rspεεr (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Somebody should have notified me by e-mail, the accusations are serious and those who formulated them most certainly saw that I was absent for months. Fortunately, the guys under spotlight decided it's best to tell me. I saw that their accounts were perused carefully, but it was not taken into account how I made the welcoming message on the talk page of one of them. If I would have had the intentions supposed above, I wouldn't have done that. They said they felt entitled to put the statistics of my account because they worked too under my username, but now they are very sorry for the trouble they caused me and they will stay away from it. Some years ago, other people I knew became interested in my work at Wikipedia and I gladly supported them. The initial idea was that each one should have a personal account, but in practice, since it was real life collaboration and we had available only one computer, most of their/our edits ended up under my username (this explaining also the stamina and the sudden polyglot abilities of my account across Wikipedia during some months). The situation changed during 2008 because of economic problems and I did not have the time to stay on-line and continue. I learned later that some of them managed to supplement their income by working at Wikipedia. I was familiar with the occasional bounties offered at Betawiki for the localization of MediaWiki and I thought it was great for them during these times. I didn't know about this "paid editing" issue, I read now about it (but it's a lot written, I don't know when I'll have available time). From what I could see, they did not have many choices in picking clients, but somehow it looks true what I was told, that bad and good stuff is brought together under the label of spam by users looking for quick fame inside Wikipedia. I was also told that only two accounts at elance.com are under spotlight (and this also looks true), thus simply favoring the other accounts on that website. Personally, I have a bad taste regarding the unprofessional manner I was treated, it's scary to see how the good work of years won't value nothing in a second, in the others' eyes. I am dismayed by the way the comments of the "enthusiast" Psychonaut were taken for granted. If I would have known that article could have been easily deleted because it breached BLP policies, I would have stayed away from all that drama. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 11:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

That didn't make a lot of sense to me, but you seem to be saying that you're letting arbitrary people -- some of whom are spammers -- use your account. That's not much of a defense -- in fact, it makes things worse. rspεεr (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not let 'arbitrary' people use my account, even less spammers. In the previous years, these guys had good contributions, most of the time under my supervision, that was the context and the overall project benefited from my decision to contribute like this. The work under my account is a good work and does not deserve these attacks, the Romani Wikipedia is a first in history regarding the coverage of this unwritten language, now it's the place on Internet with most of the texts in Romani. Some of them chose to work and they walk now on their path. My account should be under spotlight only if itself creates problems. I don't know the rules of English Wikipedia and I'd like to ask what happens if an user makes such blatant attacks like this one, using without any reason expressions like "No legitimate administrators", "the sole administrator is a paid spammer", "Should the project remain open?" In this way I'd have the right to ask if the English Wikipedia should remain open, watching the unprofessional manner of conducting this investigation, the way this became the gathering place of the users who have a problem with me and the lack of respect for my work. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 08:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be admitting that you've let others use your account on the English Wikipedia (presumably they also have knowledge of your password), so it's difficult to take your accusation of unprofessionalism seriously. We can only judge by what we see - you must either take responsibility for the security of your account and any actions made from it, or acknowledge that you have no control over it (in which case it should be regarded as compromised and blocked accordingly. EyeSerene^talk 21:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That went without saying, of course I changed my password. Anyway, personally, I did not create problems, on the contrary, I am proud a tiny part of Wikipedia is made by me and by people under my supervision, hence I keep my accusations of unprofessionalism. And the independent edits of the guys under spotlight are presented like the "crime no.1", but somehow I am rather sympathetic to them. I can't see a serious commitment for solving this paid editing issue, but rather a kind of safari hunt of "bad users" and happy faces of hunters with trophies under their feet. As you probably have guessed, personally, I have no problem with paid editing and I am pretty sure that if the focus would be on the content, not on the user (yes, I just finished reading about Gregory Kohs) Wikipedia would be a better place. From what I discussed with them, the guys are determined to continue, but they will be more careful, this is their lifeline. You'll only end up as a police state or as an African National Park with thrilled hunters, paid editing is inevitable and, your biggest problem, it is not immoral. I was not blessed to be a friend of the money, but I am sincere to say that I can't imagine a complex social life without them. And Wikipedia is too big and too important to stay as a voluntary neverland. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 23:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It's part of the mission of Wikipedia that its content should be free from commercial interests, and it has done just fine with the effort of volunteers so far. Your "people" are abusing Wikipedia for profit, and Wikipedia should not tolerate them for their and your benefit. I'm sure they could find something equally lucrative and disreputable to do somewhere else on the Internet. rspεεr (talk) 03:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I note with cynicism that three of the accounts found out how to use {{cite web}} within three (spam), three (suspected spam) and three edits and the fourth (Vpopescu) correctly filled out an infobox on its 10th edit. Draw your own conclusions. MER-C 04:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm probably too involved at this point to block Desiphral for compromising his account and/or spamming, but I believe it should be done. It also still horrifies me that he has control over an entire Wikipedia. I brought this up -- a bit harshly and, by necessity, in English, on ("Talk:Main Page"), because it seemed a sufficiently high-profile page. Desiphral himself reverted me -- not a good sign. If it was because of using the wrong page, reverting wasn't the answer; if it was because of the wrong language, most discussions on that Wikipedia are in English; but if it is because Desiphral prefers to hold onto his unchecked power without anyone questioning it, it makes perfect sense.

The question remains, of course, what should be done about the Romani Wikipedia. I'm looking for the correct forum on Meta to bring this up, but I think there should be a search for three or so good Romani users who are not Desiphral to be the next admins.

rspεεr (talk) 06:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur - I've indefblocked Desiphral because I find their assurances about regaining control of their voluntarily compromised account (if indeed it was compromised as Desiphral claims), and their attempts to justify and condone edits that are out of line with Wikipedia policy and best practice, unpersuasive. From the above discussion I believe they see no problem with their actions or would prevent them happening again. Block review welcome, as always. I can't help with Meta discussion (I've never used Meta), but I agree that their adminship of the Romani Wikipedia - hosted as it presumably is on foundation servers - should be examined further in an appropriate venue. EyeSerene^talk 07:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Unblock requested and declined twice. MER-C 13:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Why? What evidence do we have that that account is going to be used for comericial activities at this point?©Geni 11:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not the commercial activities alone, but more the fact that the account was apparently being operated as a role account (with Desiphral's approval but without their supervision or editorial control, according to their posts above). The commercial part is related to the spamming from the account, which I regard it as an aggravating factor. Although the account's services - whether by Desiphral or not - were advertised on elance as noted above, at present there's no community consensus to block for commercial editing. EyeSerene^talk 16:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

At this stage, the account owner has admitted that their account was used by other people in the past, breaching the WP:NOSHARE policy, and has not given any assurance that they wont allow it again. If/when they give such assurance, perhaps it should be reconsidered but until then I don't think it should. AndrewRT(Talk)(WMUK) 16:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Desphiral has been unblocked by Fred Bauder following an email exchange.[40] EyeSerene^talk 07:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

section break

Just below that is another entry, from a "Nicholas_A":

Hi I have been an admin for almost five years and know wikipedia policies inside out. In addition I have written over 15 featured articles. You can contact me for more details.

Maybe it's nonsense, maybe it's not; but it is worrisome. --Calton | Talk 13:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That's User:Nichalp. We already know about him - if he spams again he'll probably end up with a ban from arbcom. MER-C 13:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

How the mighty have fallen! (I'd throw in a quote from Paradise Lost, but it's been too many decades since I read it.) I remember when Nichalp was a valued contributor, having authored several FAs. (And I met him at the 2006 Wikimania in Boston: he struck me as a nice enough guy.) Now the conventional wisdom is that he is Just Another Spammer, & is unwanted here. I can't help but wonder what happened on his end. -- llywrch (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

While we're here, can someone blacklist spiritshop.com per [41]? (I reverted the example link at Central High School (Phoenix, Arizona).) Thanks. MER-C 03:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a possible place for paid editing. But the dubious articles contributed by the people we've been seeing lead me to suspect that at least the elance service is not leading to useful contributions. There may be some people doing this right, in which case we will never notice them unless they advertise or respond to advertisements in a way we can trace. At that point we can decide what to do with paid editors who make good articles on actually notable subjects.. The current problem is the junk we've been seeing, equally bad whether paid or unpaid. I at least promise to be a little more suspicious of the sort of new articles that have shown the characteristics here. DGG (talk) 03:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Beyond the problems of not being able to trust content with such a blatant conflict of interest, there's also a big neutrality problem here. As it is, Wikipedia's coverage of some subjects is sketchy, but at least we can say that the gaps are fair: they're caused by insufficient volunteer interest. We don't want to get into a situation where the subjects that have Wikipedia articles are distinguished from the ones that don't by their willingness to pay. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

So are the paid articles going to be deleted? I notice in the ha! list that some are still present. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 06:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

If the proposed ban goes through, WP:CSD#G5 would apply. Otherwise I guess we still have to delete them the slow way. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to have read the deletion criterion you linked... --NE2 21:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I guess that one would apply only to newly created articles after a ban. So unless they are blatantly promotional to the point where G11 applies (probably not the case for articles created by experienced editors even if paid) they would have to be deleted via prod or AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Most of the mainspace spam is already deleted - the only exception being Kaki West. I will nominate the userpages in a bulk MFD when the banhammer is applied. As for the stuff on the other wikis, does anyone speak French, Spanish or Chinese? MER-C 06:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi

Resolved

 – Per WP:BAN, "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them. Edits which involve proxying that have not been confirmed to that effect may be reverted." Additionally, the policy is clear that bans must be appealed to the Arbitration Committee by email. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a short proposal that we unban Tobias Conradi (banned indefinitely). He has been banned for over two years now and I'm sure he could be a useful contributor once again, after an email discussion I've had with him. Pzrmd (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No particular opinion on a ban/unban of Tobias at this time, but I will point out that your account has been active for about a month, although you do mention on your userpage having been active previously; I'm sure that your having email conversations with banned users would be put in better context if you were willing to identify your past account(s). Normally I wouldn't make a point of this, but if you're going to propose an unban without disclosing any specific rationale beyond "I'm sure", apparently relying on the force of your reputation and experience, I do find the question relevant and imagine others might as well. Not a demand, just a humble request.

Alternatively, explaining why you're so sure might go a long way in getting your proposal more effectively heard. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaving this open for thoughts, that's all. I want to know what other people think. He was a very useful contributor since 2003. I know as much as you do. Pzrmd (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

For general reference, here's the community ban discussion, which includes links to much of the preceding rationale. I second Luna that more information should be presented here. — Lomn 21:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Seeing the name Tobias Conradi pop up on my watchlist was certainly a blast from the past. He was a useful contributor, yes; then he ceased to be one, then he went insane. I think we require evidence that he recognizes the fault of his past efforts before we consider allowing him back. --Golbez (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

btw, Tobias thinks it's funny that you said he went insane. Pzrmd (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha ha. He have anything constructive to contribute to the debate, or shall we close this now? --Golbez (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What? Pzrmd (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, close it. If this user wishes to return to Wikipedia, then let him go through the usual channels indicating what has changed and why his ban should be reversed. Having Pzrmd advocating for him isn't likely to improve his chances anyway. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

First, unprotect his talkpage so that he can participate. He has also wants to be able to participate here. Pzrmd (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Tell him to email arbcom. Viridae^Talk 22:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

We tried that, but this is easier. Pzrmd (talk) 22:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place for this discussion at this time. If the user wishes to be unbanned, then he needs to go through the proper channels, and the way to start is by emailing ArbCom. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi wanted me to post his reply, to the CSN ban. Pzrmd (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You, and apparently Tobias Conradi, are not listening: this is not the place to discuss this issue at this time, and circumventing his ban by having another user edit on his behalf is also not going to help his case which, if he does want to return, will have to be argued, by Tobias Conradi and not another user, via email, to ArbCom. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

One is unavoidably forced to wonder even more who Pzrmd was previously. His actions as this new account offer no confidence that he was a user in good standing. One has to further wonder what his connection to Conradi is, why he contacted (or was contacted by?) Conradi, and what he is gaining out of this. → ROUX ₪ 22:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet of TC, if that is what you are suggesting. Do another CheckUser; Tobias Conradi has made another edit. Pzrmd (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This is certainly one of the disadvantages of starting fresh with a new account. Pzrmd (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Given your blatant disruption and pointyness--some admitted by yourself, using a non-sig in the Docu RFC/U--and now your proxying for a banned user, the 'fresh start' you claim is redolent of parts of Toronto at the moment. → ROUX ₪ 22:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I've undone both your change to the user's talk page and the user's post, neither of which was appropriate in the circumstances. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[Comment posted on behalf of banned user removed (again) per WP:BAN by Exploding Boy]].] Pzrmd (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That's just a tad self-serving. The written policy is that banned users must appeal to ArbCom. Or does Tobias mean they must work according to written policies only when he says so? → ROUX ₪ 22:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked Tobias's ability to edit his talk page, which he was abusing. Do not continue to be a proxy for him, Pzrmd, or you may be blocked for assisting in a ban evasion. He can contact Arbcom. --Golbez (talk) 06:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Dammit. Rehash. I've already been blocked for it. Pzrmd (talk) 07:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Can someone keep an eye on something for me...

I'm off to bed, but can someone keep an eye on List of NFL champions for me? There's an IP editor which keeps changing the 1925 champion from the one officially designated so by the league to a different team. There was some controversy over the 1925 season, but the page should represent the official NFL position as to who the champion was, regardless of that controversy. I have tried explaining this to them, and I don't know if it will stick. I need to head off to bed, and I am not going to edit war over this, but can someone else please review the situation and take the necessary moves to ensure that the properly referenced, neutral version is preserved? Gracias! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocking of User:Dimitri Yankovich by admin William M. Connolley

When looking into the recently discussed article Ancient Egyptian race controversy I noticed this statement:"User:Dimitri Yankovich looks like yet another sock. I've blocked him William M. Connolley (talk) 07:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)". I firstly thought this was just a somewhat lazy way of saying this user has been convicted of sockpuppetry by the usual checkuser process. But later, I looked into Wikipedia:RfCU and found - nothing! Now, excuse me pls, but has it become a new standard recently that admins can block editors (indef, I guess), just because they simply LOOK LIKE sockpuppets to them? I really would like an admin to look into this issue. I don't think this is the way suspicions about sockpuppets should be handled here! Gray62 (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser's just one tool -- a handy one, yes, but speaking as a checkuser I wouldn't even begin to claim every sock block has to go through me. Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Identification and handling of suspected sock puppets mentions a variety of methods; behavioral cues are often pretty reliable. At WP:SPI, checkuser requests are often declined as "unnecessary" where enough evidence can be presented to determine a user is a sockpuppet without consulting private data. If a sock is obvious enough, as often happens with our more prolific sockmasters, investigation can be a waste of time.

None of this, of course, precludes reasonable objection from users who are rightfully concerned about the possibility of wrongful blocks. Since I agree that Dimitri Yankovich's behavior seemed sockish, I've checked the account; it's a  Confirmed match for Romulus maximus (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), who is also blocked as a sockpuppet. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thx for providing the explanation! However, since the check didn't seem to be a big deal, wouldn't it be better to make it mandatory? If only one newb happens to edit the "wrong" article at the wrong time, and becomes blocked as a possible sockpuppet, this is one block to many. Gray62 (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

However, there is no case "Dimitri Yankovich" at WP:SPI either. And Wikipedia policy explicitly says "If you think that someone is using sock puppets and wish to get other people's comments on the matter, you should create a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and follow the instructions there.". It doesn't say Admins can simply block accounts because of a suspicion. The contribs of that Yankovich guy sure look suspicious, but shouldn't Connolley have followed proper procedures, which would have included proper discussion about this? Gray62 (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You should be aware of WP:DUCK.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What part of "and wish to get other people's comments" suggests that its mandatory to do so? Mr.Z-man 22:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the tag in Romulus' userpage, and looking at their contribs, and reading Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Admins_vs_contributors, I assume that both accounts must be User:Muntuwandi. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Muntuwandi has created a huge number of socks already. For those with a knowledge of his editing interests, detecting these socks is not that hard. In this case I pointed out the possibility to WMC on his talk page and here on ANI prior to the block. It is only editors and administrators apparently unfamiliar with his editing patterns and abusive socking who have raised any objection. They should take a look here [[Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Muntuwandi]]Mathsci (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Some sockmasters are simply easy for those who have dealt with them to recognize. This prevents harm to the encyclopedia. I strongly oppose making a sock check mandatory - this only checks one aspect, and cannot verify or clear certain types of socks - and there is a delay. Those blocked do have the option of appealing. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom considering unban of Betacommand

Since this is the board where community bans are usually discussed, I thought I should post a notice here that ArbCom are considering lifting the community ban on Betacommand (talk · contribs), and have requested input here: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Ban_appeal:_Betacommand 129.240.250.15 (talk) 05:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I do believe a clerk dropped a note here about this when it was brought up. –xeno^talk 13:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD needs closing

Resolved

 – Closed. (X! · talk)  · @496  ·  10:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King's Lynn in popular culture has been open for nearly a month, with not even an administrative relisting. ThemFromSpace 06:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done (X! · talk)  · @496  ·  10:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"Vandalism Patrol"

Being discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Programmer13/Vandalism Patrol.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
blatant canvasing ;) Please help promote Lar to “General”. He's standing in an election and needs support to implement the single-plank platform he is running on (which I support) User talk:Programmer13/Vandalism Patrol#Lar Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Would someone explain to me why we don't simply Mfd the entire mess? Ranks - military, no less? Elections'? This is helpful to the wiki how??? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 11:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC) I'm with the puppy on this one. Kill it with fire. → ROUX ₪ 12:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC) How nice. [[42]] KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 12:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC) OMG wow, I smell lulz Mike R (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC) I agree. And deletion of humourous material from userspace is not the easiest of arguments. --Dweller (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)r I see this mostly as a joke among volunteers. I don't see how this one could ever get out of hand, it'll most likely fade on its own. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC) I've been critical of this all along; see User talk:Programmer13/Vandalism Patrol#Bad Idea™. I am the one who brought this to General Larry's attention ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Oh, I'll be the first to say that topic "projects" can be very harmful when they start trying to sway policy and shepherd a consensus notion of content. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC) No, that's WP:ARS, which was kept; go figure. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Slovenian military-patriot

I'm not sure, but the recent pictures he's uploaded seem to have a problem. The user claims to have created the works, but the pictures have the copyright info of different websites. The pictures were taged for unfree useage or something, but the user deleted every mention of it. [[43]] Diffs-[File:Slovenian police Bell 206 S5-HPE.jpg] [File:Croatian Airforce Airtractor .jpg] Abce2 (talk) 11:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Pretty obviously copyvio I thought and deleted them. I haven't deal with the editor yet though. Dougweller (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Request review of MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist request

(Repost from 14:02, 7 July 2009 after no adnin response.)

I left a request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#astore.amazon.com/onthemargins-20/detail/0029347807 for white-listing (rather than WP-blocking) the site, that is, URL

http://astore.amazon.com/onthemargins-20/detail/0029347807

That site contains an extensive sole-source excerpt of ch. 1 from the book Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications by Oliver E. Williamson. Action on the request was in the "not done" category with the note 2 Edits later that:

I'm still not convinced; if another admin viewing here thinks differently they can go ahead and add it. Stifle (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Upon the generous counsel of Stifle yesterday at User talk:Thomasmeeks#MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#astore.amazon.com/onthemargins-20/detail/0029347807, I am seeking a review of my request. I have found only 2 subsequent admin actions of any kind at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist since June 21 other than by Stifle, suggesting that the request might have been overlooked rather than rejected.

