Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive171

Approval of FA Template Protection Bot

A discussion has been underway for some time at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval regarding a proposed adminbot - FA Template Protection Bot. Following the recent RfC on adminbots, an addition was made to the Bot policy which was felt to reflect the consensus of that discussion: Wikipedia:BOT#Bots with administrative rights. The crux of this addition is to allow the approval of adminbots without the need for the operator to run a separate RfA. Instead, both the technical merits of the task and community consensus for it will be determined at WP:RFBOT and final approval is subject to bureaucrat (rather than BAG) discretion. As ever, as a bureaucrat asked to consider granting rights I need to consider community consensus. The RfC on these bots does suggest that there is no longer a general acceptance that RfA should be needed for such bots, however some form of community approval remains expected. Opposition to this addition to the Bot policy has so far come from existing operators of adminbots on their own accounts, who are unwilling to subject themselves to even this lesser approval process, rather than from those unhappy with rights being granted outside RfA. The change has been fairly well advertised.

This post is intended as a notification that I am minded to approve an adminbot based on the addition to WP:BOT that resulted from the RfC provided that I am satisfied:

1. That sufficient scrutiny of the code has occurred
2. That the potential approval was brought to the attention of the community
3. That there is a general consensus that the approval of the adminbot is beneficial
4. That the bot operator accepts that, should a bureaucrat later determine that the consensus for the bot to run no longer exists, they may request that a steward removes its admin rights

Should anyone be unhappy with adminbots being approved in this manner, please state so here or at the relevant discussion at WT:BOT. WJBscribe (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is workable. I think there's sufficient support for admin bots to be approved by BAG, with concurrence and +bot flag from a crat. And yes, the question of what to do with the pre-existing admin bots, especially those that aren't well-written is a stickier issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I do not have any objections to this bot receiving the +sysop without an RfA. I don;t know if me saying that matters or no.... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It does matter, thank you for expressing your opinion. There's nothing worse than making a bold pronouncement and finding that the response is pure silence. WJBscribe (talk) 04:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I for one support this bot being approved per the consensus regarding the implementation of adminbots at the RFC. It has been running on trial for a month without any problems, the BRFA was advertised at numerous forums (WT:RFA, AN etc.), the task is very beneficial as the bot saves the hassle of not only an admin having to add the templates to the protection page but having to find each template in an article and prevents the possibility that a template is missed. Admittedly, there has been very little community response but the RFC itself makes up for that. This is a very uncontroversial task so I feel it would be better to give it the bit and see what happens; my bet is no one will even notice that this is now being done by a bot rather than by the operator's own account. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 07:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a query for #1: sufficient scrutiny of the code has occurred. Could you elaborate on this? Does the code need to be open? =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

And further to that, what do you have in mind re #2? --Dweller (talk) 09:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I anticipated that, as in other areas, bureaucrats may form different views on these matters and so didn't want to be too prescriptive. As to #1, I personally would not approve such a bot on the say so of a single BAG member. I would expect to see a number of users - BAG or others with experience as to coding - endorsing the scripts the bot will run off. I would not require the code to be in the open, provided that there remains a community consensus for the task to run in spite of any secrecy regarding the code. As to #2, I would expect sufficient publicity to ensure a fair spread of opinion - posts to the relevant noticeboards etc. WJBscribe (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's my view on it:

1. That can be arranged easily. It appears that the code is working well, and it has been looked over. If it's not enough, there's always Cobi over there.
2. Is crossposting to WP:VPM, WP:BN, ad WP:AN enough?
3. Aside from general concerns for "SkyNet" incidents, and concerns that are no longer valid, there is very little opposition.
4. I believe that anyone filing for an adminbot already understands this, and if it was shown they didn't, I'd be surprised if someone doesn't rase opposition.

Xclamation point 10:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a note on point 1, the code is on svn for anyone who wants to see it --Chris 13:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Very Serious Concern. I'm not pleased to see the bot operator diminishing concern over Nuclear Holocaust Skynet; Just one mistake and boom - it's "Come with me if you want to live" time, which I don't find appealing. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

That statement confused me, what do you mean? Xclamation point 19:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The operator is User:Chris G, the dude dismissing the concerns on skynet is User:X!, please don't hold X!'s comments against Chris :) MBisanz ^talk 19:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Not at all; I've already supported, below. I simply found the comparison between an admin-bot and An Artificial Intelligence that takes control of our Nuclear weapons and nearly annihilates humanity to be interesting, and tried to make light of it. Given that I apparently can't read, it ended up as a moderate fail - but meh, it's Monday. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Make it so. HiDrNick! 16:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• No Objection. I had one concern on point, and have inquired with Chris, but it's not a bot issue per se. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• Let's do this thing! MBisanz ^talk 17:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

WJBScribe, could you hold on to closing this? I have some fresh concerns that I need allayed about adminbots. As I am heading off to sleep right now, I'll post them in about 18 hours from now, when I log on next. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, lets prove that the admin bot approval system works, so that all the unauthorized ones can be approved... or blocked. Prodego ^talk 20:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Nichalp: Of course, I had intended to wait several days to ensure that there was a consensus that approving admin bots in this manner was appropriate. WJBscribe (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me — It's high time for separate processes for handling the granting of human adminship and bot adminship, which have completely different area of concern for each. --Cyde Weys 15:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Risk analysis

I'm not against adminbots, but there are a few things that I thought of that needs closer scrutiny.