I did add a note on June 21 after Stifle's ccmment at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#astore.amazon.com/onthemargins-20/detail/0029347807, bottom. It makes the case for the request succinctly and I hope more clearly trhan before. Thank you for your consideration. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 12:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Georgian alphabet‎

Please, look Georgian alphabet‎. User Kober at first try to delete (1, 2) information with Reliable sources. Now he asks "by whom" (1, 2) when I quot Donald Rayfield's "It has been believed, and not only in Armenia, that all the Caucasian alphabets..." Divot (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Google doodle

I made the following post at Wikiproject Spam yesterday, but as the project does not seem to be geared up for discussion, and I think this requires a discussion, I am posting here also.

Links to Google Doodle are turning up in hundreds of articles. I reverted this one but would like a view from the project on whether or not to consider this straightforward spamming.

Thanks. SpinningSpark 07:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good-faith attempt at wikilinking rather than spam, but since the edits seem to be trivial in nature they should be reverted as such. ThemFromSpace 07:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It is trivia and should be reverted. Although systematically adding links to anything is often regarded as spam, in this case it's just a misunderstanding. Johnuniq (talk) 12:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is good faith and did not mean to say that it was not (although I probably did). However, I still don't like it very much, the cites are to the google logo itself which neither verifies the claimed fact nor establishes notability of the logo. SpinningSpark 18:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Worth taking action?

An IP recently added this. It's been reverted and the IP has been blocked. Should we move on to ignoring, or is this worth reporting somewhere? TNXMan 14:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I would tend towards ignoring; seems like petty vandalism. Stifle (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I agee with Stifle - possibly that kind of threat would be worth reporting if it was posted elsewhere, but given the subject of that article it sounds like particularly unimaginative petty vandalism. ~ mazca ^talk 15:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Put me down in the boxscore for one RBI. TNXMan 16:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the best way to handle this copy and paste with no attribution?

At Ancient history I noted that Reddi (talk · contribs) had removed a 'too long' template although the article was 110 kb. I drew editors' attention to the length of the article and our guidelines at WP:TOOLONG, noting that there was no rush. Shortly thereafter Reddi cut out over 60kb and changed the dab page Ancient civilization to an article. Not only no discussion, but just copy and paste with no attribtuion, thus breaching our licences. I'm not sure how to rectify the license situation, just revert it all? Is there any guidance about suddenly changing a dab page to an article which doesn't even have all the links the dab page had? From one perspective, the dab page has been deleted with no AfD. Dougweller (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think revert..., and, if the changes are editorially desirable, move the page to Ancient civilization (disambiguation), repaste with proper attribution, (i.e. "cut from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancient_history&oldid=301383021" and use the split-to and split-from templates on the talk pages) and a hatnote to the disambig page. Also, this would've been a great topic for the newly minted WP:Content noticeboard, of which you may be unaware. –xeno^talk 18:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the changes for now, strictly for the licensing concerns. The discrepancy over "TOOLONG" is another issue with which I'm not familiar. –xeno^talk 18:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License. With a [Attribution] link back ? J. D. Redding 18:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(twice, 3rd time lucky?)Thanks, xeno. I didn't think of the new board, although I did look at it a few days ago. I've asked on the talk page that any changes wait for a bit more input. Reddi, as I said, there's no rush, you have a habit of making major changes with no discussion, try breaking it here please. Dougweller (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: I gave a link back to the original article. "In Ancient history" ... [so I did not break the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License ... or did I?]

Doing the split would be the best; I guess that it's not the best ... =-\ ...

... btw, I was wondering, If i edit the article, am I the last liscensee? ... and then I create another new article would I be citing myself? just wondering. J. D. Redding 18:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

In this edit you should have entered "cut from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancient_history&oldid=301383021". Else it looks like you just came up with 67,000 bytes of text all on your own. I'm going to ping everyone's favourite copyright expert to look at this to ensure I'm not misinforming anyone. –xeno^talk 18:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's great. I will try to do that. But do [[ ]] hyperlinks in the article conform? ... or should that be on the edit summary? ... or both? ... any info would be great ... J. D. Redding 19:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that attribution requires acknowledgment of the purpose of the link. A wikilink within the article itself doesn't meet the conditions of Wikipedia:Splitting, that's for sure. :) Our readers would have no more reason to look at ancient history for attribution than they would, say, history, which is also wikilinked. A hyperlink in edit summary is sufficient. Recommend language is "split content from article name". There are also several templates to place at talk pages to note splits. There's a conversation about the subject in general at Help talk:Merging#Edit summaries.2C best practice (and it could use more contributors). There I've proposed jettisoning the whole lot of "merge from" and "merge to" and "split from" templates in favor of one, currently housed at User:Moonriddengirl/License credit, which would render on an article's talk page like so:

As that template highlights, we also recommend a note in edit summary and/or at the article talk of the source article, just to prevent future deletion. This seems more imperative to me with articles that are more in danger of deletion, but I suppose it can also help to prevent a move that would break attribution chain. Current templates in use are viewable at Category:Split maintenance templates. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd support a single template solution. Would make it a lot easier. –xeno^talk 19:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. ... the hardwired link to a diff is what it comes down to as to attribution from the above. (eg., 'A hyperlink in edit summary is sufficient' with "split content from article name"; ok)

As to the attribution chain, how far back must it go? J. D. Redding 19:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

As far back as there are substantial creative content contributors whose works are copied. wmf:Terms of Use sets out the condition of license: "As an author, you agree to be attributed in any of the following fashions: a) through a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the article or articles you contributed to, b) through a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on this website, or c) through a list of all authors. (Any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions.)" Essentially, if there is enough creativity to warrant copyright protection, attribution is required. But say you split material to Ancient civilization from Ancient history and duly note it. If Ancient civilization is later split again into Semi-recent civilization, you wouldn't need to note that the attribution history of Ancient history should also be checked. Those tracking the attribution history should be able to follow the chain themselves. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. For your time and info. J. D. Redding 20:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Flameviper

Resolved

This is basically a ping to draw attention to a section at the top of the page. An uninvolved admin is needed to close the "Flameviper ban review" section above appropriately, before it gets archived. If anybody was already intending to handle this, sorry for the disturbance. Looie496 (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

For easier access: He is referring to this section (permalink as of now). Regards SoWhy 21:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, such discussions don't need to be formally "closed" by anyone. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Somebody has to actually unblock him, if that is the outcome. I didn't want to presume the conclusion by explicitly saying so. Looie496 (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that's quite different. I'll go count heads and read rationales and see if I can figgur it out. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility/Poll - 93 editors so far

To date 93 editors have edited Wikipedia:Civility/Poll. We really need to see quite a few more to get a broader idea of consensus. Even if the subject doesn't interest you please drop in and let us know what you think. Let's really get a broad consensus this time. If you feel the wrong questions are being asked, then propose one yourself at the bottom. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I find the last sentence of this post a bit of sick joke considering the recent largescale removal of 20-30 editors contributions to that page, based on one person's idea of what civility is. Is it a community debate on the civility policy, or not? I would say not. MickMacNee (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that 93 people is a fair chunk of the community, considering that many aspects are decided by much small groups. Sure, it's nice to get more feedback, especially on a fundamental aspect, but already we've attracted more attention then most RfCs ever get. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

@MickMacNee - I'm guessing you're talking about this, which is way too close to the line for most people after what happened. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Except the people who took it as meant, and discussed it as meant, before it was magically dissappeared. MickMacNee (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

@MacNee: Why do you keep referring to it as dissappeared [sic] when it's right there? I find your answer to your own question odd since you don't seem to have ever blocked anyone — which would seem to be due to this. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Imho most users (like me), who are not regular contributors or admins, will agree that a section which can only be found in old revisions of the page is not "right there"! Without knowing that smething has been deleted, onyl the most curious would check old revisions of a discussion that is still going on. Who deleted this, where is the explanation, and why isn't there at least a link to that deleted stuff? Looks like a blatant attempt at manipulating the discussion to me! Gray62 (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

@Cas; will chip-in furthur. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I refer to it as disappeared because that's what it is. It certainly has not been courtesy blanked or archived (not that we archive Rfc sections). Just make your mind up, and decide whether you considered it a valid discussion (as you did when posted, and seem to want to do know), or you want to claim after the event that you agree with its summary yanking on principle, irrespective of how many people had taken it as meant, when Risker turned up days later and tarred all participants as de-facto violators (that ironically includes you Jack). MickMacNee (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

And it's accessible by any number of links or other means at this point. It rather has been courtesy blanked, not quite as I expect you mean, of course; a courtesy to Bishonen and to Daedalus. Just because I participate in a discussion does not mean that I consider it valid; I comment in ludicrous discussions rather often; this one, for example. No tar (or feathers) on my hide, Mick (seems we're back to first-usernames). Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Where are those links? I added my two eurocent to that poll recently, and was totally unaware that a whole section had been deleted! Then, could you pls explain about that "courtesy to Bishonen and to Daedalus" stuff - what do you mean, I have no idea? And it's certainly not up to you to decide if a discussion is "valid" or not. And I doubt that a member of the arbitration committee was given the rights to interfere in this way, without regard to the proper procedures. Gray62 (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't think it will matter, because policies on Wikipedia basically never matter. It matters how many people you have on your faction. The only policies that are close to being applied reasonably are FA/GA/FL criteria, vandalism and spam, the latter two because established editors have no reason to partake in them. As for civility, people use two different standards for their mates and their enemies. Just look up everyone's speeches YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

eg, I have seen in the past, some rv wars on major WP policies, those that affect every article, NPOV related stuff. But only 4-5 people bothered to discuss or rv war, even though it affects 100% of articles. OTOH, teh FA criteria affects maybe 1% of articles (0.1% are FAs and others are aspriing to FA) but maybe 50-100 people joined the discussion. Why? because the FA criteria is used at FAC/FAR and articles are scrutinised. As for OR policy, it doesn't matter what the policy says, heaps of people flagrantly ignore it anyway, and the only point of changing the policy is to move the boundary line and "convict" an opponent of breaking rules. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I must say, YellowMonkey, your cold-blooded cynicism is delightfully refreshing, coming from a plush yellow mammal. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm dead serious. NPOV policies are mostly irrelveant. I know of an entire ethnic group on Wikipedia (admins among them) who insist on using "freedom fighter" all over the place. Look everywhere and you will see a person using one interpretation of some policy for one thing and another when their opponent wants to cite a blog or whatever. If you want arbcom attention, you turn something into a big circus. Else, you won't get attention, most likely the arbitrators find the topic of dispute to be deadly boring. From when I was on arbcom there were about 5-6 arbcom cases related to a certain geographical area. The first five were about POV allegations and there were a handful of posts on the mailing list, in some cases one or none. In one case that was actually about embarrassing rioting and juicy conspiracies, there were about 50-100 .... YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

And thus the YellowMonkey turned away from such scum, and wrote little articles on cricketers and vietnamese. :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have only made some noise to some arbitrators a few times this year. Every time, nothing happened, except until it made it to WR or Jimbo's talk page and turned into a big scandal. The first was about User:Nichalp and the second about User:Utgard Loki. I thought it was a big deal that admins weren't allowed to used socks but I guess I complained to the wrong ones: either friends or political allies of the admin or they just don't care because it doesn't do anything [positive] to their popularity rating. In theory it's good to do things quietly without drama but a lot of people tend to avoid disputes for political success YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 04:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

David, take a moment to reread what you wrote. The idea behind it may be correct, but your tact is just wrong. Seriously. Belittling another user? C'mon now, let's have an adult discussion here. YM writes articles, you write articles. I don't even write articles. Be aggressive with users that deserve it if that's the card you want to play. Keegan (talk) 09:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

WT:PHARM:CAT

We need a third party admin to close-out the consensus question currently posted at WT:PHARM:CAT. Would someone mind doing that for us? ---kilbad (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done BJ^Talk 01:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved administrator needed for sock puppets

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Psychology12345

As I am involved in a content dispute on the page in question, could an uninvolved administrator take this is investigation to its natural conclusion? Chillum 04:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Bagged, tagged, sold to the butcher in the store... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Now it seems we need another admin to review one of the account's unblock request: User talk:Dolphinfin. Chillum 19:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that, despite his claim to be a new user who just happened upon the article, he has a striking familiarity with such concepts as "arbitration clerks" and other stuff which a new user would not. Couple this with the checkuser result and the behavioral evidence, and it certainly does not appear that his unblock request holds water. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 19:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC on Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development

The community's views are needed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Advisory Council on Project Development. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

User removed own comments on Talk:Colgate University..?

Hey. In this diff, Mcg942 (talk · contribs) removed his edits from a conversation that's more than six weeks old. The edit comment was "removed my contributions to discussion for purpose of privacy, please do not revert", but now the page looks like I had a conversation with myself and asked for a third opinion for no reason. Since the user mentioned privacy, I thought I'd start a thread here, since that gets into oversight issues. But should I revert it for the sake of having a complete discussion, or should I just leave the user's comments off? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion remains in the history (the edit before the removal has the entire discussion), although you might like to mark the gaps with "(redacted comment)" to maintain the format - although it should be obvious there is stuff missing. I looked at the removed comments and see no obvious reason for them to be removed, but if the editor thinks it is important, and this is a consensual community, then I think their wishes should be respected. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Am I being a dick?

This has been settled. Keep the rest of the discussion on the article talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
WP:SANCTIONS' entry for Sarah Palin places articles in the orbit of Sarah Palin on probation, the terms of which include: "Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith." I have gotten into an argument at talk:Sarah Palin and wanted to check my conduct with "an uninvolved administrator." user:Proofreader77 undertook various actions that led me to question his good faith; I noted that WP:AGF, by its own terms, "does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence" and explained my position.[44] This would have been well and good, but an archiving of the talk page (I explained my reasons in this diff, and no one has undone the edit) set him off anew. He has repeatedly carped about the "[i]nappropriate rush to" a "premature manual archiving." He has "disagree[d]," "noted for the record," "formal[ly] object[ed]," and even special[ly] object[ed]" to the archiving. (See Talk:Sarah_Palin.) He has also repeatedly insinuated (for reasons that are, frankly, incomprehensible) that the archiving was intended to bury various discussions, persisting in this claim long after it has been explained to him that nothing has been deleted and that all of the discussions he has in mind are still available, can still be archived, can still be talked about and referenced, and so forth. I have explained my actions, made my points, and responded to his insinuations robustly and forthrightly -- and civilly, I hope. But I'm not sure. Although mentioning what has gone on to set the stage, I'm not here to ask an admin to look at user:Proofreader77's contributions, but rather, at mine. At risk of placing my own neck in the noose, I feel compelled by the pertinent part of WP:SANCTIONS, by user:Writegeist's insinuation that I am being uncivil, and by my own acknowledgement that I am not operating under an assumption of good faith (although I would argue that I am doing so within the circumstances set out in WP:AGF), to raise the issue somewhere. Since the terms of probation simply point to an admin, this seemed the place. Adequately put, am I being a WP:DICK?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC) What you're being is a drama queen. After the last thread which you dragged out far beyond reason, now you've started another angst-ridden thread which you will presumably drag out far beyond reason. Looie496 (talk) 03:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC) See read WP:AGF.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC) (Non admin response) - You ask if you are "being a dick" and when someone gives you are very tough answer (and one I think was dead on correct), you shoot back with AGF. That would be you being a dick. So, to answer your question, yes you are. Also, please assume good faith on your own part as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Agree with NeutralHomer. You should've walked away form the initial situation and the related baiting when he didn't stop, and asked for another admin to step in. If you can't be a non-drama admin, consider relinquishing your buttons. I say that seriously - Admins should have the backbone and commitment to make decisions they are willing to back and stand up for, instead of having a penchant for timidly acting halfway, then running not for backup in a messy situation, but for personal reassurances and ego stroking. If you've got he buttons, use 'em and own 'em. ThuranX (talk) 06:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Yes. You are. Writegeist (talk) 07:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Thuranx, who are you talking about? I don't think Dodd has extra buttons. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 12:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC) It's plainly obvious I'm talking to Simon Dodd. Note that my indents reflect a reply to him. ThuranX (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC) TL;DR but have carefully examined the mess at Talk:Sarah Palin. Dodd and another editor have been warned and listed at Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation. All done now unless they decide to continue this. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 11:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks for looking into it and the courteous response. :) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC) No worries, hopefully we can move on now. :-) KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Who is a bigger one? OR, The bad act and the apparently good solution While looking apparently good results in the mouth is generally a BAD idea ... e.g. Some folks did something wrong (premature manual archive) apparently in good faith Slap on the wrist, don't do it again (perpetrators noted on article probation page) Move on But the unmentioned part of this list is: Work around the damage of the (bad) act (whether good intentioned, or not) ... which puts a burden on people who had no burden until the "bad act" and the "apparently good solution." Reverting the bad act would have saved the many hours of labor required in the aftermath ... while not leaving in place any rhetorical benefit accrued from the apparently good faith act which has unfortunate timing with respect to a "Neutrality" tag ... and discussions with posts as recent as the day of archiving and few older than a few days, which is the basis of a policy dispute which must be clarified, and which was swept off the table by the BAD ACT of premature manual archiving. NOTE (Why didn't I revert it?) I saw the first half of the archiving as an edit summary happening, and reacted to it with a message on the talk page (rather than reverting myself, with implications of an edit war) ... which was quickly followed by Mr. Dodd's archiving the rest (without an edit summary) ... and if I then reverted the two editors myself etc etc ... and so I stayed on the talk page to object to the bad act. Saying that, oh, just put a new heading, and link down to the archive, and all is well ... WELL NO, since I do not think it normal practice (is it) to continue discussions down in an archive. Yada yada yada (surely some can argue otherwise, but not persuasively). IN ANY CASE... I assume the "apparently good solution" will stand, HOWEVER the policy dispute ... and Mr. Dodd's behavior in the context of it (discussions of which were swept off the table) will apparently need a forum other than that talk page. BOTTOM LINE(S): A. (Forum) suggestions? (Edit: Who in their right mind has time.:) AND/OR B ... specific permission to restore the section "Speech?" to the talk page ... and let Mizabot remove it in good time. Excuse all this noise up here ... but simply cannot resist the topic title. LOL -- Proofreader77 (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Dodd has been warned, and has responded. Until and unless he does it again, there is nothing more to say. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Adding, if you want the one section restored, all you had to do was ask me and I would have done so. I appreciate you nto edit warring over the reversion. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Oh dear. I have now gone and looked at the section in question, and its huge, full of lengthy posts like the one above. Suggest you link to it, as I just did, and continue the discussion... hopefully with considerably more effort towards brevity and concise statements than you have previously had. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Oh my! :) A change of topic with the casting of an aspersion to close on, (such sweet concision LOL), but I'll run with it. (RHETORICAL) QUESTION: If we were to compare the average number of words in my messages vs, say, Simon Dodd's ... what's the ratio? Now, to the serious matter of how the complex collage of my structured (and highly formatted) comments of just the right length ... serve the purpose of addressing the complex issues of neutrality in the Sarah Palin article ... Oh dear, that's is a much longer communication, which doesn't fit here. :) (Unless there is an unexpected clamor for more.) TWITTER VERSION (140) The design of rhetorical communication to effectively wrangle belligerent streams of analytic pettifoggery ... cannot be judged with a ruler -- Proofreader77 (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Request for clarification (to resolving administrator) Do you explicitly prohibit the restoration of any of the inappropriately archived conversations at Talk:Sarah Palin? Proofreader77 (talk) 02:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC) At this time, yes, I would consider that a disruptive move. Link to the archived discussions if you wish to continue them (and please try to learn to be less verbose in your posts.) KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 02:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Protocol note (mentioned editor not notified) (noting for the record) I (Proofreader77) was not notified of this discussion in which my editing behavior was characterized negatively (someone later condenses that characterization as "baiting"). While the originator says he was not asking for my behavior to be subjected to scrutiny (rather his own), events unfolded while the characterization stood in this forum without my rebuttal. Since I am not sanctioned, this may appear unimportant, but the complexities of the situation resolved in a context where the characterization was information available to those making a decision. Proofreader77 (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Executive summary (by a mentioned editor) The reason for all the words above ... and most of the recently created expanse of words which Simon Dodd prematurely archived at Talk:Sarah Palin, ... which generated even more words .... is because the answer to the question the main topic of this section asks ... is yes. Now: Conclusively demonstrating the truth of the above statement would of course require rhetorical analysis of a vast list of diffs, for which no one (in their right mind) has the patience. And so, the result of "this incident" is that those who act as Simon Dodd acts ... fortified with encyclopedic knowledge of Wikipedia policy which they can quote, bend, and spew ad infinitum ... no matter how speciously and unpersuasively ... (and if you aren't persuaded you will find aspersions cast regarding your apparent "POV-serving" "bad faith" "nonsensical" failure to not be persuaded by Simon Dodd who as lost patience and no longer has to respond to you civilly because AGF is not a suicide pact, or something)... will usually prevail a few wrist-slaps not withstanding, and sensible folks will let them have the bone they are chewing on. :) -- (signed, the mentioned but un-notified LOL) Proofreader77 (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible cut & paste move--what to do?

User:JackofOz has apparently moved the article on Sims Reeves from his full name, [45] via cut and paste. I haven't notified him on his talk page, but I'm pretty sure this goes against Wikipedia procedure. What should I do? --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 03:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If you would like to handle this, first explain to the editor the reason why this is forbidden (because it loses the article history), then undo the edits to the two articles or ask him to do it himself. Tell him that proper page moves in situations like this require the intervention of an admin. Since JackofOz asked whether this was okay back in April and got no response, there is no reason to believe he wasn't acting in good faith. (Disclaimer: I'm not an admin myself but I've handled this situation before.) Looie496 (talk) 04:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I would just ask him directly on his talk page. JackofOz has been here for 6 years, and is one of our most prolific editors. I am sure he would be ammenable to discussing this with you, and if he screwed up, I am 100% sure he will fix it if you let him know about it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the move, it looks like he clearly noted in both edit logs what he was doing; which is usually enough for a cut-and-paste move. Some situations mandate a C&P move, such as article mergers, and this is the standard way it is done. Since both edit logs indicate the time and content moved, I think that is enough to qualify for GFDL/CC compliance. See Help:Merging for more info. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

While the edit summaries have helpful information, I think it is best to keep the page history in one article. Since the cross-page diff shows no substantial changes, I suggest that the old redirect/current article be tagged with {{db-move}} or speedied WP:CSD#G6 and the old article/new redirect moved as usual. There's no need for the extra work of a histmerge. Flatscan (talk) 05:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I've history merged the Sims Reeves article, and I've notified Jack about this discussion. Cut and paste moves should only be performed when merging or splitting articles. Using an edit summary to note a regular cut-and-paste move is not adequate because edit summaries aren't machine-readable. Also, when an article's history is split into two or more parts, some of the history can disappear due to page moves and other problems. For example, part of the page history for the light-year article was at Template:Convert/kly for over a year. Graham87 09:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, you can ask an admin to fix cut and paste moves at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Graham87 09:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time and effort to do it right, keeping that last redirect revision separate. Flatscan (talk) 03:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Many humble apologies from this sheepish perpetrator. Not sure what the heck I thought I was doing there. I've done uncountable page moves, and have often flagged for admin attention moves I couldn't do myself. For some reason, I just got it into my head that this solution was both available and acceptable. One out of two ain't bad, I guess. One of the risks of the Be Bold exhortation is that this sort of thing will occasionally happen, even to the cream of editors (*cough*). Again, my apologies. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

May I ask why this wasn't addressed on JackofOz's Talk page first? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

One can only wonder. I also wonder why we don't just +sysop Jack; it seems crazy that he can't do these things himself after 6 years here. Sarah 23:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat by National Portrait Gallery, London

Not really much we can do here; the account has been blocked indef. Take further discussion to Commons:Commons:Village_pump#Legal_threat_from_National_Portrait_Gallery please. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved Account has been indeffed. Durova275 03:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Just letting you guys know about this since it affects a lot (hundreds) of images currently in use on the English Wikipedia. Today the National Portrait Gallery, London issued a legal threat against me. Discussion at Commons:Commons:Village_pump#Legal_threat_from_National_Portrait_Gallery. I haven't taken any action yet. Feel free to repost elsewhere if there's a more appropriate forum. Dcoetzee 01:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Good luck. Prodego talk 01:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC) For what it's worth - as soon as I saw this (David Gerard posted on Foundation-L) I indeff'ed the account that the National Portrait Gallery's attorneys used to send the legal threat, for NLT. This is being handled by Mike Godwin at the Foundation now. There's not a lot we can do on-wiki. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC) So, you broke the law. Then, Georgewilliamherbert took the fun step of kicking the plaintiffs in the nuts and running. Oh, this will be good. ThuranX (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Which law? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC) UK copyright law, it would seem. Let's stop pretending that US law runs the world, shall we? Also, ThuranX, it seems you don't understand NLT. That being said, GWH should not have blocked the account here, as we generally don't block here for actions taken on other wikis. → ROUX ₪ 03:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Scroll to the bottom of the threat. It was issued by an en.wikipedia user via the wikipedia email interface. Algebraist 03:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC) No one is pretending US law runs the world, but given that the Wikipedia servers and offices are in the United States, you shouldn't pretend that UK law runs the world, either. See Libel tourism for more of that at work. --Calton | Talk 04:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Yes - to confirm, I indeffed after I read to the bottom of the email posted, found the "Mailed via interface" and user account name on en.wp, verified in user logs that the user existed and was created before the email was sent, did a quick check on Dcotzee to make sure this was not likely a forgery/prank, and concluded that it was legit and they'd sent the mail and acted. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC) I understand NLT. It's a flawed policy. It's great for stopping the idiots who say 'I want the article to match my POV or i'll sue you'. It's NOT good at all when a foreign government body pursues actual legal action. This is a real legal situation going on here. A en.wiki editor stole 3300 images, breaking the laws in the UK. That's as simple as it gets. He was notified via his en.wiki available email, and apparently the foundation already knows, but blocking the account doesn't look like Wikipedia respects the seriousness of the matter; it looks like we're a bunch of idiotic kids effecting an 'if we block you, you don't count' attitude. and frankly we look a bit parochial, saying 'your laws don't count as far as we think we're concerned. Situations like this are not, or at least, should not be, what NLT is about. NLT is about 'do what I say or I'll sue cause I'm an immature kid or adult who can't handle hard truths,' not 'you broke the laws of our nation, and we're coming after you with weight.' ThuranX (talk) 04:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Is there some particular bitterness you feel for Dcoetzee, or do you just assume bad faith with everyone you interact with? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC) I have no ill will towards him; I thin khis singular action in this case that he brought to wide attention was an incredibly bad decision. If I don't like him, you'll all know about it. My blunt speech patterns are well known here. ThuranX (talk) 05:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC) I understand your strong feelings about the matter and appreciate you expressing them. Dcoetzee 05:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC) I must agree with Thuran here; I don't think blocking the account accomplishes anything at all, and if anything it's a rather provocative move. As the foundation staff are already involved and it appears that communication is now proceeding through other channels, what's done is done, but I think in the future it is not appropriate to block such accounts. Cool3 (talk) 04:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC) A case involving both the murky and untested status of Bridgeman v. Corel in the UK and the question of jurisdiction of UK courts over Americans using American websites is 'as simple as it gets'? I'd hate to see a legal case you considered complicated… Algebraist 04:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC) I want to emphasise that I was only bringing the notice up here because this is an event that impacts English Wikipedia content. I was not calling specifically for any administrator action and I don't think NPG will notice or care if their temporary Wikipedia user account is blocked. I encourage discussion of the case, but no other action is necessary at this time. Dcoetzee 05:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Seems to me that WP:NLT is being applied precisely the way intended: if the NPG's lawyers have a problem, let them take it up with Wikimedia Foundation's legal staff. And really, ThuranX, "stole"? "Guilty until proven innocent, even if it's not even arguably a crime"? Interesting legal theorem. --Calton | Talk 05:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC) (To Algebrist and Calton) It's a crime, in the UK, to take the UK's copyrighted materials. He admitted to doing so. Your debate is "is it a crime if my country doesn't recognize it but the country the materials were taken from does?" that's a thorny one, but that's a personal moral issue. I could go on about how the entire internet contributes to the idea that everything that's ever been on the internet is public domain because the audience size has increased exponentially over what it would've, could've been 25 or 75 years ago, but that's another debate entirely. This is far more like a cop who steals apples from a pushcart, then, when the grocer enters the precinct to complain, is escorted out the door by the policeman's partner. ThuranX (talk) 05:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC) If it were a crime, we'd be hearing from some law enforcement officers, not the aggrieved party, no? I'm no lawyer, and especially not an international intellectual property lawyer, but it seems more likely to me that if this is any kind of offense then it's a tort rather than a crime. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Are the British lawyers planning on kidnapping Dcoetzee from his US home and transporting him to the UK to fight this in a British court for actions taken on a US website? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Not a lawyer, but so long as the uploader (Dcoetzee) can legally upload the images... Prodego talk 04:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC) And, apparently, he can't. ThuranX (talk) 04:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Interesting. Guilty until proven innocent? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC) I don't that word "apparently" means what you think it does. --Calton | Talk 05:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC) The complaint itself admits that the status of B v. C is unclear in the UK -- so it would seem there is not settled law on the subject there at this point, and therefore nobody can be assumed to be guilt of violating it. It is not established that it is in fact a crime to use the material. DGG (talk) 06:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC) The block was a good one. We block for legal threats all of the time, what makes them any different? - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 06:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Motion to close: Is there anything else to see here? This thread needs to go away. Let the legal beagles handle it, the notice was good enough. No point in playing armchair lawyers when our contributions pay a salary. Keegan (talk) 07:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are some things that we can do, here at Wikipedia. As a community service, I have just done one of them: expanded Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. Interlego v Tyco Industries requires writing, and Photography and the law#United Kingdom is, to be frank (having just read the sources that I used to expand Bridgeman), piss-poor, since it's really Wikipedia editors' firsthand interpretation of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act (cited as the source in most cases) rather than the rather different analysis of U.K. case and statute law that is available in actual sources. Uncle G (talk) 06:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/July 2009 cyber attacks

I was wondering if the AfD should be closed now per WP:SNOWBALL? I don't think it needs any further discussion, particularly since it is linked from Main Page. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done Protonk (talk) 03:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

WebCite

WebCite, a popular on-demand web archiving service referenced by Wikipedia over 20,000 times, went down for a server upgrade on June 24th. WebCite is currently "on-line" but a few things were broken in the upgrade and it is currently not working properly - for example, returning error messages or blank pages for most previous archives. ThaddeusB has been in contact with Gunther Eysenbach throughout the process and would like to assure the community that efforts are underway to fix the broken links. In the mean time, please do not remove, or otherwise attempt to fix, "broken links" to webcitation.org. See this discussion for more information. --Blargh29 (talk) 05:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Flameviper ban review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Unblocked, under mentorship of User:Dylan620 and User:Mazca. To be re-blocked or re-indef'd if he fails to follow policy. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Recently Flameviper (talk · contribs) contacted the unblock-en-l mailing list requesting a review of his community ban. Flameviper was community banned on 13 February 2007 and the block implemented by User:Yanksox who noted: "unrepentant sockmaster, wasted community patience and good faith efforts. We don't have time to wait for you to grow up." Following Flameviper's ban, he returned with various socks including Ziggy Sawdust (talk · contribs) and it is this account that he is requesting the community grant him permission to use if his unbanned. As Flameviper, his most noteworthy contribution to this project was the creation of the Adopt-a-user program, a program used to help many new users become familiar with Wikipedia, however, he also struggled with issues mostly related to maturity, including the socking and also difficulties dealing with disagreements with other users.

In June 2007, he successfully appealed but the ban was reinstated 11 hours later when the results of a checkuser indicated he had used a sock (User:Two-Sixteen) in the very unban discussion. For more details see Unblock of Flameviper with editing restrictions. And a further rather unorthodox appeal in June 2008 was not successful because he had created the account Ziggy Sawdust in February 2008 and used that to edit in violation of the ban for four months and then announced this fact at ANI asking to be unbanned. For further details see I am the banned user Flameviper

Also of relevance, on 21 April 2009 Flameviper (at User talk:Ziggy Sawdust) posted an unblock request which was declined by Sandstein, you can see his request and subsequent comment here.

Flameviper was very young at the time of the ban and he tells me that he has matured a lot over the last year and is now ready and willing to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. He also assures me there has been no recent socking. If the community decides to unban him, I would recommend some sort or mentorship, a restriction to one account (User:Ziggy Sawdust) with the ban reapplied if further socking or disruptive behaviour resumes. For the record, I would be willing to help and advise him and generally provide backup mentorship for him but unfortunately I lack the time to be his "full time" mentor, but hopefully another admin or experienced editor would be willing to do that in the event he is unbanned.

For folks not around back then and not familiar with Flameviper's history, you may find further discussions here: Flameviper needs a coach Flameviper and the relevant sock categories are Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Flameviper and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Flameviper.

Flameviper has written a letter to the community which I am posting below. Also note that in the section below we're transcluding from the User:Ziggy Sawdust talk page so that Flameviper can respond to comments and answer any questions so please keep an eye on that section for his responses (hopefully I've set the transcluding up correctly, I'm rather a noob with this sort of thing so apologies if I've made a mess!). Thank you for your consideration, folks. Sarah 07:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm the user known alternately as Flameviper, Lumberjake, Two-Sixteen, Ziggy_Sawdust etc. I've been banned from en.wp since February 2007.

There's a very long story behind this, and a lot of things have happened. In short, the original ban was because of "personal attacks" on the user Elaragirl; I have talked to her since then and we're cool [for lack of a better term].This, of course, followed a lot of short blocks/immaturity/etc on my part, and a lot of arguments between me and the admins.

Now, being thirteen, and enthusiastic about editing the encyclopedia, I decided to do what I'd been recommended to do before and simply create a new account with no ties to the old one. Which worked fine, until my old account's name was revealed. This led to a block on the new account, despite my having done nothing ban-worthy on it. This continued with a few accounts until June 2008, when the crap really hit the fan and Ziggy_Sawdust was permanently banned. Apparently, no amount of positive contribution to en..wp was good enough to let me stay.

Anyway, I'd like to request an unblock under Ziggy_Sawdust and a clean slate on en:wp. This whole thing is ridiculous, to say the least - pretty much every administrative decision regarding me has been made based on stuff I did when I was twelve.. Although I'm probably the only one who's ever done something immature at that age, hopefully we can put this behind us and I can resume editing.

At the time of the block, I was working on a few articles and getting them to GA with rewriting and research. I was doing some AV/newpage work with Twinkle too, and cleaning out the categorization/cleanup backlogs. I don't want to be pretentious, but I started WP:ADOPT too. As for anything else, you can look at any of my contributions from any of my accounts.

And yes, I know a lot of stuff happened. I did a lot of stuff I regret doing, and I'm not going to make excuses for it. However, I'd like to think I've grown up a bit in the last two and a half years (!), and that I can put the drama in the past - editing WP was a hobby of mine for a while and I'd like to help build an encyclopedia again.

PS. If you disagree with something I've said here, please don't just pooh-pooh the post, I'd be more than glad to have correspondence with you about any questions/concerns you may have.

PPS. Links for reference below...

• Special:Contributions/Flameviper
• Special:Contributions/Son_of_a_Peach
• Special:Contributions/Two-Sixteen
• Special:Contributions/Lumberjake
• Special:Contributions/Ziggy_Sawdust

User:Flameviper, sent via email 30 June and posted here by Sarah 07:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Unblock. I don't think that with the age flameviper now is, maturity will have increased that much. People who've seen me around will know that I normally stand on the other side of the line from people like Friday when it comes to ageism, but in this case I'm willing to make an exception. He's saying he did stupid, immature things when he was twelve, and he's all adult and mature now that he's... fourteen? I doubt it. He's moved from being a child to being a hormonal child - that doesn't traditionally bring instant maturity. My normal argument is "if someone is immature, we should be able to see it in their contributions" - in this case we have. Essentially he's had a one year gap between his socking and now, not two, and I didn't see a big jump between twelve and thirteen, so why should the gap between thirteen and fourteen be any different? Ironholds (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

  note that my use of English here is god-awful as I've been at work since 7am GMT, but I hope I made my point. Ironholds (talk)

• Support Unblock While I understand where Ironholds is coming from, I think there is a very big difference between 12 and 14 - in very much why there is this thing called "teenager" that is a transitional stage between child and adult - in that behaviours do change drastically in this period. The other reason for unblocking is that it is very easy to block again if the communities trust is misplaced - AGF and all that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Extremely Hesitant Support With the understanding that he's gone for another two years the moment he reverts to his old ways. I still remember some of his antics, so I'm not terribly moved by the unblocking request. However, I do acknowledge that there is a bit of growing up that happens between 12 and 14, which is really the only reason why I'd be willing to give him [yet] another chance. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• (non-admin) Comment Looking through his statement, I was disappointed to see no word from him addressing his socking and how it was wrong to do so, especially from a user who continued to sock after User:Two-Sixteen was blocked. Also, looking through the archives that Sarah posted, I saw that at the last discussion, Durova mentioned that Ziggy/Flameviper had expressed an interest in editing the Simple Wikipedia to help facilitate his reform and return to this project. Did he ever do so? Auntie E (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • sulutil:Ziggy Sawdust shows at least some edits on SE, and sulutil:Flameviper shows a smattering of contribs elsewhere under the WMF umbrella (mostly just throwaway userspace edits, and most are very, very old). I would certainly be happier if his Simple English Wikipedia edits were a bit more recent than October of 2008. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Hrmm...If I was convinced via checkuser that he hasn't been socking in the past 6 months, I will consider supporting an unblock under a strict probation. (Unfortunately, I can't just AGF that he hasn't been; It's not easy for a hardcore sockpuppeteer to go legit.) Auntie E (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support unblock - it's been a long time since I've heard anything from Flameviper, and I think he should be given a new chance. Flameviper appears to have not caused any recent problems, and appears to be willing to reform. As long as he understands that he would be reblocked if he resumed old disruption, then I'm fine with an unblock. Acalamari 16:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment per Aunt Entropy, would consider endorsing a return per Wikipedia:Standard offer. That would mean either six months without socking, or three months without socking plus 500+ useful edits and good history on a sister WMF project. Doesn't seem like we're quite there yet, but would be glad to support Flameviper's return a little way down the road if he goes along with that. Durova²⁷³ 16:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know Durova, he says he hasn't socked for over a year and so far no one has produced any evidence showing otherwise and even the CU who exposed the 2007 socking-while-appealing has supported. Do you have any evidence to suggest it has actually been only less than 6 months? If so, I'd be very interested to see it. Otherwise I'd suggest you might reconsider? He has tried to do the right thing this time by contacting the unblock mailing list to appeal and I think you might be being a bit of a hard task master by requiring he do more time and edit another WMF project, if he has already sat out over a year, as he says. Thanks for your consideration though. As one involved in previous discussions and having lived through that history I appreciate your input. Sarah 05:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Per confirmation that the socking has ceased a sufficient time, Support unblock. Durova²⁷³ 17:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support unblock Noone has mentioned any particularly bad behaviour, only immature. As such, two years later, with promise not to do it again, seems plenty of time. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support unban - Flameviper/Ziggy seems really does seem to regret his past sockpuppetry and immaturity. To be honest, from reading the past discussions about him, I have always believed that Flameviper had the best at heart for Wikipedia – especially with him having founded the Adopt-a-User program. If the consensus is reached for Flameviper to be unbanned, then I would be delighted to lend him a hand if he ever needs one. → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 16:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Support unban He seems like he's really trying to be honest and responsible, and he seems to want nothing more than to legitimately and honestly edit the encyclopedia. At that age, a year or two makes a huge difference in maturity. Being in my twenties, I can remember a marked difference between in my maturity every single year in that range (between 12 and 16). hmwithτ 16:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support unban It's been long enough; this editor should be given a fresh start with the slate wiped clean. Looie496 (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose unban - I remember all the nonsense created by Flameviper's activities while he was still around. Tracking down socks is tedious work, and he made us do a lot of it. The only case for unblock I'm perceiving is: (a) he wants to be unblocked, (b) some time has passed. Per Durova's comment above, I'd support the WP:Standard offer, which requires either six months without socking, or three months plus 500 edits of useful work on a sister project. Durova observes that he has not yet met this criterion. My continued reluctance is strengthened by

1. His past abuse of efforts to get himself unbanned (using a sock to vote in support of his own unbanning)
2. He has not come forward with a complete list of his socks
3. Nobody has yet volunteered to be his mentor.
4. No evidence that he ever did the proposed work at the Simple English Wikipedia that was mentioned above by User:Aunt Entropy.His contributions are at this link.