Now, as we know, with admin privileges, a user account can skim a block, edit protected pages, block users. With a bot flag, edits by a user account do not show up on recent changes. Now integrate both. You now have a super account that can do all the above without human intelligence. Now if you have a bot that malfunctions, its going to be difficult to do something about it. We can't block an adminbot, as it's just going to skim over the block. With a bot, or automated script to be precise, the bot can operate much faster than a human. A human can edit at most say, ten pages a minute, but a bot can well do over sixty. Now as we know with coding, nothing can be assumed to be bug-free. So, assuming a bot goes beserk or rogue, edits at a higher rate, or makes junk edits; what mechanisms are there in place to pull the plug on the bot immediately? Remember, we cannot effectively block an admin bot. Also, as the edits do not appear on the recent changes list, its going to be quite sometime before someone notices a beserk bot. The only way I see it be stopped is by removing the +sysop flag, and then blocking it. For that to happen, one needs to flag the attention of a steward, for which there will be a lag. In the meantime the bot may have marred some 2,000 pages. Another scenario: We have had rogue admins in the past. Similarly, what operator trust levels are needed before we approve an adminbot? A skillful programmer, but "non-admin material", may write a very useful bot. Once that is approved, all s/he needs to do is to change to code to do something malicious. I think the trust of an operator should also play a key role in approving adminbots. As I said above, I'm not against adminbots, but a thorough risk-analysis needs to be carried out to mitigate the occurrence of unimaginable scenarios. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

In theory this is an issue. But the FA protection bot is not editing thousands of pages, it is simply protecting a few pages each day. More generally, it's hard to see why a bot that needs to edit thousands of pages would be an adminbot in the first place - the admin features could be separated from the editing features, and run under a different username. I would favor that system in general, where the adminbot part performs relatively few non-privileged actions, and relies on a non-adminbot helper for any large-scale editing.

A mitigating factor is that anything that an adminbot can do, another bot can undo in about the same amount of time. There's no permanent damage an adminbot can do that a malicious admin couldn't already do, and we are comfortable with the risk analysis for malicious admins. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. All administrative actions can be undone except page history merges. I don't have any concerns for FA bot, it's scope is limited and well defined, code is open, and the operator has provided an "off" switch. So things seem good. To answer the revert part: a bot can undo the damage, but then will we have the service of an undobot to do such a thing when it happens? =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Assuming the only damage is a large amount of edits to revert then yes --Chris 10:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't know much about bots and their running but, as a general comment, it seems to me that the broader proposal would result in bots with greater power being scrutinized less. Not, in general, a good way to go about things. --Regents Park (one for sorrow) 18:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What's being scrutinized less? From what I see, this is about 3 times the scrutinization that a regular bot gets. Xclamation point 20:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess I misunderstood this. Does final approval is subject to bureaucrat (rather than BAG) discretion mean that the bot does not go to BAG, or does it mean that it does but a bureaucrat has to approve it? --Regents Park (one for sorrow) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Idealy the bot will have three approvals:

1. The bag member who approved it for trial
2. The bag member who approved it after the trial
3. The crat who gave it +sysop and +bot flags --Chris g (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. Objection withdrawn. --Regents Park (one for sorrow) 17:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

My main concern is that, like other 'bots, adminbots should run on separate 'bot accounts. That makes them easier to audit, stop, or undo when necessary. So the approval of a new adminbot should include the creation of a 'bot account, with administrator privileges. Over the next few months, existing adminbots should be migrated to their own 'bot accounts. --John Nagle (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with that? IMO migrating the admin bot's to sepeate accounts is a good thing --Chris 00:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think requiring an admin bot to run under a separate account is a good idea. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I was under the impression that that was one of the things every one could agree on --Chris 09:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Get my damn bot's actions out of my contribs already, it makes it exceedingly difficult to find human actions in my Special:Log. --Cyde Weys 15:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked admin accounts cannot edit pages. This fairly important point seems to have been overlooked. The only way a blocked admin account can continue editing would be if it were to unblock itself first, which would require very special programming, and certainly could never happen accidentally. Happy‑melon 17:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

"We can't block an adminbot, as it's just going to skim over the block" - no, it can't just skim over a block. We can block an admin bot just like we can block an admin. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

+Sysbot?

Forgive my limited comprehension of these issues, but picking up one response to Nichalp's thoughtful doomsday scenario was that this particular bot is limited in scope to FA page protection, so can't do much harm anyway. Separating +sysop powers and granting them piecemeal is a PEREN at WT:RFA, but perhaps there's a strong rationale to ask the developers to create a +sysop flag for Bots (+sysbot?) that is stripped of the elements that we would never seek to permit for a Bot. For me that lsit would be delete, recreate, block and unblock; we can debate those specifics, but I'd be more comfortable with agreeing with this proposal on that sort of basis. --Dweller (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, all of those capabilities are used by currently operating admin bots. Cydebot, for instance, has been performing deletes of old category pages uncontroversially for over a year, and is currently going through the BFRA process. We have bots that automatically block socks of people engaged in very specific types of move vandalism (for instance, Grawp and Willy on Wheels). So I don't think these restrictions make much sense. What people need to realize is that a bot is not capable of doing things it wasn't programmed to. Cydebot is only programmed to delete category pages; it cannot do anything else. All of these doomsday scenarios are predicated on one of two factors:

1. The advent of strong AI, which would truly permit bots to run amuck. Needless to say, this is still decades away (if that), and not a concern at the moment.
2. A person going insane using the admin bot account.

Number 2 is actually a bit more of a reasonable concern, but I'm not concerned that the risks are any greater than a normal admin going crazy. I don't want to have a WP:BEANS moment, so I won't go into any specifics, but there are lots of ways to do all sorts of damage without needing an admin bot account. --Cyde Weys 15:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the biggest thing the devs could do to make people less scared would be make a sysop flag that can't unblock itself. The primary, root, fear I see is a bot account unblocking itself and continuing to do whatever bad thing it was doing. Creating a flag that cannot unblock itself would solve a lot of fears. MBisanz ^talk 15:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, now that's an excellent idea. --Dweller (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Now this is an amusing idea that I don't have any objections to. I'll admit that I've always wondered why administrators can unblock themselves at all. --Cyde Weys 15:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Cyde, I think it was from the days of 40 admins on the entire site and only Jimbo with a server password, so a single admin account being compromised would mean lots of havoc. Today with Stewards on around the clock, the response time is generally under 5 mins, so yea, I don't know why we still have that feature. MBisanz ^talk 00:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop looking for problems where none exist. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I too think this is a solution looking for a problem. Think about it. Setting aside whether admins in general should be able to unblock themselves, the only way a blocked adminbot could unblock itself is if it was programmed to. Since no operator would want their malfunctioning bot to continue causing problems, they won't program it to unblock itself. Thus, there is no problem. (Unless the operator goes rogue, in which case restricting the adminbot from unblocking itself achieves nothing because the rogue op can just unblock the bot from his or her main account) – Steel 01:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a solution to the perception that bots can go rogue. If adminbots can't unblock themselves, the skynet-phobics will have one fewer reason to fear them. --Carnildo (talk) 02:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