EdJohnston (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Postscript by EdJ - Thanks to all for the comments and updates. He *does* appear to meet the terms of Durova's WP:Standard offer. I did take a look at his contributions at Simple English Wikipedia, about forty edits in August and October 2008. It's not a terrible record, but there's not much evidence there of judgment or maturity. (Check some of the edit summaries). Since his past record here was so terrible, I've not felt moved to lift my Oppose vote, though I admit the grounds aren't as strong as before. Sarah originally proposed that he be unbanned subject to mentoring, but I observe that no mentor has yet been found. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you clarify what socking has occurred within the past six months? I haven't been able to see any less than a year old. Looie496 (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your review, Ed. Flameviper has left a response for you in the section below and I would just add that I'm unsure why Durova believes that he hasn't sat out six months. I'm personally not aware of any evidence that suggests he isn't telling the truth when he says he hasn't edited for over a year and I spent a few hours reviewing his case and compiling information for the above statement. I would very much welcome seeing any such evidence, though, if Durova or anyone else has any. Also note that Jpgordon, the checkuser who identified and revealed that Flameviper was using a sock during the June 2007 unban discussion has endorsed unblocking. Thank you for reviewing the appeal; I do appreciate you taking the time. Sarah 08:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support unban WP works on the spirit that everyone makes mistakes and that most of them can be forgiven. We have admins afaik who were once indef banned from the project, came back and proved that they have indeed learned from their mistakes. We should extend the same offer to Flameviper. We have banned him in 2007, more than 2 years ago now and I for one think that people can indeed mature in 2 years. Let's unban him, under conditions (see Durova above) and if he really starts acting up again, the block button is very easy to push. There is really nothing to lose here but we might gain a matured editor who knows their way around the project. Regards SoWhy 19:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I'm indifferent to whether or nor the editor is unbanned, but if he is unbanned, shouldn't he use Flameviper (talk · contribs) as the new main account instead of Ziggy Sawdust (talk · contribs)? I ask this because it appears the Ziggy account was a sock.--Rockfang (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Not necessarily. The community could unban him and restrict him to the Ziggy account if it wishes, or it could unban him and restrict him to the Flameviper account. The community can basically do anything it wants (within law and reason, of course). After all, policy is just a description of what has generally happened in the past, not what we have to do in the future. Plus WP:IAR and all that jazz. I'm aware of a couple of cases in the past where we have unbanned people and allowed them to use what had been a sockpuppet because they didn't want to edit under their original username for whatever reason. Sarah 09:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• (Non-admin) question S/he mentions a couple of things as not being their motives (vandalism and personal attacks). I'd like to see them address the other side of the coin: Why and what do you want to contribute if reinstated? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm of the same mind as Ironholds. I'm not sure why aging from 12 to 15 and 7 months (which, btw, I have no idea how he did in two years) indicates a marked improvement in maturity, especially when we know how spectacularly poorly he behaved before. That said, I'm mildly inclined to support unbanning per AGF, but with the basis that any repeat of the behavior for which he was banned results in an instant re-ban with no more chances. ÷seresin 00:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, it's a tad confusing, however, he was originally indefinitely blocked on 22 June 2006, then unblocked but had problems leading up to the reblock in February 2007 and I think when he says he was 12, he's referring to the period between those two blocks. In the letter I posted above he states he was 13 when banned in 2007, which would make him 14 in 2008 and 15 in 2009. I would certainly agree that any repeated bad behaviour should result in a no-second chances reblock. Sarah 05:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support unban. I first ran into Flameviper on his 13th birthday, when I was asked to oversight an edit from him saying that it was his 13th birthday. We routinely oversight the ages of minors, so that was easy. I then encountered him in January of 2007, when some very gross edits were made from his account; I issued an emergency block, figuring he'd left himself logged into a public terminal or something. For whatever reason, after that, he started making himself more and more obnoxious, leading to the community block, and a string of sockpuppets. I probably blocked some of those, seeing as how that's what I do to sockpuppets. When he managed to get himself unbanned, I double-checked to make sure he hadn't been socking again, and of course he had been, so door ass bang. A heck of a lot can happen between the ages of 12 and 16. Some people actually develop things like a sense of what is acceptable behavior. (Some never do.) Has Flameviper done so? I'm willing to think he might have, at least enough for us to give him rope and see if he chooses to hang himself with it or instead help us build an encyclopedia. I think he needs to proceed as User:Flameviper, with an intact and honest history; if his return is successful, he will be a fine example of how a troublesome kid can return as a useful member of our community. If not? Minor annoyance, reban, end of story. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support unban The shackles can always be put back on. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support unban - a good amount of time has passed and Flameviper seems to be genuinely repentant. Granted, there is no way to accurately judge someone's intent based upon text alone, but in the spirit of WP:AGF and the fact that he hasn't caused us any grief in some time make me willing to support a tentative unban at this point. That said, he should be kept on a short leash - no leeway should be given in situations that in any way mimic the previous problems that lead up to the ban, and any regression toward those behaviors should be met with a quick reinstatement thereof. Also, for what it is worth, I must echo jpgordon and Rockfang in that I would prefer to see him unblocked as his original account (Flameviper) for the sake of an honest and transparent history with the project. Shereth 17:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

  Note: I'm not completely convinced he hasn't been continuing his sockpuppetry -- if I were asked in an SPI, I'd answer "possible" -- but it's much easier to detect if he's openly editing with his main account. I do know his list of socks and the sock category is not complete, since checkusers will often just block socks of ongoing annoyances without tagging their user pages. I'd be more impressed if he'd provided us some names we hadn't tagged. But he can't prove a negative, and neither can we. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support unban as a provisional measure. Increased maturity is not only likely, but to be expected, in someone of this age group. Let's give them a chance. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support unban - In the two years that have passed since FV was banned, I have confidence that he has matured, and can contribute to the encyclopedia more than he did. A lot of growing up happens between 12 and 14, and I'm willing to let him have a second chance. His statement above sounds extremely genuine, and I have faith in him this time. (X! · talk)  · @261  ·  05:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Question Would you be willing to edit as Flameviper for the reason I stated above?--Rockfang (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Of course he's willing to edit under the Flamviper account (and he can confirm this himself); he's just saying that it's his preference to use a different account. He's been banned for two-and-a-half years so he's not going to be stupid enough to quibble over accounts and refuse to edit as Flameviper. Please try not to get too hung up on the issue of the account. There's no policy reason I'm aware of that would prevent the community or an administrator from allowing him to use his preferred account. Even people who have been sanctioned at arbitration for socking and restricted to one account have been allowed to choose their preferred account. One example that comes to mind is the account Privatemusings which was originally a sockpuppet, see this finding, limited to one account. The important issue at hand is whether the person behind the Flameviper account should be given a second chance and if you're indifferent to him being unbanned then the matter of which account he would use doesn't matter, right. Sarah 07:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• A "second chance"? Be realistic; this would be a fourth chance. He screwed up the second chance, though he lasted five months; and he screwed up the third chance (by totally unnecessary socking with the two-sixteen account, so yeah, he's could very well be stupid enough to quibble unnecessarily). --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware it has been much more than a second chance. "Second chance" was just an expression; I didn't literally mean this was only his second requested chance. As someone who opposed his previous appeals, I'm only too well aware that it has been a lot more than that and an awful lot of disruption and bad behaviour. Sarah

• Reply to Sarah - You say: "Of course he's willing to edit under the Flamviper account...". It wasn't obvious to me, which is why I asked it. I am indeed indifferent to whether or not he is allowed to edit here or not. It just would seem kinda odd if he used a sockpuppet account as a new "main" one. Just because something isn't written down in a policy doesn't mean it can't be done.--Rockfang (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, as I said yesterday there is precedent for it so it can be done and PM is one of a number of examples of users who were blocked or banned and eventually unbanned/unblocked and allowed to use what had been a sock as their primary account. As long as he's only using one account, I don't see the problem. Flameviper has confirmed he is willing to edit under Flameviper, he just prefers the other username. Sarah 05:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion seems to be dying down -- can I suggest that some admin who hasn't contributed make a decision about whether there is consensus here? Looie496 (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

IMH(non-admin)O, I see consensus for unblock, but not unconditional, I do believe he requires a mentor. Would one of the admins who voted to support this young man step up and take on the job? Once a mentor is found, we can hash out the details on the unblock, but I think we need that first. Auntie E (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Sarah might be a good choice here, she seems to know all the needed details regarding this user. Regards SoWhy 19:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree he needs a mentor, but unfortunately due to other commitments I really don't think that I can take on mentorship. I'm certainly willing to assist and I would make myself available to answer any questions and give him advice and assistance, but I think he needs a mentor who is around and available more than I am. I'm happy to be a back up or assistant mentor though. :) Are there any volunteers? if not, perhaps someone from WP:ADOPT would be willing to help? Sarah 06:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

As a veteran adopter, I would be more than happy to mentor/adopt Flameviper if I am chosen to take on the role. Of course, I would have to create a specialized version of my program for Flameviper, since I have never adopted a former banned user before. Cheers, → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 19:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

As a latecomer to the discussion, I spotted this a few days ago and thought it would be a bad idea, given the history... comments since then have persuaded me that it's probably a mistake to hold such a young person's past against them forever. Such an eager contributor could be an asset, if things turn out well. Support here already appears nearly unanimous, but I'd like to offer my own, as well. The several experienced editors who've stepped up to offer mentorship should provide a healthy comfort zone for all involved. One question I don't think I've seen addressed in full: would we unblocking Flameviper, or Ziggy Sawdust? My own slight preference is ZS, to use a name that is recognizable while still emphasizing a new beginning, but I'm inclined to defer to the user's own preference. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Mentorship

Is everyone ok with Dylan620 (talk · contribs) as mentor? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• I am. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Originally meant to be posted on Dylan's talk page, but I edit conflicted:Speaking as an uninvolved watcher here: I am just not sure if Dylan is ready to take over a mentorship role on the project. While I see that he have adopted users in the past, this really is a much bigger deal, and I think that it would be better if a more experienced editor volunteered for this. I mean no offense towards him; I just think he need more experience before he can undertake such a task of mentoring a previously-banned user. NW (Talk) 23:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Because why? He cannot recognize if Flameviper goes disruptive and he needs to ask for a re-block at ANI? I think he is experienced enough to check a contribs list for problems. I'm more concerned about socks; but the socks were noticed and blocked before without a mentor watching for them. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Dylan's a great guy and enthusiastic, yet have concerns about whether he'd be ready to go this alone. Perhaps a joint mentorship with a second volunteer would be a good idea. Durova²⁷⁵ 23:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

  You volunteering? He's been made aware of the special needs here, btw, and he knows where ANI can be found. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

  Last month I resigned from all five of my mentorships. Have pulled more than my weight in that regard. Are you volunteering? Durova²⁷⁵ 23:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

  That's kindof a nonsense question, Durova. I don't think he needs help - you're the one complaining he can't do the job. Since I see no problem, there is no reason for me to "fix" a non issue. Since you're the one who sees a problem, I asked you a logical question, which you have now turned around into a rather bizarre focus on your recent admission your mentorships were too much for you. I suggest that as you couldn't handle yours, you're hardly an expert on how to handle mentorships. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

  Oppose. Was trying to be cooperative and productive. Rudeness is not persuasive. Durova²⁷⁵ 00:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? You oppose another editor mentoring Flameviper because you think I was rude? Is that really your rationale, Durova??? You are making no sense now, down from very little. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the opinion above (which is that Dylan would be better off with a co-mentor), adding serious doubts about the judgment of the sole advocate for this proposal. Ad hominem and straw man argumentation is no way to hold a serious discussion. Durova²⁷⁵ 00:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

What advocate? I see several editors who said they would like to see a mentor. I'm not one of them. Also, your thin skin about perfectly legitimate concerns regarding your posts are not ad homs, Durova. And finally, I note you have not answered the pertinent question I asked: Are you opposing another editor mentoring Flameviper because you think I was rude? Are you thinking attacking me will distract others from the fact you have failed to address this question? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm personally willing to have a co-mentor, and I respect the fact that Durova is unwilling to be a mentor. And then, Sarah's not active enough. Hmmm; I think I know someone who can be trusted as a co-mentor. → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 00:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I respect that Durova doesnt' want to do it as well; her offered rationale is what I object to. You seem to have a lot of offers for co-mentors below, Dylan. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Switching to support with co-mentorship. Have invited Dylan (at another page) to touch bases/be a sounding board as he meets the challenges. Durova²⁷⁵ 01:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry Dylan, but we really need an experienced administrator doing this. It is important we get this right, and I think one should really be experienced at adopting and mentoring banned users before jumping on board for this particular repeat offender. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Durova resigned her mentorships for a totally different reason, including off-site harassment. She has a history of successful mentorships and her ability to handle them has never been called into question. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
• If the community has concerns; I have no problem volunteering myself as a "co-mentor" here, as I'm reasonably up to speed on this situation. This does not, however, strike me as an awfully complicated situation as far as mentored unblocks go, and I have no concerns personally about Dylan620's ability to handle it. ~ mazca ^talk 00:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll volunteer to do it. I've been around (on and off) since 2005; I know how to recognize when someone is being disruptive. Plus, i'm completely uninvolved in this matter, and therefore neutral. Firestorm ^Talk 00:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If Dylan and Mazca (and Firestorm) want to do it together, I would be totally fine with that; I think it might be even better anyway, to have an administrator with full knowledge of the situation to handle things if the user becomes disruptive. NW (Talk) 00:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Dylan, even though I think this is straightforward and something you can handle, since its been suggested that you have a co-mentor, I'd be happy to help out if you need someone. Course with the number of people offering, you might just have enough to form up a wikipedia baseball team ;) Shell ^babelfish 00:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. I think Dylan could handle it; but more help is almost always better. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I was messaging Juliancolton (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on his talk page while this sub-thread developed two-fold (and I was asking him if he would like to be my co-mentor!). First of all, Mazca, Firestorm, and Shell, I am very happy (and to some point, flattered) that you all would like to help me. Maybe, if this is OK, we could form a team of mentors for Flameviper? Cheers, → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 00:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I fear it might get a bit imposing for Flameviper with that number of volunteers! I'd reiterate that Dylan620 is the main mentor, and have us various volunteers keeping an eye out for difficulties. ~ mazca ^talk 00:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Lol - I agree - no need to make things complicated for anyone involved. If you'd like a co-mentor, its probably best to pick one (we won't get jealous, honest) and know that if anything comes up or if you need someone available right away, you have a pool of people who're willing to support you. Shell ^babelfish 01:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

With less offense than physically possible intended for Firestorm and Shell, I would personally prefer if Mazca was the co-mentor. Not only is he up to speed on this, but he's also an admin, and can re-block Flameviper if he reverts to his old ways. Cheers and thanks, → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 01:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Shell is an administrator too. NW (Talk) 01:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I already knew that. I'd just prefer if Mazca helped, that's all. No offense intended, Shell. :) → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 01:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

None taken of course, having someone who's already up to speed and that you're comfortable working with is a great choice :) Shell ^babelfish 01:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually if you'd consider a three-way, Shell's experience is first rate. She'd be a real plus. Durova²⁷⁵ 02:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree and I'd definitely like to see Shell involved, especially given the *cough* extensive history this user has on WP. Sarah 03:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Dylan should be able to handle being the primary mentor, and I'm happy to back him up. It sounds like Shell also has much to contribute and some strong support; so it sounds like Dylan plus we two admin backups is an arrangement that works for everyone. ~ mazca ^talk 09:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) No problem, i'll bow out gracefully. I just volunteered because it looked like nobody else was going to. Good luck! Firestorm ^Talk 03:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you to all the volunteers, especially to Firestorm. I was just looking at Dylan's pages as a couple of people have expressed concerns with making Dylan the mentor and I noticed on his adoption page it says he has 7 mentorees - is that right?? If so, I think he has plenty already and we should just ask Shell to do it. I also don't think it's really ideal to have a mentor who needs co-mentors. I think we just need someone who is experienced with users with difficult backgrounds and I would really like to see Shell to do it, if she is willing. I also plan to be around and help as much as I can and honestly having a team seems a tad like over-doing it and I wouldn't like Ziggy to feel intimidated by a gang of mentors. Just a thought and I will leave it up to the murderous puppy if she is going to do the close. Sarah 10:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, only two of those adoptees are active (and I'll be adding a third page later on), so I can handle one more. To Durova and Sarah above; I just feel more comfortable working with Mazca. While Mazca and I have interacted previously, this is the first time I've ever met Shell, so I feel more comfortable working with Mazca. Apologies if my English comes out crappy; I just woke up after sleeping for just less than 7 hours. Cheers, → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 11:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Support Dylan as mentor with Mazca backup. So is this settled then? Auntie E (talk) 13:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

So far as I can tell - just waiting on Flameviper to ack the mentorship. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

He's accepted mentorship (see his post at User talk:Ziggy Sawdust#Unblocking) – time to close this thread with consensus for an unban? → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 10:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please be sure to note Dylan/Mazca mentorship, I'm off to unblock (unless already done) and will close myself after doing so if no one else has. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Topic ban proposal for Interestedinfairness (talk · contribs)

Comment: This was posted on the Incidents page and I have moved it here after I was told that the Incidents page wasn't the right place for this request.

---

I am proposing a topic ban for Interestedinfairness (talk · contribs) on Kosovo-related articles. Kosovo is an article and area of interest under probation by the Arbitration Committee. Not only has this user blatantly engaged in edit warring on the Kosovo page, for which he was blocked twice (block log), but he has ignored every single argument that does not support his own POV. Many users have accused him of POV pushing and he has shown complete unwillingness to respect other people's opinions.

The most recent incident, however, is just too much. After a marathon discussion in the Talk:Kosovo page, Interestedinfairness realized that there was no consensus to call Kosovo a country in the lead sentence, but changed it anyways (link), just because he "knows" this to be a fact and nothing else matters. While the dispute here is that Albanians (and those who support them) see Kosovo as a country or state and Serbs (and those who support them) see Kosovo as a province, a long standing consensus was reached to call Kosovo a disputed region or territory, since this is as true as the Alps are a mountain range and it offends no one. However, Interestedinfairness (who speaks Albanian and has the Albanian coat of arms on his userpage) was so bent on pushing his own POV that other users got sick of it as well, and this is evident on the talk page.

This user is currently blocked for the 3rd time for edit warring on the Illyrians article - same story: It's either his way, or the highway. What's worse, some 12 hours after this user was blocked, another user, Mr.Neutral (talk · contribs) (whose username, in a way, has the same message as "interested in fairness") was created and continued "defending Interestedinfairness' views" on the Kosovo talk page. He even went on to give Interestedinfairness a little barn star :P This is probably a case of sockpuppetry, as one administrator said on that talk page, so it would be a good idea to check.

If this was a one time thing, I wouldn't be reporting this. Some users just don't understand how Wikipedia works at first, but then adjust to the five pillars and contribute in a constructive way. This user had his chance and he did not change at all. He did promise to change, but he didn't, which just doesn't make his promises credible anymore. This report was suggested by User:BalkanFever ([46]) for Interestedinfairness' problematic behaviour (edit warring, incivility, refusal to get the point) and is supported by Athenean ([47]), dab ([48]) and probably many more... So, I think a Kosovo-related topic ban is necessary because he (or his puppets) simply will not stop pushing his POV. --Cinéma C 18:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I've launched a sockpuppet investigation against User:Mr.Neutral here [49], as I am fairly certain it is a sock of User:Interestedinfairness. Experienced user, long-term disruption on both Kosovo and Illyrians, treat with severity. --Athenean (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Supported by me too! Because of this pointless marathon discussion about one known criminal of Albanian origin, and his constant reverts to "his" NPOV, and because of numerous disruptive editing on Kosovo: Can You Imagine? ([50]), Serbia ([51]), Yugoslav wars ([52]), and much more... Tadija (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this thread should be moved to WP:AE. That is the most pertinent board for arbitration enforcement. --Athenean (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Yeah, I hate to say "this isn't the right place" again, but have you tried other methods of dispute resolution such as WP:RFC and WP:WQA and WP:MEDCOM and WP:MEDCAB and things like that before jumping straight to "let's topic ban this guy". I agree that the problem needs fixing, and soon, but have other methods been tried? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This user has been active for a long time. He has been explained everything several times. He was blocked when he couldn't control himself, and he's blocked for the third time. Several users agree on a topic ban. He was given several chances, but his latest incident showed that he has learned nothing. Believe me, all other options have been exhausted. Take a look at his contributions and every talk page he has written on - it's all there. A complete unwillingness to cooperate. Any further threats will simply get him to make new promises which he'll break, just like he did the previous ones. He is here for one reason and for one reason only - to push his POV to the end. --Cinéma C 03:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, I believe that pretty much any uninvolved admin can impose discretionary sanctions related to Kosovo. In fact, User:Manjojuice topicbanned him in June if I'm right. Has anyone asked him? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, he'll also been blocked indefinitely. Suggest closing and moving on? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You are blocking the wrong person. Administrator dab is the one behind the scene responsible for most of the povish pro serbian Kosovo articles. --Tibetian (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Please start another section if you have something against dab. There is community consensus against Interestedinfairness 'contributing', and he is already blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. Case closed. --Cinéma C 17:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Prodego has unblocked Interestedinfairness because "he asked him to" ([53]). I would like one of the administrators to review this act, as Interestedinfairness has been blocked indefinitely for proven sockpuppetry. --Cinéma C 01:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I will answer all your queries Cinema, and pose some of my own in due course. For now, take care -- (Interestedinfairness (talk) 10:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)).

Topic ban anew

This isn't resolved in my view. Well, as I noted above, any uninvolved admin can give him a topic ban on the subject if they do wish, under WP:ARBMAC. He's back to edit-warring at Adem Jashari it seems, (and no, just saying I disagree with the sources isn't an adequate response). I'd like a response here or otherwise, I agree with the topicban. If he commits sockpuppetry again, then it's indefinite again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

He did commit sockpuppetry while he was blocked, through three different IPs and through the User:Tibetian account. I've opened a case here [54], but it has yet to be reviewed, even though it's been 15 hours. I'm really starting to wonder why the community is so tolerant of thsi individual. --Athenean (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, now it's a few days ago, not only 15 hours and I am wondering that they are to tolerant of you as this is not your first case you opened all in vain. --Tibetian (talk) 12:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Friend, I've always provided reasons for my edits. I have noted in several places that the sources used by some users are not acceptable according to WP:V. I feel your comment is irresponsible, User:Ricky. Please check the history of the article.

I did not revert the sources because I do not agree with them. If you check my recent edit, you will see that I used one source user:Tadija had provided (the council of foreign relations one). I also kept her main point; that the said person was considered a terrorist by Serbia at the time of the war, but also by the UK and America, but that this was quickly withdrawn.

My edit enriched the article with useful information about the manner in which Adem Jashari was killed, and the resultant effect it had in starting the Kosovo war.

Also, I should note that user:Tadija is not an native-English speaker, no offense intended, but her edits are usually poorly constructed and hammer home a specific point throughout the lead.

Calling Adem Jashari a "war criminal" when he has never been convicted (even by a Serbian court) shows the level of immaturity and POV pushing attempted by some users.

Furthermore, all the good Wikipedians can see that the animosity towards me is only based on POV issues and nothing related to Wikipedia policy.

Proposal to drop this case. Interestedinfairness (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Schutz's tool

I have neither the time nor the energy to tag all of these myself, so I'm bringing the subject here. There is currently a backlog of 248 broken redirects on Schutz's tool, and I would appreciate it if an administrator or two wouldn't mind reviewing these. Thanks in advance! Cheers, → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 21:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

A lot of these seem to be false positives. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The toolserver's enwiki database is broken, so any results from that tool are bound to be unreliable. Also most broken redirects are now deleted by my bot YaRCT --Chris 07:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

POV editing on Swoopo

Resolved

 – User blocked through AIV. Nouse4aname (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Could someone check out this user's contributions to the Swoopo article. They clearly do not adhere to our WP:NPOV policy and have ignored numerous warnings to cease such edits. Regards Nouse4aname (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC) EDIT. Oops, sorry, was aiming for ANI! Gonna leave the post here though...

Note that Bubbabooboo has also been reported to AIV. I have been reverting the edits on the basis that they simply appeared to be vandalism, including removal of sources. I'll leave it for the moment to see if any admin action is taken against the user. Please let me know if I should have handled it differently. Cheers. Quantpole (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Can't revert this image...

Resolved

 – Image reverted on Commons 87.112.22.255 (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Admins, File:Michael_Owen_072007_cropped.jpg was originally a free-use image, but was replaced earlier today with a copyvio image (no fair use declared). I can't seem to revert it, could someone help me out. Thanks, Calebrw (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This needs to be posted over at commons. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I just now realized that and was going to delete this, but I'll just strike through it. Thanks. Calebrw (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Outage

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – No administrator action needed or possible (not much we could do, except maybe putting full protection on the drama-laden areas of Wikipedia that generate so much traffic and kbs), donations to the Wikimedia Foundation can be made at wmf:Fundraising. –xeno^talk 17:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the 2nd weekend now where the site has been more or less inaccessable, at least for Europeans. Is this breakage in service to likely continue? I realasie this is not the place such a question, but cant think of anywhere else. I expect that that I will be pointed towards an apology msg along the lines of 'server down, nothing I can do', but are not the developers paid employees. Ceoil (talk) 13:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

See WP:VPT#extreme slowness.3F - basically the image server got overloaded. MER-C 14:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Weak apology noted, although it took a note on an noticebaord and 10 minutes to download to find out what was going on. Perhalps the foundation would consider employing people who know what they are doing. Some foresight would be nice. Ceoil (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Trust me, you're not the only one (I'm not living in Europe) who feels frustration over the server's severe crashing. I'm in the middle of uploading images, but I can not see any thumbnail to confirm whether I upload right images!--Caspian blue 16:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a charity, the Foundation has next to no employees, and the site is free. Yer gets what yer pays for. You could always donate ➲ redvers ^{The 456} 16:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

So the dev's are not paid. Ceoil (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually devs like Brion VIBBER and Tim Starling are paid. And if you say that they don't know what they are doing, you are sadly mistaken. You have no idea of how much grunt work they do each and every day of the week to keep the site up and running. (X! · talk)  · @753  ·  17:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

In no way do I want to bite admins such as MER-C on this. Just its very fustrating. Ceoil (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This kind of outage would not be tolerated in any org with accountability; the people responsible would be fired on the spot and replaced with capable equivalents. What gives here; the site is not free, it runs on money, is this to be the norm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceoil (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, the site isn't free? If you're paying a subscription, you're being conned, 'cos I'm not. If you donate enough for some investment in new and upgraded servers, then you can start saying people should be fired. Until then, you don't quite seem to understand how it works. Ale_Jrb^talk 17:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand quite well enough thanks, Jrb. Best not treat people like idiots, please. My point is there, would appreciate a non reflexive, and more toughtful reply. The site isn't free, it runs on donations. People are paid. Ceoil (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

So anything with a background expense isn't free, even if services and product are offered without charge? Hard to treat statements like that seriously. Go look up the definitions of "free" and "donation". The site is free, it's been fixed, quit complaining. Tan | 39 17:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Tan, when I want a-rent-a twit to appear with an un-openion I'll ask, ok. Otherwise, well. Ceoil (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That's about what I expected. Funny how everyone ignores an open personal attack when it comes from you. Tan | 39 02:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Just because they are paid does not mean they are open to personal attacks in a public forum. If you have some helpful suggestions, you are free to contact the staff or the board directly. But making uninformed claims of incompetency and calling for firing on the administrator's noticeboard is not in any way helpful. Mr.Z-man 17:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the amount of revenues the Foundation is getting, I don't think it's an issue of not having enough money; it's more like an issue of how effectively that money is being spent. Right now I think we have every reason to ask some serious questions about the latter. Offliner (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Good man Offliner. Its not as if we are not invested. I can't understand in any way the comment below, "We don't have the resources to dismiss dedicated workers over mistakes like this, nor should we want to." That is so opposite to real life it makes my head spin. What is this, a civil service. Ceoil (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I dont see a lot of tought here, only some stop talking....The devs are doing their best! Two weeks in a ouch. Is this how is going to go; last weekend down, this weekend down, next weekend, we dunno; and on? Ceoil (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There are 5-8 people with hardware responsibilities that are paid by the Foundation (only a couple of whom have hardware as their primary responsibility). In addition there are another handful of volunteers with hardware level access. Beyond them there are ~100 or so volunteer software developers. The hardware workers need to maintain ~350 or so physical machines on three continents. Not an easy task. In addition, the fact that WMF generally gets ~2/3 of their annual income during the two month fundraiser often encourages bulk hardware purchases to be clustered as well, with purchases at other times being more targeted to specific needs. Unfortunately, sometimes those needs are not adequately anticipated. That appears to have been the case here. You say that in a more accountable organization people would be fired on the spot. That might be true. But every one of the other top-10 global websites has revenues at least 20 times what Wikipedia recieves in donations. We don't have the resources to dismiss dedicated workers over mistakes like this, nor should we want to. Dragons flight (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

How anyone, without knowing the background on this, could call for the firings of employees is beyond me. Aside from that, Wikipedia's reach and traffic are leveraged far, far beyond its capitalization, mostly because there is more or less no commercial risk in doing so. This is a wonderful way for a privately owned foundation to put forth free content, but it comes at a cost, which is the likelihood of downtime now and then. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You are beating me with my own question. Ceoil (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

As always, uninformed opinions do not reflect poorly on the subject of the opinion, but rather the creator of it. Resolute 20:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

O yeah, I forgot about that. Nobody should question anything, and mind their step. Cool. I understand now. Ceoil (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No, questioning is just fine. Spewing acid in the face of sysadmins, part volunteers, who maintain one of the largest and most complex websites on the internet on a low budget in a way that has been praised by professionals, by someone who has absolutely 0 clue about how the technology is run, ... that is simply disrespectful to say the least. To counter risks like these (a full Internet eXchange going down, running into a vague performance bug), the budget for technology would have to be tripled or quadrupled at least, and possibly even more. It is perfectly fine to ask questions, but you are passing judgement on stuff you know clearly jack about. If you did know anything about this, you would be there helping solve the problem. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Paid or part volunteers? Which is it now? You are saying two things at once. Sorry I asked, if thats the latest ok openion. + 0 clue? You defensive child. It would seem I have to cut through acres of bullshit to get a fact. That on its own indicates the commentators are bluffing and lack any semblance of clue. Ceoil (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I would also point out that the outage last week was totally unrelated to the current issues and could not have been helped by the Wikimedia server admins (a partial power outage at the European datacenter). Mr.Z-man 19:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Could not have been helped? Whaaat! Are you serious. I suppose it is too complicated to explain. Ceoil (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am. There was no way for them to predict in advance when choosing a datacenter that a power circuit within the building itself would fail. Wikimedia does not own the building. It was basically a random event. Mr.Z-man 20:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are am. English please. Ceoil (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Mr.Z-man's "Yes, I am" was in response to "Are you serious." Ceoil, your posts here are wildly inappropriate. Stop immediately. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The latest information is that the server in question is possibly hitting a rather obscure bug specific to ZFS snapshots on open solaris [55]. This is what you get when you stress systems to the maximum level of performance, you hit bugs that few other folks are encountering. And let everybody remember that the system administrators (paid and unpaid) are working in their weekends to find the cause of this issue. When more redundancy or other measures are needed to prevent fallout like this in the future, I'm sure such measures will be taken. Finding the cause and getting stuff back in working order are the priority now however. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

from the sysadmin log: "dropped few snapshots on ms1, observed sharp %sys decrease and much better nfs properties immediately". So hopefully stuff should get a bit better soon now. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The outage a couple of weeks ago was due to a power outage in Amsterdam, hard to blame Wikipedia for that. Thatcher 01:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Backlog at WP:SPI needs admin/clerk/CU attention

SPI is building up a bit of a backlog. There appear to be completed cases dating back to July 2 that need archiving, and several cases awaiting clerk or CU attention dating back 3-4 days or so. I am not a regular there myself, and would probably botch things up if I took care of it; but if anyone is a regular over there and wants to clean up a bit, that'd be cool. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 00:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Frei Hans

Can someone uninvolved with this RFC/U please close this, as the user has now been indefinitely blocked? Thank you, MuZemike 01:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done. NW (Talk) 01:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Today's featured article

Just a note that today's FA is getting a higher level of complaints than usual due to its title. Be prepared with liberal doses of WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:DISC. Stifle (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• We've only got eleven hours to cope with now... :) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Eight OTRS tickets and counting... Stifle (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • One side of me thinks the article is wonderful, keenly sourced and written, educational (I learned) and it cracks me up, too, may even be fit marketing for the project. Another side asks, shall we soon have fuck and erm, (warning, not work or family safe in any way) this one (warning, not work or family safe in any way) as FAs? I'm bringing this up only to stir some quiet thought, I've no worries about this FA: Is there a bright line? Is there a foggy one? Where does clever, funny wordplay end and middle school pranking begin? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • This isn't "clever, funny wordplay" in the first place, so that question is a loaded one that assumes a faulty premise. If there's one thing to learn from this article it is that such names aren't and weren't wordplay. They were straightforwardly descriptive. The article does say this in its introduction. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
      • What I meant by "wordlplay" wasn't the same as how you understood it, I'm sorry I wasn't more careful. As I said, I think the article is wonderfully written and sourced. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Agreed. When I was in college taking History of the English language, we had to write an extensive paper on lexicon and morphology based on a single source. I used the OED and wrote a few thousand words on "cuss words". Bottom line from that applies to this: the word shit exists because it evolved from the Anglo-Saxon root "scythe" which in turn goes back to Indo-European roots. "Bad words" do provide an educational opportunity. Keegan (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• I thought we complied with all sensible requests made through OTRS? Are people being sent an automated reply or something? Fuck you bitch, Wikipedia is NOT censored! Get that through your thick head you goddam N00B. Or something like that maybe? MickMacNee (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Wow. Don't you think that's too mildly worded? Political correctness like that does grow wearisome. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• The co-founder of Wikia and Chair of Wikimedia's advisory board seems to disagree.  :) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• The OTRS emails are getting a reply like this one. Stifle (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Think of the fictional children! Sceptre ^(talk) 14:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • And when we ran an article about a Nazi as TFA last December, it got no complaints that I'm aware of. But run an article the title of which includes a mild expletive, and boom.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Words have meaning, folks can and do get stirred up over them, funny how that is. Altogether, I think this was a clever marketing stunt. That's ok, I think it's funny, I like the article, but I'd hope FAs like this are far and few between. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • See jump the shark for more on where this kind of thing can lead, quick. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Not that I have any problem with today'[s featured article, but if "cunt" is mild, what is severe? Many consider "cunt" to be among the foulest words in the English language. Mike R (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • It's almost certainly not because of the title. This isn't the Scunthorpe problem in action. It's because of the content, which directly addresses one of the seven dirty words and its relation to some street names.

      Ironically, whatever the OTRS complaints might address, the issues on the article's and major contributor's talk pages so far have been about the reliability of one of the sources cited, the correctness of the linguistics, and the notability of a single street name. Outside of OTRS, most people are bringing up issues that are valid editorial concerns, in calm and reasoned manner. Uncle G (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Interesting to see the immature attitude that's being taken to this controversy. It seems like everyone is acting like victims from an onslaught of the politically-correct brigade and must pull through for the good of the encyclopaedia. A 'mild expletive'? You really think the Britannica would feature articles on the subject of expletives of any kind on its homepage? I shake my head in disbelief. --78.146.235.139 (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • This is not Brittanica. MuZemike 15:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Good point. If it's worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia it's encyclopedic, and if it's encyclopedic it's FA-worthy. Not that I nurture any misapprehensions that Autofellatio will ever make it to the main page. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I do not dispute that this article may be well-written (I admit I haven't read it in its entirety) - any article may be worthy of FA status. What I object to is painting it on a sign and shoving it in the face of anyone who cares to visit the homepage. I'm being completely sincere when I say think of the children. --78.146.235.139 (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
        • In that case monitor the children's use of the internet, it's quite simple. – ukexpat (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Why has someone added bullet points to all the comments here? It was totally unnecessary to refactor everyone's posts that way. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, believe me. Most "children" I run into on the Internet cause nothing but grief and trouble for others; see YouTube, 4chan, etc (BTW, I run into "children" like these all the time on YouTube). IMO, they shouldn't be allowed to be on the Internet at least until they are able to type in coherent English and are able to refrain from communicating in Internet slang, including ur gay, lmao, rofl, foad, emoticons, huge amounts of cuss words, kthxbai, omg, zomg, lack of capitalization and/or punctuation, etc (I can keep going). MuZemike 16:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

As the pejorative of the article states in it’s introduction, “….."it is one of the few remaining words in the English language with a genuine power to shock."

It goes on… “The word "cunt" is generally regarded in English-speaking countries as unsuitable in normal public discourse and has been described as "the most heavily tabooed word of all English words.”

So it’s shocking, offensive and unsuitable in normal public use and has managed to disenfranchise thousands of academic and business users due to the Scunthorpe problem and people can defend it being stuck up on the homepage!