In which case it is just introducing a false sense of security. And to all you "skynet-phobics" it is not going to happen (at least not with my bot :P). One of the first things you should learn about computers is that they're so stupid you have to tell them exactly what to do and how to do it. Which means the only way the bot could stuff up completely is if I go rouge, which if I was going to go rouge I would have done already. --Chris 08:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) ... or we could just ignore those irrational arguments / users and instead encourage developers to focus on actual problems. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 02:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Good Article Nominees

A user, A State of Trance, has nominated at least 5 articles at GAN without being a major contributor. For some of his articles, he hasn't even edited. All of these articles do not meet criteria. What should be done about this? He is disruptive to and only creates a backlog at GAN. You can check the contributions of the user here. I'm removing these submissions from GAN.--LAAFan^sign _review 01:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've removed submissions before. I think that the GAN process is kept free from binding rules (like those for FAC) in order to maintain the somewhat informal atmosphere. If they don't appear to be reasonable noms and he isn't a main contributor, I would endorse that decision. Protonk (talk) 03:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • On a side note, you don't need to be a major contributor to nominate an article. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 12:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I recall when one of the articles for which I was a primary contributor (there are about 450 that fit that category) but hadn't yet had time to appropriately research was nominated by somebody with no history with the article about a year ago. I made a statement at the page that it wasn't ready, but it was still "failed" anyway, meaning that if I ever do decide to improve the article, it's recorded as having failed once which may prejudice later reviewers. I think that sort of thing is quite disruptive personally. Orderinchaos 02:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't know what GAN is like, but I've been watching featured article nominations for a few years now. A previous failed FAC doesn't prejudice things in any way. --Carnildo (talk) 04:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't prejudge a GA by a past failure unless good faith peer review suggestions were largely left unresolved but I can't speak for everyone. Protonk (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
        • I can dismiss the claim of prejudice towards previous failed GAN right away. I have yet to meet and see this kind of prejudice in the GA system whatsoever. What evidence made you suggest so, Orderinchaos? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
        • I'd have to agree, if anything failed GA nomination shows that an article has already been through the process and could potentially have improved even more if anything. All reviewers I know just judge the article on how it is at the time of nomination. --Banime (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion and Not the Wikipedia Weekly

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

Public service announcement. Every person who marks stuff for deletion and every admin who does speedy deletion should listen to Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly#Our_latest_recorded_Skypecast (That's the 34th broadcast). In this latest adventure, a few editors try to start a new article which is a major pop song from 1906 and then it gets immediately deleted. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Oy vey. That's wiki for you. Bstone (talk) 04:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletionism reigns supreme, anyone? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 04:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...I always thought A3 was only for cases where you really couldn't tell what the article was i.e. the "Derek Smith ran through the fields one day" types. But I guess this is why I developed the habit of checking the creation time when I do speedies. Shell ^babelfish 05:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The version of the article that was originally nominated for speedy deletion consisted of a single sentence and no sources. Also the word "rag" could mean any of several things without any context. If I'd seen that article pop up on one of my new pages patrols I'd have whacked an A1 on it and I'd have been right to do so. Reyk _YO! 05:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point about no source being included on article creation. It's a very simple thing to remember, and I'd advocate the absence of so much as a single little source as a perfect reason for speedy deleting. Also, we could make another Skypecast, this time focusing on speedy deleting and prodding and nominating things for deletion that need to land in the digital gutter whence they came, and better quickly. Or an entire series of Skypecasts on funny "inclusionist" AfD "reasonings". Or a lecture on start articles in a userspace sandbox and only move them to article space when they are halfway developed. Everyme 05:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Shouldn't that be "a group of editors deliberately try to start a notable article so badly so that it gets deleted and they can prove some sort of a point"? The problem is the little-known "rag", of course. If it had even been "song", I doubt if it would've been speedied. Black Kite 05:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'd say it probably wasn't deliberate. But when you fail, why not try and turn the tables and transform it into a point for yourself? Definitely worth a shot. Right on. Everyme 05:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Black Kite, and Everyme, please withdraw the speculation about our intentions. There was no hidden agenda: we just wanted to get an article up to DYK level in real time. I was hoping someone else would start the page; it pretty hard to host an audio recording and start an article simultaneously. The first edit contained a statement that the piece was a written by a composer with a bluelinked name who was a leading artist in the genre, and included an edit summary that more material would be coming soon. Before the speedy tag went up I had already posted four reliable sources to the talk page. Afterward we simply uploaded the recording we had. Durova^Charge! 06:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"Bluelinked name" is a bit misleading. The link goes to a disambiguation page which includes three musicians, and there isn't even an indication that the article is about a song. Hut 8.5 06:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, my kidding was related solely to Joshuaz's posting this here. That certainly happened in an attempt to make some invalid point. Everyme 06:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Well, if you'd like to discuss deletionism and inclusionism how about naming a time that's good for you and signing up for our next recording? Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly#Our_next_Skypecast The background over on our side is that we've done a lot of good content work during off-hours when we weren't recording and wanted to duplicate that in an episode. The speedy deletion caught us by surprise. If this brings up issues between deletionists and inclusionists then let's see if we can find common ground. Durova^Charge! 06:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, now that LGRdC is retired, the whole issue of inclusionism as a serious problem has faded a bit for me. Everyme 07:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Even if it wasn't done deliberately to make a point (which requires quite an effort of AGF in this context), if the article authors can't be bothered to make a decent stub then why should we care? Seriously, we are all inclusionists, if we weren't then we would not be here at all, but we have different inclusion criteria and thresholds - the debate is at the margins. It's all good. Guy (Help!) 08:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Guy, you do realize the article exceeded requirements for DYK before we finished the recording, right? Durova^Charge! 16:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but not when it was deleted. When it was deleted it was a single unsourced sentence. And when you listed sources on Talk for Hangon, you did it in a way that ensured the sources were not easily readable. If you weren't deliberately trolling for a deletion you could then bitch about, you were doing an extraordinarily good impression of it. The lesson to be drawn from this is that "foo is a song by bar" is below what many people consider a valid stub. Me, I'd have checked the bluelink for the writer and worked out that it probably was notable, but the article did actively invite deletion. And blaming people who patrol the perennial backlog at CAT:CSD is also excessively harsh, the problem is the firehose of crap more than those who seek to turn the hose away from drowning the project. This whole exercise positively reeks of WP:POINT, to the extent that it obscures whatever valid points you might actually have been making. Guy (Help!) 18:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I listed sources on talk before the article had been tagged for deletion. We expected we'd have a few moments more to demonstrate that we were actually writing an article. Then it was gone before any of us had time to make another edit. In between my last post to AN and this one I started another new article and put it up for DYK: That International Rag. It would help morale a bit around here if those who criticize did more to help the problem: early twentieth century popular music is a very underdeveloped area. Durova^Charge! 19:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I really wish that editors would stay off of the speedy tags within minutes of an article being created (especially in this case, where it was started by a well-known editor who presumably would know what they were doing), but the state the article was in when deleted was pretty poor, and I can see how an admin would see it as an A3 (and this from an editor who seems to spend a great deal of his time declining mis-tagged A1, A3 and especially A7s). I don't think that Orangemike can be blamed for zapping what looked at the time like a perfectly valid A3. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC).