As a user of the word I’m not disturbed by it, but as a user of the encyclopaedia I’m disappointed in the thoughtlessness behind this being made an FA, no matter how well written. leaky_caldron (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

As above. I've left a note for Raul on this one; normally I don't have an issue, and just wince at some of the FA choices, but with this one I'm waiting patiently to see when the detractors start jumping up and down on us. And thanking goodness I don't have filters on my work system. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

As a one off, it's ok, because it's ok to try things in good faith, even marketing stunts, but if something like this happens again any time soon, it'll be aught but this (I'd slap the image up on this thread but it's fair use). Gwen Gale (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I learned more from this FA than I ever have from articles about old video games or a recurring character from a 7 episode arc of a TV series. And I certainly thinks it is healthier to have this discussion than to be preoccupied with date de-linking or the proper spelling of "yogurt". Thatcher 16:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes! I like the article a lot and learned from it. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I thought it was an interesting article (though shorter than I'd expect for an FA), and kudos to the editors who brought it there. It's the decision-making process that put it on the main page that I'm concerned about. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The way my english friend uses the word "cunt," one would think it was a comma and not an offensive pejoritive. Livewireo (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You should try Scotland ;-) I grew up partly in England, and moved to Scotland when I was 18 - I was shocked at how often it's possible to get "cunt" into one sentence. "Nae cunt" is a common idiom, equivalent to "no one" in regular English - think more "nae cunt's at the bar", rather than "nae cunt talks to me like that". On the whole I found England much more refined - I've heard folk respond to "cunt" with "don't f****** use language like that in front of me, you b******"...and that's more than enough bad language for me today. Time for a nice cup of tea. (I'll leave you all to ponder why I self-censored some words but not others...) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I've found the social taboo for the word "cunt" to be limited to just the US; folk from the UK say it all the time, and I still remember getting shocked by an Aussie chick that was calling damn near everything in sight a cunt. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting! Might go a long way in helping commenting users understand each other, too. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, it's on the front page. So we're basically sparing kids an extra click to search for "cunt", right? Or at the very least "fuck", which will eventually lead them there. Anyone who thinks kids don't immediately search for all the words that cause gasps and giggles the moment they open up their first encyclopedia, or for that matter, get on Google, is a fool. Send all complaints to the dustbin or, better yet, some form of public mockery. --Golbez (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the problem is kids, but people who're fundamentally decent, not particularly stuck up or prudish, and nevertheless don't like to be unexpectedly presented with words like "cunt". Will nobody think of the parents? I will happily exchange swear words with the next guy, but I think this was a poor choice for our front page, and this position shouldn't be confused with being pro-censorship. As Jimbo said a while back, "It is not censorship to exercise mature and responsible editorial judgment". SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Aye. I've been arguing the toss for much of today with the "won't somebody please think of the children?"-brigade, but a few sensible complaints have emerged:

• Placement. Fair enough we reward article improvement by promoting articles to FA status, but we could handle this better. One idea I had was to replace the article "teaser text" and title with a banner explaining that "Today's FA may be considered offensive, and readers may wish to exercise caution etc etc yada yada". The banner would link to the article.
• Filters. In a perfect world corporations and schools would have sane filters, and they'd trust their employees and students. In an imperfect world large swathes of academia, at least, will have been prevented from viewing Wikipedia today, without students/academics typing in direct URLs.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with either of these issues, but there are issues beyond "OMG! Censorship!" and "OMG! Think of the children!".

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not up to us to decide what might be offensive, only to present encyclopedic topics in a scholarly manner, which this article does very well. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Exploding Boy here, while I am sure that the editor/s who brought the article up to FA standard had a few private laughs, the article is nonetheless presented in an encyclopedic way. As Exploding Boy said, its not up to us to try and deem what is offensive and what is not Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well. Really, in the end its just a naughty word, no biggie. Imagine the reaction if someone ever decides to sit down and work up the Virgin Killer article to FA status. Hrmm.... Tarc (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. But to accomplish that, we certainly don't need to stuff them in peoples' faces right when they open the site. Look, I grew up around loggers, mechanics, truck drivers, and such; I've got a vocabulary that would probably put anyone vaguely squeamish in their graves. I don't have an issue with the word. It's the image that's my concern. Fact is: people *will* be offended (note the comments from Stifle about OTRS, note the thread on Talk:Main Page, et al), even if the word in question *is* less stigmatized outside of North America, and that needs to be something that we consider in our choices for the front page. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. This is exactly the type of argument that has a chilling effect on certain types of academic research, for example (a recent example being protests over queer theory courses at universities in the US). Exploding Boy (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

So we're crusading for what, exactly? The right of all encyclopedias to say "cunt" on the cover? I see potentially large reputation cost with little apparent gain, and so I am worried. I don't think this article crossed a line, whatever line there might be, but it is testing the boundaries. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the more fascinating aspects of Wikipedia is how reading up on one topic often leads to clicking a link to another, and another, and another. So here today, we have a rather interesting article - one of the more interesting FA's I've seen in a while on the main page regardless of the name - that is going to draw people in. Obviously it will draw them in because "OMG! they said cunt! he he he he!", but many of those very same children we are trying to think about are going to end up clicking on London, England, etc, and start reading about ...tamer... history. That, of course, is a good thing. Or, in short, everyone complaining about the use of a word is missing the point. TFA is intended to draw people in. This article will do just that. Resolute 20:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a crusade? And I wasn't informed? Well smack me with a trout and call me a cunt! I doubt anyone here particularly cares about "all encyclopedias"; I certainly don't. But I can certainly imagine an article like this in a scholarly journal or the Publications of the Modern Language Association, and I can see no good reason, arguments given here, on Raul's talk page, and on the Talk:Gropecunt Lane page included, why we shouldn't publish it on our front page. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you imagine an article like this as the banner article on the front page of an MLA publication? What about Google? MSN? Britannica? I'm specifically concerned about the potential damage to our reputation from this sort of thing; you're free to consider that unimportant (I don't), or to suggest the risk is worth it for any of a number of reasons (I'm open to suggestions, but dubious), but to simply ignore the risk seems unwise. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

A search for "Gropecunt" on Google News returns zero results. If that stays that way for 48 hours it's safe to assume that this hasn't spread beyond a few people who are terrified by certain groupings of letters, and that our reputation is secure. --Golbez (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Duly noted, but I do want to emphasize the concept of risk -- earthquakes are rare, even in "earthquake country", yet they still factor heavily in public decision making. My concern in this matter has much the same tenor: major media fallout is likewise rare, but can have a large impact. I don't think media coverage is necessarily a prerequisite of reputation damage, either; that just takes it to a larger scale. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• What has annoyed me about this whole debate is that a number of people who have expressed concerns with this (including me) have pointed out that it's not about keeping this kind of thing away from the kids, it's about an image issue, and yet most of the response has been claiming an attempt to censor or lay a chilling effect down or something similar. One comment asks why Americans are so puritanical about sex; it's not about sex, it's about a common vulgarity that a lot of people don't like to hear, read or disseminate, and here it is splashed onto the front page of one of the world's most trafficed web pages. I'm firmly against censorship, I'm strongly in the camp of 'sex is normal and natural and should be taught to kids responsibly,' so being lumped into a general group of 'censorship because of sex' - which, around here, renders any concerns from that particular group moot - frankly pisses me off. But, oh well. Kudos to the folks who brought the article to FA, it's very informative and well written. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • it's not about sex, it's about a common vulgarity that a lot of people don't like — No, it's not actually about that, either. It's about an encyclopaedia article that educates the reader about a street name, once considered everyday, ordinary, and clearly publishable, now eradicated. cunt wasn't featured. Gropecunt Lane was. Uncle G (talk) 12:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, I'm sorry I said anything. Next time I have a concern, I'll keep my mouth shut as it's obvious my point has been missed. Carry on. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we get it; you worry about the Wikipedia taking some sort of image hit by featuring the word "cunt" prominently on the main page, that this hinders attempts to be taken seriously here. As far as I'm concerned, those what would look upon the Wikipedia less favorably because of this are the types whose opinion I don't give much weight to in the first place. Tarc (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Question for User:Stifle - mind if I ask how many OTRS complaints have been received thus far? Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• I've yet to see anyone explain what harm could come to a child upon reading the word "cunt" in this academic sense. Especially as they can simultaneously learn the etymology (also learn what etymology means) of that word. So can someone please explain to a father of two girls what the actual harm is when caused by this word (or any word for that matter)? --WebHamster 11:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess I must be truly out of things: I read the article, know quite well that "cunt" is an offensive word, but it never occurred to me (honest!) that this article might lead to a wave of complaints. I found it a very fascinating article, & my only criticism was that at a couple of points the article seemed to be rambling. (I guess my mind is so filthy that I am beyond salvation.) -- llywrch (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone was unhappy about the article's appearance on the main page: [56]. (Sorry, don't know how to make direct links.) --Calton | Talk 02:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

How to make an external link? Like this -- look at the source. You were almost there. -- llywrch (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I know how to make external links, thank you very much: I meant a link to a specific tweet. --Calton | Talk 15:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to be insulting, just helpful. (You & my wife respond to my suggestions in much the same way; I wonder if you went to the same school. :-) -- llywrch (talk) 05:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Help with article move

Resolved

Could someone please move India Pentecostal Church of God to Indian Pentecostal Church of God which I believe is the correct name? There was a previous move so I am not able to do this myself. Thank you! -- Banjeboi 08:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I tried to move it but fail. I suggest you to nominate the article here. The Junk Police (reports|works) 08:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Article moved, fixed double redirects. Next time, I would use {{db-move}} which should take care of it. Regards, Woody (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to remember {{db-move}} for next time - thanks for the help! -- Banjeboi 09:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible unapproved bot actions

User:Thehelpfulbot is tagging talk pages with a GFDL-related notice; this is not on the bot's list of approved tasks. Any thoughts? Tan | 39 19:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That edit was more than a month ago... Mr.Z-man 20:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I am aware. I am also not very concerned with the issue in general; seems rather harmless. However, I declined an AIV report on this issue (here), and since another editor was concerned, it seemed appropriate to bring here. Tan | 39 20:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I cannot answer the question at hand ... my mind is still boggling that this was reported at AIV! — Kralizec! (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sidenote: Discussion was at VPP. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 18:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Attacking other editors

I don't wish to get involved with Casualties of the Iraq War but one anonymous editor (208.120.242.207) is using offensive language and generally being quite rude. Perhaps if an admin asked him to cool down he might respond to reason? Dynablaster (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd refer both Timeshifter and 208.120.242.207 to our options for dispute resolution. hmwithτ 13:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I left a note on the talk page. hmwithτ 13:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Dynablaster (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV is backlogged

Resolved

 – No longer backlogged

Can somebody take a look, please? Thank you. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

AfDs to close

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daimler Davos

Article has been deleted but the discussion page is still open. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You can always add a {{db-talk}} tag to the Talk page in these circumstances. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I meant the AfD discussion page. But it's taken care of now. :) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You should be dropping the deleting admin a note, rather than posting here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think in cases where the article has already been speedily deleted, it's perfectly appropriate to perform a non-admin closure stating as much. But asking the deleting admin to close it works, too. It doesn't really matter, as it will get closed soon enough by somebody. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheapatopia

Resolved

Speedy close, perhaps? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

An alternative would be to leave it alone. There's no rush. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Victoria Justice show

Resolved

Article has been deleted but the AfD discussion page is still open. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Then close it. There's no call to post to AN whenever some task needs doing at AFD. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's not what this noticeboard is for. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the editor posting wasn't familiar with how to close the AfD, or felt that "unusual circumstances" required the assistance of an administrator. — Ched :  ?  20:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that's fair enough. My reply wasn't very helpful, was it?

User:COMPFUNK2, in general, AFDs can be dealt with on their own turf. Usually they're only brought to a noticeboard such as this one if there's really something unusual, like a fire that needs putting out.

If you look here, you can find instructions on how to close AFDs without any admin assistance. The only steps that might require an admin are deleting pages, if that's what the discussion indicates, or possibly dealing with protected pages. If those are already done, or if they don't apply, then anyone can close the discussion.

I hope that's a bit more useful than my previous reply. Thanks, Ched. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Request editing ban on IP 208.104.139.77

I'd like to request an IP user be blocked after repeatedly changing statistics without source citations and re-adding inappropriate external links after repeated reversions and warnings. User is IP 208.104.139.77. Edits have been mainly to Rock Hill, South Carolina but also includes Hampden, Maine and South Carolina. Constant edits to add external links. Most do not seem to be promotional spam so this is unlikely clasified as vandalism, but rather listing lots of individual businesses that just happen to be in a city within that city's articles (WP is not a link farm and the primary subject of sparse EL's should about the main subject which would be the city), plus adding lots of links to weather websites for each city, all of which is inappropriate external links. Also repeatedly changes the population statistics of different city articles without any citations. Even worse, they leave the old citations in which then become false citations that do not support the content.

I'd like to request a block of IP 208.104.139.77. Again, I don't think you'd consider this intentional vandalism but they are repeatedly ignoring warnings both on their user page and in the edit comments. Plus this is just an unregistered IP address. I figure if they really want to keep editing on Wikipedia they have to learn to listen to what other editors are telling them (not just me BTW) and it wouldn't hurt them to register a username either.

Thanks. --Fife Club (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. This IP user's history of making "crazy" edits against WP policy goes way back so it's not just the activity over the past week. Here you see he added a top 10 list of best places to visit (clearly promotional and completely against NPOV) (and nice spelling of "bored"), among many other edits against WP policies. So my reason for the ban request is the long term trend, and that if he wants to keep editing he has to pay attention to what other editors are telling him is inappropriate and play by the rules, and not just undo what other editors have undone of his. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fife Club (talk • contribs)

Leaving a somewhat lengthy note for this user; hopefully that leads to some resolution, but as they haven't edited in a few days we may need to wait and see what they do next. – Luna Santin (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Your message to them was very polite and hopefully helpful to them. (I was getting frustrated with the constant re-revisions). I'll post here again if they continue but either way I wanted to thank you for your help.  :-) --Fife Club (talk) 00:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD#Final_decision

Discuss

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

For the Committee MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism by an Admin

Resolved

 – Not an English Wikipedia issue. — neuro^(talk) 06:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it is a right place to write about a Wiki Commons problem or not? By the way, I have uploaded 5 images related to recent uprising of people in Iran against the government in the Commons then I and other users used them in some English Wikipedia article. There was not any problem till I put some of them in an article in the Persian Wikipedia. Then I noticed that all those images were deleted in the Commons. It sounds like a Persian Wikipedia administrator who also has administrator's access to the Commons has deleted those pictures to Censor the Wikipedia! Since it is a very big abuse of Administratorship, I demand immediate investigation and punishmet of the faulty person.

Here are the pictures in commons which were deleted and I uploaded them again:

File:Basij Militia members.jpg, File:Basij member with a knife.jpg, File:Mohammad Javad Basirat.jpg, File:A close shot of an armed basij militia.jpg and File:A shot of the demonstration of 18-Tir.JPG

--Breathing Dead (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This belongs at commons. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This Wikipedia cannot handle any such disputes. If you have a problem with things that happened on Commons, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems is the correct place to raise them. Regards SoWhy 21:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, the deletion of these files at Commons was accurate. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nor is this a case of vandalism. the problem is this: "A friend of mine who gave permission to use this image freely." That is not acceptable on Wikimedia without an OTRS confirmation. Which is notably problematic of course in this case due to privacy issues, but please discuss this on Commons and perhaps another system can be devised where you take personal responsibility perhaps trough an OTRS ticket, and then it might be OK. However, this needs to be discussed on Commons. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

These images are now uploaded to Wikipedia- this has become our problem. I see sourcing issues and potential BLP problems. J Milburn (talk) 23:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted these from en.Wikipedia owing to lacking/wrong licence information along with highly meaningful and sundry BLP worries. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

GFDL, copyvio and moves

After getting involved in a minor move war I have noticed that U-boat Campaign (World War I) started rather abruptly with a huge chunk of text. Some of this (a minority) is based on the history of Battle of the Atlantic (1914–1918) which was a huge copyvio. My question: should they be history merged given the copyvio nature of the old text? Thanks, Woody (talk) 08:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No, history merges shouldn't be done unless the two versions are the same or very nearly so. A note on the talk page of U-boat Campaign (World War I) will be enough. However it would be a good idea to keep the edits from the Atlantic article around for attribution purposes. If that's not possible, then cut and paste the attributions from the page history and note them on the talk page. Graham87 13:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That was my thinking. Thanks for the advice. Regards, Woody (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and {{copied}} comes in handy for this. Regards, Woody (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There are interleaved edits and the cross-page diff shows substantial changes, so a histmerge will probably confuse things. The {{Copied}} looks fine. I'll examine the articles more closely and write a dummy edit with the oldid if appropriate. Flatscan (talk) 05:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sock collection

Resolved

 – All the listed usernames have been blocked. Killiondude (talk) 07:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

These accounts are certainly the same person, adding hate comments aimed at blacks to articles: Capetown Jones (talk · contribs), Tsubarov (talk · contribs), ZechsMarquis (talk · contribs), and Zachary109 (talk · contribs) (in chronological order, earliest to latest). I don't have a lot of experience with sockpuppets. No CUs, but the duck test definitely indicates they are the same person. Should they be templated? A category? Nothing? Thanks. (all blocked of course). Dougweller (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You could use the sockpuppet template with the "refer to behavioural evidence" but if I were you, I'd probably go for the "nothing" route. –xeno^talk 17:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The puppetmaster is sick and twisted, see [57] and [58] and [59]. Dougweller (talk) 06:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh my god. Can we please get those revisions deleted? That is sickening. → ROUX ₪ 06:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a little speedier? I'm not usually one to beg speed, but Jesus. — neuro^(talk) 06:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Came back as 70.17.193.4 (talk · contribs). I thought the above diffs had all been deleted, by the way, many apologies if any of them hadn't been, they are something I'd delete before I did anything else. If the articles themselves get hit again in the next few days I'm going to protect them for a month. Dougweller (talk) 08:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Jenny Pat

Resolved

 – Offending article deleted per BLP concerns. — neuro^(talk) 06:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I was using Huggle and came across this edit which I wanted to bring to the prompt attention of an administrator. Newportm (talk) 04:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually you need to look here at the edit summary. Newportm (talk) 04:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps report it to the WP:COI noticeboard? Exploding Boy (talk) 04:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

After failing to read the instructions above, I am currently reporting to WP:RFO Newportm (talk) 04:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure this isn't an Oversight issue. Seems more like a potential conflict of interest. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Exploding Boy is correct, that it is not truly an oversight issue. It is, however, a biography of a non-notable person (she works at a fine arts auction house now, and was a presenter on what was then a very small cable TV channel) that has more BLP-violating versions than one can shake a stick at and, when taking out the BLP-violating material, the rest is poorly sourced. I've deleted it. Risker (talk) 06:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket

Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs) seems to be on a WP:POINT run right now. First, he tagged Meridian Mall, an article with plenty of secondary sources, for A7 (diff) when it clearly didn't meet it. Then, he did the same thing to Lansing Mall, which is also far from lacking in sources (diff). He has since listed both articles at AFD with a rationale of "it's just not notable", citing a 2 1/2 year old AFD on Lansing Mall from an unsourced, stub version of the article. The fact that he has targeted two articles which I wrote in such rapid succession has me thinking that something is up. (He also AFD'd Frandor Mall, which is justified as that article is a wreck and was mis-named.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

the user seems to be working exclusively on nominating articles for deletion via one process or another, without paying any heed to whether the speedies meet the speedy criterions, or whether articles can be merged, or are likely to have sources. Quite a few different admins and other good editors have complained to him by now, about 2/3 of them have been good, though often using the wrong process--and, if anyone was wondering, I going by what other admins have said & the snow keeps on his afds, not primarily the ones I declined. This is an unacceptably high error rate. At the very least, the user should be asked not to use Twinkle DGG (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec x2) I've speedily kept both AFDs, and I'm gonna leave a note on his talk page. Agreed, with that high an error rate he should have his Twinkle yanked. Blueboy96 19:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like it would hurt. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds NSFW, too. Only problem with yanking his Twinkle is that even if you edit protect his monobook, it's in the gadgets. IIRC, short of blocking the editor you can't yank their Twinkle. (Off to scrub the "twinkle yanking" image out of my brain.) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, people seem to be a bit trigger happy here. Isn't that what you've accused me of? Hmmmmmm makes you think doesn't it? I believe this entire thread is complete nonsense, it was opened because I didn't respond within ten minutes because I was at the local Walmart preparing for a camping trip. AFDS are for a community discussion and clearly these malls are not notable. Just because they eist does not give them notability. The American mall or greeat mall that has an amusement park now thats notable. This is just a chance to toot a local horn. I sympathize that this may seem harsh but this is just my good faith opinion, on improving the encyclopedia. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, since you asked... While I agree that it might have been nice to give you more time to respond to the most recent query, after TPH raised the mall question on your talk page, instead of answering him, you sent another mall article to AfD. So I can also understand why he might think you were ignoring him altogether. As to why others (myself included) are concerned, well, the problem of CSD tags isn't exactly new to you. User_talk:Hell_in_a_Bucket#speedy_reasons had quite a bit of information for you about what can be speedied (although ThaddeusB got notability and importance mixed up). User_talk:Hell_in_a_Bucket#Splurve_Ball had another mention of inappropriate CSD tagging. The concern is that after these two events (and possibly more under your old username -- I don't feel like looking), most editors would get a clue and read WP:CSD carefully. My good faith opinion is to take a few minutes to read WP:CSD, WP:BEFORE and WP:DEL. Mull it over a bit, then go have a blast on your camping trip and come back to Wikipedia with a clear head.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Comment, I'm going to have a blast camping. I am often wrong in the eyes of the community and I have no problem admitting it. I only hope that everyone understands even though in your eyes I'm wrong I am only trying to maintain a high standard of inclusion to the encyclopedia. If mine happens to be more discriminating it is only a difference of opinion and I have reviewed csd's a few times so I'll have one more go at it, you can always catch things you didn't catch before.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been trying to advise Hell in a Bucket for some time now, and we have butted heads several times. That said, I do think he is acting in good faith and he does seem to be improving. I have tried to explain to him several times that being not notable isn't a speedy deletion criteria and that being "important" isn't the same thing as being notable. He still doesn't seem to comprehend our policies fully (assuming good faith), but I do feel he has at least tried to improve. Still, it might be in his own best interest to concentrate on areas outside of deletion until he gets a better handle on our policies - and that is what I'd advise. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment To add to what User:TenPoundHammer has said,I have observed many of the AfDs Hell in a Bucket has brought up, and most fall in the two extremes, either easy deletes or easy keeps. Not much of the borderline cases which leads me to believe that he doesn't understand the notability guidelines or the process of bringing something to AfD. Also some of the CSD taggings are plain absurd, as in the case of Ellie Cole, where there was also a misplaced 3RR warning and his arguments at the AfD. Also, another series of AfDs started with Global Adjustments - three AfDs within six minutes, one of them within five minutes of the article being created and another within a minute of the article being created, clearly indicating that there was no effort to check on anything before nominating for deletion. While there's enough speediable material created out there to give a good success rate, some of them are disruptive. Until such time when he understands the processes, it's possibly best to either set a limit on his CSD tags per day and an AfD limit per week, if not an outright break from these activities for a while. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 00:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I've seen problems with this user a few times before. At this point, he's been around a while, but still shows little hope of clue acquisition. And this was a bit over the top. --LP ^talk 04:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

  Of course, we usually grant a bit more leeway to obviously frustrated editors when it comes to their own talk page. Hopefully when he comes back from vacation he will be a bit calmer, and TPH will quit poking him with a stick. There will certainly be a lot of eyes on the situation, in any event. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I've also noted on HIAB's talk page that he needs to at least slow down his speedy noms and pay attention to what he's doing. [60] Kudos for his determination to help, but I think the time has come to refocus attention to editing for a while, and slowly move back to newpage patrolling once he has a better understanding of the process. -- Norvy (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support Hell My initial impression was that I did not like Hell in a Bucket. Hell wrongly or too quickly nominated stuff for deletion. However, after writing to him, the matter was resolved. Therefore, my interactions with Hell is that Hell is an ok person, not a troublemaker. Everyone should work together to resolve things. User F203 (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Aye, my initial opinion of Hell was poor, but a bad situation involving Hell was resolved, and Hell seems to have learned from the experience, and demonstrated that they're capable of learning and moving on. I suspect Hell still has much to learn, but I equally suspect that they are more than capable of doing so. I think Hell is in the wrong here - but I also think they'll come to realise that, too. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• If I take your comment out of context, TFOWR, it is one of the more entertaining posts I have seen made to the noticeboard. The theology might be a little confused, but then so is the content of far too many Wikipedia articles. ;-) llywrch (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• (Oops! It was all so much easier when we call just say "Hellina" instead. Note to self: use "HiaB" from now on). Plenty of times I've read other peoples' deliberately humorous comments and nearly destroyed my keyboard with coffee; this is the first time I've re-read my own comment and laughed out loud ;-) Thanks for the theological image, llywrch! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Wow, let me just reconfirm my opinion that this entire thread is idiotic. Yes I am completely calm, but an ani thread because I was gone shopping? Pretty flipping stupid. Thank everyone who defended me that I attempt to be a reasonable person. The entire reason I removed the comments on the page was because Ten Pound Hammer, was trolling and I call things how I see it. I did leave him the option to comeback when he was willing to talk out an issue. He choose to keep throwing everything but the kitchen sinks in links and accusations and I won't put up with B.S. like that without saying my peace which has admittedly gotten me significant grief then it is worth, so I removed them. I do plan on continuing using CSD's and AFD's however as I do tell the people who actually listen to what I say without twisting things, I will continue to learn and progress more ni accordance with wikipedia policies (to which I do not know them all). If anyone doesn't like that, I can frankly care less because I am a human and prone to error. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• First HiaB, it wasn't entirely idiotic: your name inadvertently provided us the opportunity for a bit of levity -- something needed to successfully resolve every conflict here. Second, no one knows all of the Wikipedia policies: anyone who claims to spends way too much time in the Wikipedia name space. The intent behind ignore all rules is due what you think is right, but be willing to admit your mistakes & learn from them. If you do that, things will work out for you in the long run. -- llywrch (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Undo Page Redirection

Curently, the page Mounted Games is redirected to Mounted games.

Somebody obviously took the opinion that this was a description of a sport rather than the actual name of the sport and as such the word games should not have a capital letter. This is incorrect as this is the actual name of the sport. I do not know how to reverse this redirection. Can anybody help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jens Martin (talk • contribs) 14:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the article is a bit of a blend between the description of the events called "Mounted Games" and the sport called "Mounted games". This should be clarified somewhat. I'm going to drop a note for Rich, who made the move back in 2007. –xeno^talk 14:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "mounted games" is a sport like "cricket" or "table tennis". Clearly the Mounted Games Championship, Mounted Games Federation etc. are proper nouns and take capitals. There are a lot of other spurious capitals in that article. And an ampersand in a heading. Rich Farmbrough, 20:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC).

OK, upon closer inspection, this does seem to be in line with the way other similar articles are classified. Do we not like ampersands then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jens Martin (talk • contribs)

For the use of the ampersand on Wikipedia, specifically, see WP:&. We also try to avoid special symbols in titles. hmwithτ 14:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Original research on the Netherlands

The user NewDutchy has been adding unsourced original research to the article, even after being warned through the edit summary and on his/her talk page. If I revert again, I will break the 3RR. Assistance please? Hayden120 (talk) 11:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This same user is inserting this text into other articles as well (eg. Al Sharpton and Fox News Channel)

170.86.15.15 is doing this as well to a lesser extent. Jarkeld (talk) 12:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Showed up in Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration, and some Dutch news channels have picked up on the Wikipedia coverage. We're being used as a soapbox. I sympathize: every time early December rolls around, I cringe to see men running around in black face (stranger still, since my island is 80% black, it's black men wearing black face). Doesn't make Wikipedia the appropriate venue for this.—Kww(talk) 12:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Haha Kww, I'd love to see Sinterklaas in whiteface! Drmies (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked for 48 hours on the basis that if there are going to be any, then reliable sources should be apparent by the time the block expires. If there are no references available, then the content has no place in any article. I have said as much in my block notice to NewDutchy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly the content is sourcable. So the question is where it is appropriate to include (in what articles and where in those articles) and how much weight to give it. I'm not sure it belongs in the opening paragraphs of the Netherlands article. :) But there may be other articles on racial depictions in popular culture where it might be appropriate? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

"The banning of Zwarte Piet is also one of the topics mentioned in the Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration." is sourceable to reliable sources? Care to provide one of them? Fram (talk) 08:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I had not seen that bit. I meant that certainly Dutch people thinking it's appropriate to dress up in black face as part of an ongoing holiday tradition is sourceable and well established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleting protected Gdansk template

Resolved

 – — Aitias // discussion 18:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to nominate Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice for deletion, as I mentioned here. However, that page is protected from editing, so I cannot follow the normal WP:AFD process, and I'd like an administrator to either unprotect the page or nominate it for deletion for me. Thanks in advance. --LjL (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done ([61]). — Aitias // discussion 18:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent spam and cruft

I think I have earned my rep as an inclusionist. But I may be turning into a deletionist. I have seen a whole lotta spam, vandalism, and cruft being posted. School's out? Bearian (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No summer school this year for most of California. Methinks the little darlings are home unsupervised all day on summer break.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Bearian (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, once school starts again (for the US) in August/September, the kids can access the wonderful school computer lab. TNXMan 22:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're saying "cruft" then I might be concerned if I were you. Otherwise, you're doing nothing wrong as far as mainspace-philosophies are concerned. Users need to take a stand against blatant spam, attack pages, vandalism, and copyvios—regardless of where they fall in the spectrum :) MuZemike 04:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Andymurray.jpg

Resolved

 – It looks like it was a bug. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that this is also related to Andy Murray (see couple of threads above) is purely coincidental. I was checking deletion logs of images transferred to commons as I periodically do and stumbled on something I simply don't understand. (The following links will require admin rights). Okay there was an original image (30 August 2006) that was rightly deleted as vandalism because it wasn't Murray. The file history says User:Crassic uploaded the file again (24 June 2007) but the page history doesn't record any addition of source, license etc. by that user. However it does record User:Lactics adding these details at exactly the same time as the upload was made (supposedly by Crassic). Despite the file history suggesting to the contrary, Crassic has no contributions or deleted contribs. But the comment Latics placed does show up as a deleted contrib for them. This suggests that Lactics might of uploaded the photo (and I'm going to ask), but I don't understand why the file log would be wrong. Anyone know? Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if I've missed something, but Latics' upload log shows that they did indeed upload the file:

• 15:32, 24 June 2007 Latics (talk | contribs | block) uploaded "File:Andymurray.jpg" ‎ (Andrew Murray (tennis player) of Scotland, UK.)

The first thing that comes to mind is that Crassic and Latics are the same editor, renamed at some point. I remember a similar bug with the logs having come up in the past. – Toon 00:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay that would explain it. I've contacted Latics and they said they did upload it and have agree to get the image nominated for deletion on Commons so I'll mark this as resolved. It's an interesting bug if it only effects one half (File log) and but not the Page log that gets written at the same time. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

'Confirmed' usergroup will be grantable in the near future

FYI bugzilla:19611 gives us the ability to grant "confirmed" (jumpstarting autoconfirmed). We can grant it when discretion warrants it, and remove it after autoconfirmed is granted. Further discussion should be held at WT:PERM#'Confirmed' usergroup will be grantable in the near future. –xeno^talk 19:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: we can grant the right but it doesn't seem to be effective yet. –xeno^talk 03:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

According to Special:ListGroupRights, the usergroup only gives you the ability to upload files and patrol new pages, not the right to edit semiprotected pages or move pages. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, 'twas noted in the bugzilla. I'm sure it'll be fixed shortly. =] –xeno^talk 03:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there really a point? Isn't there a very low barrier to getting autoconfirmed? —harej (talk) (cool!) 03:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

There's currently no way around the 4-day waiting period; the idea is to allow a way around it for people who genuinely need fully confirmed rights or who ought to have them. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Why can't they wait four days, once? It seems like a solution in search of a problem. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

TOR users wait 90 days. --King ♣ Talk 13:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

One use is for some kind of Wikipedia Academy coming up in a few weeks... [62] See Wikipedia:VPR#add edit-semi as a feature to "Uploader"? and the previously discussion for more reasons. –xeno^talk 14:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm more intrigued about removing the right; I can see that obviating the need for full protection on certain articles for repeat edit warriors. -- Avi (talk) 04:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Usually if it is just one person they are blocked instead of the page being protected? Removing the right is likely to be equally contentious with blocking. I'm bowing out now, since I don't really have anything in this discussion, but I still don't see the motivation to this. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I see this as a measure less extreme than blocking, in that they can still edit unprotected pages. Also, if it were used in this situation, it would perforce be temporary. I'm just thinking out loud as to the possibilities here, not calling for a purge :) -- Avi (talk) 04:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The new right doesn't give us the ability to revoke autoconfirmed, once they're past the post they're in the clear. –xeno^talk 14:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, 'twas just a thought. -- Avi (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

In the clear? Last I recall, unless I am mistaken, I had my autoconfirmed status accidentally revoked by a faulty Abuse Filter made by NawlinWiki, although I never really noticed, because I rarely create articles or upload images... Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 04:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, AF can do this but not admins. –xeno^talk 17:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Research Survey on the RfA Process

As part of an ongoing research project by students and faculty at the Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science we are conducting a survey of anyone who has participated in the Request for Adminship (RfA) process, either voting or as a candidate. As Admins I'm sure all present have experience with the process =)

The survey will only take a few minutes of your time, and will aid furthering our understanding of online communities, and may assist in the development of tools to assist voters in making RfA evaluations. We are NOT attempting to spam anyone with this survey and are doing our best to be considerate and not instrusive in the Wikipedia community. The results of this survey are for academic research, are not used for any profit nor sold to any companies.

Take the survey

Thank you!

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free comment on our talk page. CMUResearch (talk) 07:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Not only do you have to sign up to participate, which gets a big meh from me, but judging by the above you seem to be using a group account, which is against our policy. Exploding Boy (talk) 07:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

A look at their user page confirms this is a group account, and also a promotional one, so these users have now been blocked. Exploding Boy (talk) 07:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE - The survey by default did ask for an email address, it is only looking for any kind of label to put on the data for your survey, you may enter any characters or description you would like. The question has been updated to reflect this. CMUResearcher (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, the account was actually for one person that was part of a team, but also interested in being involved in the Wikipedia community and contributing to articles. I've created an account that reflects my individual nature =) CMUResearcher (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Feedback requested on Requested Move closure

I closed a move request at Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#Requested_move.2C_part_2, which is being challenged (see User_talk:Aervanath#South_Ossetia_War_name). I would request that other uninvolved admins please evaluate the talk page discussion, and the arguments made on my talk page, and then contribute at the discussion on my talk page. If consensus there is that I have erred, I will reverse it. Thanks in advance for your input.--Aervanath (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Golan Heights

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case:

The arbitration committee advises that one or more neutral admins

chair a new and structured Request for Comment on the disputed naming

guidelines on the Golan Heights within a two month time-frame.

It is recommend that those interested use Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration as a staging post.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 17:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Permissible username?

It is almost impossible to post a note to User talk:㍐. Mozilla Firefox does not recognise the code in the URL. Is this username even permitted? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Firefox 3.5 seems OK with it - what version are you using? (I'm seeing both the userpage and the talkpage as redlinks, but the relevant part of the URL looks OK).

Google Chrome 2.0.172.33 has difficulty with it - the relevant part of the URL appears as a square box. Ditto for Internet Explorer 8.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 11:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It's probably a matter of fonts installed on each system – here on mine, I see it as a blank in some environments, but as a square showing the Unicode number (the "Last resort" fonts, I assume) in others. It's U+3350, "SQUARE YUAN", a legitimate Chinese character from the "CJK compatibility" Unicode block, as far as i can tell. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a problem, however: I can't post to the user's talk page; the character is apparently caught in the title blacklist. Can an admin please contact him? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The exact problem I have. I can view the page that says "This page has no text etc etc", but I cannot edit it, it just stalls. This is on Firefox 3.5. I've tried both WP:TW and WP:FRIENDLY, as well as clicking on "talk". There's no problem in the font; I can see the symbol (a block of three katakana), I just cannot edit the page. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Off-topic, and purely out of curiosity - all the browsers I checked with were on the same PC, although I use Firefox 3.5 far more than the other two. When you say "environments", do you mean different-browsers-same-machine, or different-machines? Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 11:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, different font environments even in the same browser. There are two separate problems here: the invisibility of the character in certain fonts, and the blacklisting which makes posting impossible; both are probably quite unrelated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well can't someone whitelist the page to isolate the other problem, (and establish firmly whether the two are related)? 199.4.27.122 (talk) 12:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

A single character name seems problematic, and maybe UfA might be interested. But in principle weird fonts is your problem, not that editor's, and the Username might e perfectly good. (The editors real name, for example), and thus username policy would tend to allow weird fonts. OBVIOUSLY being foreign doesn't remove need for complaince with rest of policies. Also, something about unified log-in is going to mae this problem much more common goes here. 87.113.86.207 (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this the English version of Wikipedia? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment usernames (or whatever the board is called) has had much discussion about this. as far as I can tell 'consensus' was that usernames can e in any characterset, but must meet traditional guidelines (email addresses are unwise, don't impersonate anyone else, no racial slurs etc etc) but that it'd be lovely if the editor also had some kind of "ENGLISH" sig. I use scare quots for consensus ecause some editors were reluctant for the new policy, feeling forced into it by unified login. A n ew RfC addressing usernames, and sigs, and consequences of poor choices for either, would probably be useful at some point to clear up some evolved weirdness in various overlapping policies. 87.113.86.207 (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Unified login. If a person has a Chinese (for example) language login in Chinese, they would have the same login in the English Wikipedia. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the consensus is now that we can't block usernames just for being an a non-latin script, since it would amount to overriding the foundation policy that permits unified logins. For the record, editing that userpage works for me. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

User:CMUResearch

This is a self-admitted role account that has been indefinately blocked. The sole purpose of the user page seems to be to solicite contributions to an external website (a surevy which apparently asks for personal details). This would seem to be against user page content policy. Having said that I doubt it's particularly nefarious and maybe it would be a good idea for someone to get in touch with them? 199.4.27.122 (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted.  GARDEN  says no to drama 14:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. There is now a new related account User:CMUResearcher, its for an individual rather than a group so no problem there but the purpose still seems to be to gain participants for their survey. Personally I think this kind of research could potentailly be interesting but this probably isn't the best way for them to go about it. 199.4.27.122 (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, since it's a survey about the WP:RFA process, there probably isn't any other way to go about it. I would let it go, as long as it's not being used inappropriately in other ways.--Aervanath (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the vote of confidence Aervanath! I am indeed trying to do my best to be non-intrusive, I've talked with the Wikipedia Research Network and used their suggestions, but as of now there is no truely "legitimate" way to conduct a survey in Wikipedia. -CMUResearcher (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

So who, exactly, is conducting this study? I see no names whatsoever, whether grad student, doctoral candidate, principal investigator, or faculty advisor. And the outside website used for gathering data -- I would have thought Carnegie-Mellon, of all places, might have the ability to pull together a functional webpage -- gives me enormous pause. A simple note to OTRS or the Foundation was too difficult? --Calton | Talk 17:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Calton, I've updated my userpage with a list of all the names of the people on our research team, I hope that is satisfactory! As to creating a survey and card sort from scratch when the software to do that is freely available, we'd like to spend time building software and developing solutions to issues, not reinventing ways of collecting data. -CMUResearcher (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Lots of people have no idea what wikipedia is about. That's why bite exists. but Editors seem to be much to busy to slap a few links to role account pages showing what the policies are, preferring insta-blocks instead. 87.113.86.207 (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Need an article moved

I initially moved Neuberger,Roy S.(Salant) to Roy Neuberger (author). Someone has gone ahead and renamed it back to the original name, which seems inappropriate under WP:COMMONNAME. Can someone come and undo the move? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done, but this should be listed at WP:RM in future. Stifle (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, sorry about that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Potential threats

62.50.223.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) I just reverted an edit by this IP ([63]), after he did the same at User talk:Baseball Bugs ([64]). Could an admin please deal with this accordingly? Thanks, Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 21:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Dealt with accordingly. TNXMan 21:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[Some trolling redacted]81.130.89.224 (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked as well. TNXMan 22:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved admins needed for slashdotted article

The Rorschach test article, or more specifically the debate on its talk page was recently mentioned in a slashdot article. We have had a sudden in flux of new users who have immediately begun to take sides. There are at least three administrators already involved in the debate, but they are all wearing editor hats due to their involvement in the debate. It would be good to have some eyes there that are not involved help deal with this influx of people unfamiliar with Wikipedia. Chillum 15:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The debate is getting mentions on some other social media sites as well, so this will likely be an issue for a while. Please do watch things if you can. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Gee, who would have thought that a handful of people arguing for the removal of the some information would cause an influx of people looking at the information. Someone should give a name to this effect. Chillum 16:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that there is also a proposal (consensus, with which I agree, is that the proposal is an attempt to end-run around the consensus on the article talk page) located here to elevate removal of Rorschach images to policy. → ROUX ₪ 17:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheeky, Chillum... –xeno^talk 17:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Things have started to degenerate into "you are <insert insult> because you are trying to hide these images", and "you are <insert insult here> because you are trying to show these images". And we were doing so well. Chillum 01:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a brief semi-protection and a notice at the top of the talkpage explaining why might be in order. It would presumably at least temporarily prevent the exchange of attacks from continuing. rdfox 76 (talk) 01:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh. I just see a very spirited debate between editors of two clearly opposed viewpoints. Maybe I need to see a doctor. Steveozone (talk) 03:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

And much more civil than I would have expected, given the contentious nature of the issue. Incidentally User talk:Danglingdiagnosis/Involuntary health consequences is a related battleground for this debate. Resolute 03:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA

Hey all, just a quick reminder to check out Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Cheers! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh the irony? BJ^Talk 06:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Can some deal with this?