Just a note to everyone, but this would be an ideal place to have used {{hasty}}. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You know, the PROD template uses a timestamp to change its text, so that it authorizes deletion once 5 days have passed. Could we add such a parameter to some of the CSD templates, building a buffer into the process? Say, something that would only add the article to CAT:CSD after 10 or 15 minutes? It would limit the biting, but would still keep a speedy process moving along - and, obviously, would not be used on templates like {{db-attack}} and such. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, if something isn't an attack page (FRANK FROM BUFFALO SUCKS BUFFALO!) would it really kill anything to make it a "by-policy" requirement that you can't CSD stuff like this for like at least 15 or 30 minutes? What possible harm could that cause beyond people having to skip over the first x lines in the New Pages report and not immediately tag stuff? Scorekeeping for RC patrollers doesn't matter. I can't see the harm in giving people a few minutes. It's not like it matters if a substandard article lasts 120 seconds or 30 minutes, and most people tend to build articles by layering them up. I've actually begun not wanting to build a new article in article space because I don't want to deal with someone AFDing it blindly or CSDing after seeing all these horror stories. This article which is now up for FA was "deployed" from my user space only after I laid in enough sources so that I could actually ignore an AFD. On this one that I can get to GA once I have time, I was fortunate to just get notability tags instead of CSD/AFD after I just went and made it. And I have a clue about making articles. Obviously do does Durova--she's done FAs, I'm hopefully on the cusp, and she got bit and I nearly did, but I'm actively worried about that when making articles, especially since my stuff is generally obscure--look at my user page. Giving newbies 30 minutes is more important than giving RC patrollers a notch in a belt that doesn't matter. rootology (C)(T) 13:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well there is the other side of the fence: new page patrol. Every few seconds, a new page is created, much of what's created in the mainspace is, to put it plainly: garbage. Pages created by kids in middle schools who really wanted to tell the world that "XYZ IS GAY!!!", pages about newly created websites that nobody has ever heard of, company/organization adverts, pages about fictional characters that made one appearance in episode X of season Y of TV serie Z, one-liner bios about some obscure religious figure, dictionary definitions, american football players in division 12 of college football, school cruft, protologisms and associated essay, copyvios of external websites, high school / myspace rock bands, vain autobios, one liners with not enough context to guess what the hell the page is supposed to be about, mispelled pages on a subject we already have an article about ... I can go on and on. Anyway, the point is, it's *hard* to keep up, and there is a lot to check, and a lot to throw away. Wikipedia lists pages as they are created and that's it. If you don't catch pages as they come, you probably never will. It's totally not practical for a new page patroller to wait half an hour while new pages keep piling up. Plus it's not just impractical, it wouldn't make a difference most of the time. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck -> CSD.

Now I'll grant you that some new page patrollers are trigger happy, but it's raining bombs out there. If people won't provide references, if they won't develop new articles in their user page as they are encouraged to do, they have themselves and the zillion other people doing the same to blame. Besides, it's not the end of the world if an article is "wrongly" tagged for speedy deletion, it can be interrupted easilly and indeed it was. Not like it was deleted and salted. If anything, it shows the process works as designed. Equendil Talk 16:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Also non notable album/artist/band/song stubs are amongst the most common pages created, so I am really not surprised there. Equendil Talk 16:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Dunno about anyone else, but had I seen that come up as I went through on speedy patrol, I'd have been leaning towards deletion as well. When I start an article, I usually write it offline and drop it in with more than just a single line, and I thought that was how most experienced editors do it. The one-line first edit was very lacking in information, and considering that we do have guidelines about the notability of songs over at WP:MUSIC, at that point the article didn't really meet any guidelines. However, it could have been handled better, perhaps as a redirect to the artist... Anyhow, lessons to be considered: make sure your new article has a source and a little good information in it; and check the history and creator out before deleting something that looks like it has potential to be a decent article. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• OK, I'll stretch to AGF and believe it wasn't deliberate. But if it wasn't, if you're a group of experienced editors starting a notable article, why would you start it with this? I wouldn't have speedied it, both because of who started it and the fact that songs technically can't be speedied, but you can understand someone who did. Black Kite 16:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • • The recording is self-explanatory: while I was hosting I asked three times for a volunteer to make the first edit. When no one volunteered I stepped in. Hadn't really expected to fill that role myself so in order to keep the episode moving the first edit was very short. It is nearly impossible to speak one thing while simultaneously writing something else. I knew the first post was thin and left an edit summary asking for a little patience. We wouldn't have been surprised to get a prod or an AFD, but a two minute speedy really did catch us off guard. Durova^Charge! 20:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • A few remarks about my intention in posting this details here: 1) the edit summary said that more was going to follow. 2) People are saying that long-term users should have known better about how to do this. My primary concern however is not in that regard but about all the cases that might occur like this every day to new users. If we are speedy deleting in this sort of circumstance, what are we doing to new users? JoshuaZ (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

    Joshua has a good point. NPP has really become a "race" to see who can tag it the fastest. We should not be going about deletion this way. In fact I'd like to see a rule that speedy deletion tags can't be placed for the first 10 minutes, except for attack pages, copyvio and the like. –xeno (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

    We are giving them an incentive to RTFM and create proper stubs :D Seriously though, I can't speak for everyone obviously, but new page patrollers are not just deletion maniacs. Welcoming new Wikipedians and helping them around, fixing a brand new article, adding internal links, tagging and adding categories, saving articles from deletion, are all parts of the job. Equendil Talk 17:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

    Teaching them that if they don't make an effort to right a half decent stub, they might as well not bother? Nil Einne (talk)

    • Back when I had more time and was doing NPP, many times I saw who created the page as well as what was created. I usually gave a bit more slack to an established user than I did someone who did a first time contributing. Though I got a few wrong, I always did a bit of searching on topics that were remotely plausible. Those that stank of hoax/attack/etc were flagged as such. I had a pretty good track record and got smacked on occasion. I wish more NPP had that philosophy. spryde | talk 18:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I totally disagree that there should be a timeframe for deleting articles and/or tagging them for deletion. One precarious, fragile facet of Wikipedia is our public perception of credibility. Having nonsense, false, or otherwise inappropriate articles up for longer than necessary only serves to further degrade our credibility. However, I agree there is a problem (although I don't agree on the scope or magnitude of the problem). I once had a discussion with another user about making CSD tagging a "rollback"-type privilege - i.e., it needs to be granted by an admin and can be taken away upon abuse. While I think this idea is a good one, I have not taken the time to discuss it with anyone else or fleshed it out at all. Any opinions? Tan | 39 18:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

With rollback you can demonstrate that you can be trusted with the tool by reverting vandalism without it. This wouldn't be the case with a CSD right, so it wouldn't be easy for an admin to judge that they can use it appropriately. The right to tag a page for speedy deletion can't do much damage if abused, since they can't actually delete the page, and we may end up with a situation when an editor gets the right removed after mistagging 2-3 articles (even if that's a 99.9% success rate). Hut 8.5 19:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

So your objections are that it would be hard for admins to perform a perfuctory review of the contribs and grant the right to users who want it, and that a user might have the right removed after a few abuses? I am either missing something, or this is flagrant beaurocracy in action. The point of my (admittedly skeletal) proposal is that we can remove the rights if pages are being tagged improperly. If what you are saying is correct, then the problem doesn't lie with NPP, but with the admins who are performing the deletion. In either case, having a delay between article creation and CSD tagging doesn't solve the problem. Tan | 39 19:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I would love it if there was an autotemplate feature that would be at the top of every article less than X days old that was automatically applied and removed upon a given timeframe. That lets everyone know that it was just born and may not be complete. spryde | talk 19:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not what I meant. I was raising concerns about how the system will be implemented. Of course I don't think such a right should be taken away because of one or two incorrect taggs in a thousand, but if you give admins the right to take away the right to tag articles for CSD then people are going to call for this to happen if the person makes one mistake in practice. That's the main reason why there is no universal admin recall system. I was assuming that your right would be granted in a similar way to rollback (in which admins do make a brief survey of the user's contributions before granting the right). Hut 8.5 08:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of the new page patrollers are more than a little overzealous, and it's frustrating to see an article get a CSD slapped on it within seconds of its creation, even with an assertion of notability. (See Jim Naugle as an example; the very first edit was a one-sentence sub-stub that provided a clear claim to notability. Within the same minute, it was tagged for CSD A7 by a new page patroller.) And as noted by others, it's appropriate to consider the creator of the article when nominating it for deletion. Mzoli's Meats is the definitive example, but Twistee Treat, which was created by steward and WMF employee User:Bastique got an unreferenced tag slapped on it a minute after creation. I think he knows the appropriate steps for creation of new articles, and the patroller who tagged it should have been trout-slapped. As I noted at my RFA, articles less than 15 minutes old won't get tagged by me; it allows the creator time to flesh out the article a bit. Not every new user understands how to use a sandbox, and I'd guess that most of them won't follow the links to find out how. Horologium (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion

I understand the pressure that new page patrollers are under: a whole lot of junk and nonsense does try to make its way into Wikipedia and if it doesn't get spotted in the first few minutes it often sits around for months. Maybe it would help relieve that pressure if we implemented a second tier for screening. Let's say there were a script that gave a report on new articles a certain number of hours old (2 hours? 24 hours?) and that screened out pages that were already prodded or AFD'd. Would that help? Aside from whether I should have started the article better (and usually I do), there's a reasonable case to be made that new editors who have valid content to contribute may be getting shut out by our current practices. RC patrol is hard to do perfectly at a site that sees as much activity as Wikipedia. Perhaps we could set up something that makes the tough job easier. Durova^Charge! 20:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that apart from attack page and defamatory comments, it's not urgent or neccessary to tag new articles within one or two hours. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree, as above. Hundreds of articles daily are created that are attack pages, vandalism, nonsense, or simply vanity pages that reduce Wikipedia's credibility. I believe that our credibility is one of our most fragile and crucial aspects. Everyone agrees blatant vandalism et al should be removed immediately. However, I think that the alarmists who believe that a huge problem exists because a (very) small percentage of "viable" articles are deleted, are painting a picture of a much larger problem than actually exists. I heartily believe that we should nurture new article writers. Treating deleted articles as baby birds that are stepped on in the front yard, however, is not the way to go about it. Deal with it on a case-by-case basis - or create a system where you are able to take away tagging rights, as I described above. Making arbitrary timelines doesn't help any problem and could potentially harm our credibility with the public. Tan | 39 21:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Defamatory comments can go immediately. Vandalism, nonsense, or simply vanity pages don't matter, they can wait an hour, it's no big deal, they won't damage the credibility of Wikipedia in that time anymore than they will in five minutes. The damage comes when editors - and admins - mistake a page in creation that may become a credible page, for one of these. That's extremely bad PR and damages our most valuable resource, new editors. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoever requested a citation above, in June 2008 there were 2008 G1 deletions (nonsense pages), 883 G2s (test pages), 1520 G10s (attack pages), 3469 G11s (spam) and 1568 G12s (copyvio). That's in addition to 3398 A1s (no context) and 13406 A7s (no assertion of significance). Letting a page on a student stay up for a long period does indicate to whoever wrote the page that Wikipedia doesn't have good content control mechanisms. Hut 8.5 07:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. 3-6 hours should be enough, but the 15 minutes suggested further above would be meaningless. Even my worst stubs have taken at least two hours (most of which is spent perusing dismissing unusable sources). If we can convince Cyde to sort this page chronologically instead of alphabetically, half of the problem would be solved. The other half would involve trout-slapping every nimrod who habitually deletes from the wrong end. — CharlotteWebb 21:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I was the one that mentioned 15 minutes. If an article is undergoing continuing improvements, I don't tag it. Again, I look at the contribution history of the creator when deciding whether or not to drop a CSD tag; someone with a contribution history as extensive as yours is not going to get tagged by me. People need to slow down, especially when there is nothing defamatory or blatantly incorrect. Horologium (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

What about patrolling the back end of the unpatrolled pages? They remain unpatrolled for 90 days and there are quiet a large number that can be found in that way. This is a link to the back end. [1] Zginder 2008-09-29T21:58Z (UTC)

• I already suggested a triage system for all deletions, whereby the tags get reviewed and then essentially "patrolled" as valid good-faith deletion requests based on the criteria. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Right now, new pages are falling off the end of the unpatrolled new pages queue after having been on there for 90 days. It might be wise to actually work from the rear end of this queue, rather than do things that tend to work from the front like we're doing now. This prevents pages from going unpatrolled, and also gives people a bit of time to actually use the wiki to build a page.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Beware: This is one of the most flagrantly understated posts I have ever written. O:-)

We have to do both. The last thing we want is attack pages hanging around for a month. Ditto articles on students. Hut 8.5 07:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. For the record: it turns out that we are currently ineffective at *both* ends of the queue (something can't reach the tail of the queue unless someone missed it at the head of that same queue, after all.) Currently many (most?) (potential) attack pages and articles on students and etc are kept on wikipedia indefinitely. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• I would advocate a second tier, for the dual purposes of preserving possible articles, by removing the pressure for instant decision, and equally important as a second chance for removing the junk. When I have a chance to do a little NPP, I go 5000 unpatrolled edits back, and its amazing the amount of absolutely impossible and sometimes harmful material that gets missed. Its better than before NPP, but we need either a system of timed categories, or a second level of patrol. I can imagine dozens of ways to set this up, and anything would be better.
  • What we're not going to solve that easily is admins using their own standards rather than WP policy. For example, some people do remove stubs without sources purely for lack of the source, which is not current stub policy. Some people do interpret no indication of notability as "not enough notability to pass AfD," also contrary to explicit policy. Some people do use no context as meaning not enough to make a finished article, also contrary to explicit policy. Some of the people who do that are my friends here, so I'm not being specific. . Personally, I'd favor a systematic review of all speedy deletions, and a way of reviewing or undeleting less dramatic and less personal than Deletion Review. DGG (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Reminder

May I remind everyone that Assume Good Faith is a policy here? Attacking us for having tried to create an article, then facing a sudden speedy deletion, because of untrue and unsubstantiated claims that we were trolling is NOT ON. I'll remind you that this wasn't brought up here by anyone involved, nor did we ask to be part of a controversy, we merely made a start while getting organised to add more. I'll also point out that there are two more parts to that broadcast that Joshua did not link:

In these, work continues. I would request a public apology. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not draft your new article in your own sandbox, as User:JoshuaZ/my dandy new article. Then no one is likely to delete it when it is one unsourced and confusing sentence. Take a look at the latest article I created, Archie Frederick Collins, which spent time in my sandbox while I drafted it from a one sentence start, which even then said who he was and why he might be notable. By the time I moved it to mainspace, [2] it was a much better article. Why would anyone want to post the first rough draft of an article for all the world to see? Edison (talk) 02:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No. When we work collaboratively, we draft articles in the main namespace, and use this novel technology known as a "wiki" to edit it. ^{Foundation issue #3} The method you are recommending does work, but is severely suboptimal, compared to actually using a wiki (it's what people used to do before the invention of wiki technology, you're basically (ab)using mediawiki as a bastardised cms). Note that after ~1 hour the NTWW article made it to DYK status. That would be a bit hard to do in your own userspace. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. The wiki model means that we contribute collaboratively, not that you're not allowed to work on your own to get an article up to snuff without every new page patroller and her/his dog (new page patrollers are notorious dog people) coming in to poke and prod it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC) At least, I hope you're not assuming that people have a right to prod, csd, or afd things in the main namespace? Just in case: they don't. If it turns out that what they are doing is actually harming our mission, we can tell them to stop doing it.