I think this deletion has run it's course, it's sorta just running off into random Runescape users talking about the "riots" and only God knows what else, thanks a bunch mates. Rgoodermote  05:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Good call. Closed as delete. Tan | 39 05:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Racism and other serious accusations at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/Paid_editing#Compromised_.22round-up.22

Cinagua (talk · contribs) is accusing Wikipedia of racism, personal vendettas, and abuses. They even cited an article [65] on it... These are serious accusations and are creating a bad image for Wikipedia. Anyone who is familiar with the paid editing issue knows that this is clearly not the case. Triplestop x3 18:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Then why does it happen? I can't help noticing how the above user too enforces the problem by imagining themselves Wikipedia. I did not accuse Wikipedia, Wikipedia is me too. I accused the lack of real interest in addressing the issue of paid editing, the job is left in the hands of people who imagine themselves Wikipedia, resulting in incompetence, power abuses, personal vendettas, free speech suppression and suspicions of vested interests. Cinagua (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Cinagua (talk · contribs) apparently belongs to a site called Wiki Experts now the site writes Wiki articles for money.The account of Wiki Experts in Wikipedia was blocked as a company account then the account of Spokerperson of Wiki Experts in Wikipedia and Cinagua (talk · contribs) is upset about both and think the company and user plan to continue Paid editing in Wikipedia.|Here is the list done by user Ha! Sorry to disagree with you Cinagua vested interests lie with the paid editors and not with the unpaid voluntary editors they have only if all there strong opinions both for or against it. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Another example of compromised behavior. What reasons do you have to say that I belong to Wiki Experts? This kind of approach characterized the whole round-up, with users self-assured that any product of their imagination may be presented as the truth and nobody would moot them. The vested interest lie with the round-upists because they decide whom they should target and who should get the money from the jobs posted in the online marketplaces. Cinagua (talk) 06:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, why are we treating something from a website called Independent Media Center as fact or useful?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I see the website is quite cited on English Wikipedia, a search reveals 869 links. I was inspired by what was written in the article and I processed the info by myself. In that initial post I brought some serious facts that need discussion. I have hoped a discussion about the lack of interest in dealing with the paid editing and about the monsters that it produced, rather than this initiative of Triplestop, to put racism in front (it is just one of the issues), hoping to avoid such a discussion. Cinagua (talk) 07:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me clarify, why is the self-published (which I take as being the reason behind the word "publish" as the server) part of such a website being used as fact or useful? There are only 16 links to publish.indymedia.org, most of which are mirrors of this page. And what here is necessary for administrators to be aware of other than your apparent assumptions of bad faith on various other editors?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

But the article appears also as [66], without the "publish" part, it's the same as any other Indymedia article. When navigating through that website it is likely to get the articles' links with "publish" in front, for example when searching keywords. Anyway, I'd rather see a focus on the problems, than wondering if the initial source is reliable or not. There are some compelling facts there affecting people, including me, "one of the few chosen". Cinagua (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

User:(

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – No action required, if the parenthesis requests unblocking, the category will alert admins to this fact. –xeno^talk 11:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This account needs to be unblocked. Pzrmd (talk) 10:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Why?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This user has made thousands of edits, has been editing since 2002, and then no administrators found a problem with his username. See Gurch's talkpage as well. Why would I have to explain this? Pzrmd (talk) 11:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

And hasn't edited since 2004. A less generously minded editor would wonder what precisely is going on here. Crafty (talk) 11:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I knew someone would bring this up. That is irrelevant, and the block is still very inappropriate. Pzrmd (talk)

I'll do it for you, then, Craftyminion: what precisely is going on here? Why are you trying to get an account blocked for three years unblocked? Why is the fact that the account hasn't contributed in five years redundant? What policy is this block contravening? What is this pattern that is forming here with regards to you and unblocks? Have you divulged to a CheckUser or ArbCom what your previous account was? Your behaviour is increasingly suspicious. → ROUX ₪ 11:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Explain how this is suspicious. This was a very quiet (afaik) user that is way older than me or anyone here. Pzrmd (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The questions I asked should make it perfectly clear why this is suspicious. How about you answer them? → ROUX ₪ 11:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you're dying to know my old account =). Pzrmd (talk) 11:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This is an odd one. The user hasn't edited since 2004, has been blocked in 2006, and now this. Still, I fail to see what's wrong with the username itself, considering we have users naming themselves "B" or "E", "(" certainly isn't any worse. So what might be the harm in unblocking? --Conti|✉ 11:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Roux: you're a charming fellow, but I can ask my own questions, you just edited conflicteddeded me damn your eyes! ;) I dunno what Przmd is doing but no doubt it's drama-mongering and frankly I should have been smarter than to take his bait. I'm sure an admin will sort this out. I flash the whole thing a big fat whatever. Crafty (talk) 11:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Crafy: I am less generously minded, is all ;) I think it's obvious that you (Pzrmd) are avoiding the questions. Please answer them. → ROUX ₪ 11:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, single-letter accounts, at CHU a request for the username "~" with no objections other than a GFDL problem, and Chinese and Arabic characters are allowed. Pzrmd (talk) 11:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Closing discussion - this isn't going to end in an unblock, the user isn't going to just come back. If he does he can go create a new account.  GARDEN  says no to drama 11:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No, absolutely premature and supressing what I think; it's not your place to decide to close this. If an admin blocks User:WojPob, are we to do nothing? Pzrmd (talk) 11:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, it would help if you would provide an actual reason why you've come here with this request now. --Conti|✉ 11:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's quite unfair considering he made thousands of edits and suddenly some new admin comes and blocks him, don't you? Pzrmd (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Three years ago. After not editing for two years prior to that. What is the real reason you're doing this? → ROUX ₪ 11:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's block User:Mintguy. Pzrmd (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

For what reason? The user in question was blocked due to a username vio, apparently. What exactly has Mintguy done? Why, exactly, are you doing this? → ROUX ₪ 11:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic. Pzrmd (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

So answer the questions: why are you actually doing this, why does the block status of someone who hadn't touched the site in two years before their block matter, what is this pattern with you and unblocks, have you disclosed your prior account to ArbCom or a CU? → ROUX ₪ 11:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I already answered these questions, and I think I'm going to tell Kingturtle (my self-appointed mentor) my old account because this is becoming to difficult. Pzrmd (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

haha you're taking this so seriously. Pzrmd (talk) 11:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You actually have not answered the questions. → ROUX ₪ 11:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(Xeno) If Freakofnurture blocked User:Mintguy indefinitely let's not do anything. Pzrmd (talk) 11:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No one is going to unblock a user who has feasibly not been to Wikipedia since February 2004. Unless you're doing this as some sort of retroactive ad hominem attack against Gurch, you better have a better reason other than the ones you've been giving as to why this user, who has probably moved onto another username by now, should be unblocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong, you are by far the most block-happy (former) admin I've ever met. What would you do if Kingturtle blocked User:WojPob indefinitely? not bother to do anything? Pzrmd (talk) 11:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are you making useless and poor analogies?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Explain how they are useless and poor. Pzrmd (talk) 11:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You're picking random users that no one cares about and saying that administrators should block them and then asking whether or not we should care about it. Yes, User:( got blocked. No one gives a shit except you. Move on.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that they're random is irrelevant. What would you do? Pzrmd (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Andy Murray

Hello, Admins! I just want you all to go and look to see if the fansite link on Andy Murray's external links is approprate. Further, go and look at the talk page to see the debate! I am looking for Admin attention because they are trying to make a unique exception for this tennis player, which I don't think I have ever saw a fansite in external links before on any article not just tennis players. So, just go look at this and determine if this meets wikipedia's criteria! A similar fansite http://www.goroger.net/ is not include on Roger Federer's page for good reason because it is a fansite, but it has authority and credibility like http://www.murraysworld.com/ is asserting to get there's included here. They say go ahead and put that on Federer's page, but it is ill-appropriate on wikipedia. TW-RF (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Fansites, by their nature, tend to be HEAVILY biased, and are rarely reliable sources. --King ♣ Talk 21:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This one looks a bit different. The fansite owner was responsible for heavy pushing to include his link. AGF he thinks it's useful, and has made reference to his site being quoted by BBC, Sky, and some newspapers. There was confusion between external links and sources, but the link is now only used as an external link. Finally, there seems to be some (AbadF) 'odd' editing by some new editors. So perhaps someone could have a closer look? 87.113.86.207 (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I am really not a new user, I have another account that has been around for a couple of year, but I am not going to disclose that because I am no longer using that account! I love how that IP Address is from England any coincidence? I would love to know if it is an IPSOCK of User:Mark7144.TW-RF (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for calling you a new user. It wasn't meant to be an insult. To answer your question - I am not a sock of any logged in editor. I am not Mark7144. There are many English editors. I thought I'd given a concise, neutral, account of problems on the talk page. Please, how would you describe the problems? (keep it short, and try to keep it neutral.) 87.113.86.207 (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I was doing this to alert people of an exception they were making for the inclusion of a fansite on wikipedia, and pointing you to the discussion so some admins could weight into the converstation on the appropriateness of this link. I just believe their should be no exceptions to this kind of link Twitter links are banned form wikipedia.TW-RF (talk) 02:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

possible copyright violation

Some parts of John Edmondson (musician) seems to be copied nearly verbatim from http://www.kendormusic.com/composer/edmondson.htm --24.218.164.106 (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed the offending material. It wasn't sourced either - not great when one sentence read "He came out as publicly gay at that time."  GARDEN  says no to drama 14:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Drawn Some seems to be wikistalking User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

Don't know when I first noticed, feels like a few weeks on a slow burn, but it seems to be ramping up and certainly seems to be the very definition of wikistalking. Drawn Some (talk · contribs) noms numerous items, articles, redirects, etc. that Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs) created or works on for deletion and then, when they aren't deleted, works at removing content that just survived the XfD. I don't care why they feel this behaviour is acceptable - it clearly isn't. Could some non-involved folks take a look and see if this is alarming? Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has stated in numerous XfDs that this sure feels like being wikistalked. Personally I would take that as a strong hint to back off. -- Banjeboi 07:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm, I just noticed this too - on checking today's RfD log every current nomination is one of RAN's redirects nominated by Drawn Some. Most of them are at least vaguely reasonable rationales, but it's still rather worrying and does suggest an element of wikistalking. ~ mazca ^talk 07:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I feel rather involved as being pretty active with the Article Rescue Squad which Drawn Some seems to not approve, I think Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) also does ARS work but I only pay so much attention unless something seems troubling, like this situation. Clearing out unneeded items is fine, within reason - they are just redirects so really I'm not sure I agree with the urgency to removed them. Coupled with an ongoing pattern and Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) statements they feel wikistalked I would say there's no winners here. IMHO Drawn Some should simply disengage and walk away. -- Banjeboi 08:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • It does seem odd to start something like Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Richard_Arthur_Norton_.281958-_.29 and to then mass nominate redirects of that user for deletion. Why complain about an editor and then when the complaint doesn't build momentum start targetting the articles or redirects he has worked on? You would think if Drawn Some really was concerned about Richard, Drawn Some would avoid him, not of the millions of articles and redirects we have make it a point to go after those created by Richard. After all, you will not see me start nominating articles an editor I am in conflict with created for deletion as doing so would be needless escalation if not counter to the purpose of the complaint. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
      • To be fair, I was the one that told him to go to WP:WQA, as he seemed to feel the stalking claims were unjustified and I figured that would involve a third party. --Smashville^talk 14:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• I've unarchived this as it seems to be continuing. I find this wikihounding behaviour quite distasteful, is someone neutral willing to look into this and encourage Drawn Some to disengage? Or any other ideas? -- Banjeboi 12:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • All I see from the past few days is that DrawnSome is nominating a lot of articles and redirects created by Richard Arthur Norton for deletion. I could find no other related behaviour. Since many of the AfD's and RfD's are agreed upon by different unrelated users, it seems that he is often correct in nominating those. This means that what he is currently doing is not wikihounding, but proper use of someone's contribution list: if you believe that someone is making a lot of articles or redirects which don't belong here, it is acceptable to go through those and list them at the appropriate fora. If your opinion is often supported by consensus, there is no problem with continuing this behaviour. That the person who created these articles and redirects does not like this and describes it as wikihounding is irrelevant. One should not ignore problems to spare the feelings of another editor. Fram (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I think our civility policies would disagree with that assessment, from the WQA this seemed to get at the issue:

“
* Some of RAN's comments were indeed inappropriate. I've advised him to make helpful comments about other editors on their talk pages instead of at AfD.

* Although all of Drawn Some's deletion nominations are mindful of policy and justifiable, they appear to be targeted towards RAN's contributions. Labeling RAN a "serial creator of inappropriate disambiguation pages" and planning to spend weeks auditing his work sounds an awful lot like wikihounding to me. ” — --Explodicle (T/C) 19:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• • • Then Explodicle asks for evidence of Drawn Some's accusations against RAN which don't yet appear to be presented. -- Banjeboi 16:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree wholeheartly with Fram's analysis above. Surely Drawn Some could be a little more diplomatic in some of comments to/about RAN, but none the less, given RAN's history of creating articles which ultimately get killed at AfD or RfD, examining the articles he's created seems like a good way to root out non-notable articles and questionable redirects. It'd be one thing if DS was XfDing articles which had no chance of being deleted, but in this case the consensus of mostly uninvolved editors is that DS is correct in nominating them for deletion. So let's all A-a little-GF and stop second-guessing his motives. Yilloslime ^T_C 19:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Somewhere there's a lovely line about AGF is not a suicide pact. I think there is more to it than just Drawn Some's concern for removing non-notable content - all apparently from the hands of RAN. These XfD's seem split and mostly in the gray areas, IMHO, with deletion likely not needed in any of them. I feel my part was to seek wider input and I have done so. If the community feels this is acceptable then I guess we will all live with where this leads. -- Banjeboi 02:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Benjiboi, you stated at the 16th that the problem was ongoing, I then checked his contribs from the two days between the initial post here and the "ongoing" post, and could not find a real problem in them. You claim that the WQA disagrees with me by quoting posts from the 8th of July... So I ask you again, what is the ongoing problem, which edits from between the 14th and today do you have problems with? You claim now that on his XfD's, "deletion [is] likely not needed in any of them". But looking at them, I see 1,2,3,4,5 all are headed for deletion at the moment. OF the redirects he nominated, the one here may be in a grey area so far, and of the 7 he nominated here, 2 are in the gray area, the other 5 are headed straight for deletion as well. Fram (talk) 07:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Not to belabour this further the issue isn't that between two set dates X and Y occurred but that an overall pattern seems evident. More below. -- Banjeboi 18:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Drawn some asked me to take a look at an article List_of_New_Jersey_military_officers_in_the_American_Revolution because I had commented on some AFDs for genealogical bio articles. I tagged that article for notability, without nominating it for deletion, and noted that it seemed to violate not a directory, since lists of soldiers are usually far more select. I now note that RAN was the creator of the article listing a few Revolutionary War officers from New Jersey. I was not aware of any history between Drawn Some and Richard Arthur Norton when I questioned the appropriateness of the article, but a miscellaneous list of individuals of only genealogical interest does not become encyclopedic just because someone is targeting unencyclopedic articles created by an individual. If a lot of articles created by some editor get deleted in AFD, that is a signal that they should comply with guidelines when deciding what articles to create and stop creating inappropriate articles. If a lot of the AFD nominations by an editor are resulting in "Keep" then that editor is nomininating inappropriately. An individual article or AFD nomination should be judged on its merits regardless of who created the article or did the nomination. Edison (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't care which users are involved or even if RAN earned some extra scrutiny by being uncivil. I would be troubled by anyone accusing someone of maliciously creating articles then digging through their contribution and finding only borderline cases bringing those to XfD in what appears to be harassment. From what I can see these are borderline cases, the redirects were placed to do exactly what redirects do, same with the disambiguation pages. The notability of some of these bios certainly is not well spelled out. There is little evidence that RAN is maliciously causing problems deserving of Drawn Some's campaign - which seems to stem from a fallout they've had in X-Y country Bilateral relationship articles - and Drawn Some's efforts to XfD RAN's work has resulted in just as many keeps and merges as deletes. My point remains is that this seems textbook wikihounding and should be discouraged. Wikipedia is not a battleground and Drawn Some certainly seems to be engaged in rather pointy XfD'ing against RAN. I would feel the same about any two users or even if RAN was doing this to Drawn Some. -- Banjeboi 18:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

All looks fine to me - if the AFDs were bad and being rejected out of hand, we'd have a problem but examining another user's list and then noming many of the articles they have created (because they are unsuitable) seems a perfectly acceptable way to make use of that information. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If that's how the community now feels then sobeit. -- Banjeboi 19:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I dunno. If I were Drawn Some, to demonstrate good faith I'd put this XfD effort on hold for a while. All of these comments suggest RAN is not unreasonable in his concern at this, & maybe a brief respite would lead him to realize that Drawn Some isn't doing this out of malice. (As this blogger points out, there's no urgency over forcing any result over Wikipedia content.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

that seems a pointless cause of action - why put off for tomorrow, what you can do today. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a great idea! Wikipedia is such a big place, there is no real need or reason to have to nominate or go after articles created or worked on by an particular editor, especially when concerns arise and as if anything is seriously worth nominating someone else will notice anyway. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)