If you post unreferenced, obscure crap on the mainspace, do not be surprised if it gets tagged for speedy deletion. Edison (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree with Edison, if not with the wording ("crap" is a bit strong). If I'm working on something new, I do it either offline entirely or in a sandbox, so that when it goes live, it has references and structure and content right out of the tin. That would certainly seem to me to be a far better way of going about things than to post a substub and work it up from there in mainspace, even if it's done quickly. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it may or may not be but people are still allowed to start articles that are not fully formed without them being deleted right away. I would suggest that the first instinct when coming across a stub should be to try and improve it and not delete it. We should be trying to improve content. For some reason people find deleting articles easier then working to expand them. That's too bad because it reduces the quality of the encyclopedia and in many cases chases new users away. RxS (talk) 04:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Tony Fox, and Edison: This is Wikipedia. You start an article in mainspace, and it grows from a small stub to a useful article, or better yet a did you know, good article, or even a featured article. This is done by collaborative editing, using the wiki method. This is a foundation principle. If you want to go argue with the wikimedia foundation and recommend they replace mediawiki by some different cms that supports your alternate workflow, because you no longer use the wiki workflow, that's fine. The appropriate mailinglist is foundation-l.

While you're out doing that, this right here is still Wikipedia. And while it's wikipedia, if certain subprojects (to wit: CSD) are disrupting the current wiki workflow, they must be made to stop. Alright? --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Please explain what was going on in the second podcast. The female is typing and announcing that now she is at 2100 characters or some such, so the article becomes a "DYK." Why would DYK be based on length rather than quality? As for the issue of how long it takes your new article to get some cachet like DYK, remember that we are not on deadline. The podcast is very obscure, as if it needed editing and organization. Edison (talk) 03:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK requires at least 1500 characters I believe. Gary King (talk) 03:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, at least 1500 characters and 1 source. We had 2100 characters and 6 reliable sources by the end of the episode. Durova^Charge! 03:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

But when the article was deleted, it met the CSD in that it was one sentence which didn't meet our inclusion guidelines. Deletion endorsed based on the facts as of the time of the deletion. Daniel (talk) 03:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh? Here's the criterion that was used: Pure vandalism. This includes blatant and obvious misinformation, and redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism. Durova^Charge! 03:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't. That's G3, not A3. Daniel (talk) 04:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm. No content. Any article (other than disambiguation pages and redirects, including soft redirects) consisting only of external links, category tags and "see also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, chat-like comments, template tags and/or images. However, a very short article may be a valid stub if it has context, in which case it is not eligible for deletion under this criterion. Similarly, this criterion doesn't cover a page with an infobox with non-trivial information. Durova^Charge! 05:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) Daniel how do you endorse deletion of an article that was three minutes old and not clear vandalism or attack? Had this been new editors this would have been a horriffic case of newbie biting. Nowhere does it say we expect people to write articles in the user space, and it is a reasonable expectation that they might get more than three minutes to work on it before it is deleted regardless of wether it is in the main or user space. That tagging and deletion is indefensible for a 3 minute old article. Viridae^Talk 08:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It is entirely normal and supported by both policy and practice. An "article" in the state that this was in when first saved will be tagged and deleted pretty quickly because we're efficient at doing so. And we need to be, given the hundreds of cruddy "articles" that appear every day. Ever so often, one that could be good will be deleted, but, as here, it will be recreated better. The type of mindless inclusionism advocated in this thread harms Wikipedia slightly more than the mindless deletionism we also have. And breaching experiments - as this would seem to be - are never a Good Thing. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 08:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

3 minutes from creation to deletion for an article that isnt a blatant attack article, BLP or vandalism (ie this one) when the tag is "no content" is frankly ridiculous - theres no damn content because it was only.just.created. Nothing whatsoever is lost by leaving something liek that a few minutes to see where it goes. Nothing at all. Furthermore, calling this a breaching experiment is an exteremly bad faith characterisation and that should be retracted. This was an attempt at live article creation that was actually advertised before hand. Viridae^Talk 12:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ...as is undeleting it without a reason after less than 60 seconds without so much as a courtesy note to the administrator, especially given the undeleting admin ended up being a contributor to it. Given the user who created it wasn't new, there is no biting involved; an article which meets CSD can be deleted at any stage during its life, as far as I'm aware. Daniel (talk) 08:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Take it up with the undeleting admin - thats hardly the major problem here though. The likeness to biting is because the deleting admin clearly didnt check the contribution history of the article creator - so it may well have been a new contributor they were biting. Viridae^Talk 12:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Standard a7 by the sound of it. You can start ver short for example but if you are going to star really short you need an asertion of noteability and probably a ref.Geni 11:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't tagged as A7, it was tagged as A3 - no content. Even A7s ussually shouldnt be deleted that quickly unless they are clearly about the kid im sitting next to in my high school. 3 minutes from creation to deletion is indefensible. Viridae^Talk 12:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Very easy to defend. Speedy delete means exactly what is says on the tin. That means anything that meets the criteria can be deleted instantly. No need for taging no need to wait admins can just zap it straight of new pages if they want. There is a reason it isn't called. "wait around a bit" deletion.Geni 13:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

NO. "Speedy" is only by comparison to the week-long AfD and prod processes. Speedy delete does not mean "delete it as quickly as possible without taking the time to investigate whether this might be a legitimate new stub", and admins who think it does should find a less bitey use for their mops. I agree that this was a bad call; as others have already pointed out, there were four good sources in the talk page before this was even tagged for speedy. The deleting admin should have looked at them, looked at the page history which indicated a new stub with more to come, and held off on the deletion for at least the five minutes it would have taken to make the article a little more solid. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it took more than 5 minutes. CSD says that if an article meets the criteria you can delete. It doesn't say you may delete after waiting around for 5 mins.

In a perfect world, new editors would know how to create drafts in userspace and would understand that new articles need reliable references. Unfortunately, they do not. Have the inconsiderate deletionists considered that? (I know that in this case, the editor was not new, but if this happens to an experienced editor, it happens to plenty of new editors every day.) --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup. New editors can however see other stubs and the like. Doesn't take much to get beyond the deletion criteria. "X is a song by Y that sold a lot of copies in 1905 and is considered a landmark in ragtime sheet music" would probably get you there. Fairly easy to see that most articles have a paragraph of content and something with a paragraph of content that doesn't run into A7 will generaly be fine.Geni 13:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Songs are not eligible for A7, so running into A7 should not have been a concern in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

well it can probably be nailed under some kind of A1/A3 combo. Attempts to limit admins much beyond "if it looks anything like an article you can't delete it" only work to a limited extent in that they tend to result in more imaginative admins.Geni 17:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Indentifying the problem

Solutions addressing problems that are not properly identified is a pet peeve of mine in my job as a software dev, so identifying the problem is what I'd like to do here, at least in simplified form (since we all know the broader context and because of WP:TL;DR).

• Problem :
  1. Potentialy good articles are occasionally tagged for speedy deletion / sent to the AfD process.
  2. It happens seconds or minutes after creation.
• Consequences (unwanted):
  1. We may be driving away new or even not so new Wikipedians.
  2. People get annoyed / angry / wiki-stressed.
• Causes:
  1. Potentialy good articles are created in main space in a shape making them eligible for deletion according to policy.
  2. New pages irrevocably unfit for inclusion make up for a large proportion of new pages.
  3. New pages are created at a fast rate making new page patrol a hurried process.
  4. Some new pages patrollers are over zealous.
  5. New pages are listed as they are created.

A solution should aim to eliminate the causes, or failing that, curb unwanted consequences. Equendil Talk 11:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

We can't eliminate cause 1 without seriously hurting the wiki spirit, which, after all, is the reason for our success. I don't think we can eliminate cause 2 without serious side-effects. I believe we don't even want to eliminate cause 3.

Background to cause 4: I have tried some new page patrolling occasionally to see what it is like. I observed that doing something with the article (including putting deletion templates on it) gave me more satisfaction than just marking it patrolled, but was a lot of work. If you use a script that makes it easy to hand out deletion templates you get this satisfaction cheaper. I found not doing anything with an article, i.e. not even marking it as patrolled, surprisingly frustrating. As a consequence, going through the list in reverse order was an extremely frustrating experience – a series of defeats.

We could attack causes 4 and 5 with a new link: "Mark for re-patrolling in 24 hours". This would remove the article from the queue and put it back on top after 24 hours. (Perhaps with a new link: "Mark for re-patrolling in 7 days.")

A positive side effect would be that the complicated cases wouldn't just stay hidden in the middle of the queue for 90 days. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is *cough*slightly*cough* larger than this. We have tens of thousands of unpatrolled pages, and we know nothing about them.

• CSD is at least so ubiquitous that people have taken to creating articles in their userspace (thus removing any and all of the advantages of having a wiki in the first place), so it fails sufficiently on the false positives side to give pause.
• In the mean time we're also letting through massive amounts of pages that go unpatrolled.

I don't think we're looking at a minor problem here. Not to be alarmist or anything :-P but we're pretty much looking at the utter failure of our new page patrol and deletion system.

The problem NTWW encountered is systemic, not incidental.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd also point out that the deletion was done despite of a {{holdon}} tag, an edit summary stating that more was forthcoming, and so on. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

((should this be in the next section instead?)) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Systemic bias

An issue I have been trying to raise awareness of, for a long time, is that narrow-minded deletionism worsens systemic bias. For example, Singapore-related articles are often AFDed or speedied because the trigger-happy deletionists (usually Americans) are unfamiliar with the topics and do not even try to find sources. May I suggest that they write GAs instead? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

very true. The answer is, no not AfD stub articles on factoids. Try mergism. Spend half a minute checking whether the item is mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia, and if the stub doesn't add anything to that, redirect it. If it turns out we genuinely have nothing on the topic, slap a few tags on it and let it sit there for a while. Speedy deletion is for obviously worthless material (patent nonsense). Confused paragraphs on obscure topics in broken English aren't patent nonsense, they may turn out to be valuable article-starters on things we may have missed due to our inherent US/Anglo-centric bias. It's ok to reduce broken or rambling pages back to a stub, but it's not ok to just speedily delete them. --dab (𒁳) 12:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Generaly hit it with prod under those conditions.Geni 13:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Perennial issue

We've been through all this before... — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

it will come up again. We cannot expect every new articles patroller to be familiar with the entire history of Wikipedia, we need to present them with clear guidelines what they should or should not do. --dab (𒁳) 13:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The same could be said for people creating new pages, of course. We currently advise them "As you create the article, provide references to reliable published sources. Without references, the article may be deleted." Somehow, this fails to convey the actual expectations for new articles. In the case at hand, for example, the page was created with no sources and was deleted exactly as the message suggested it would be. Moreover, Wikipedia:Your first article says that one thing to avoid is "A single sentence or only a website link".

Maybe something like this would get more attention?

Articles that are created without sources, or have extremely little content, are likely to be deleted very quickly. To avoid this, include references to reliable published sources immediately when creating a new article."

— Carl (CBM · talk) 13:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I could go for that. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that works for me too. Even regulars need to be reminded of this fairly basic requirement now and again. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 13:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

So in a conflict between our processes and well-meaning new users we change the instructions given to the new users, rather than our processes? --Hans Adler (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This section discusses a strawman. The NTWW article provided sources. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC) + diff (first edit on the talk page)

Proposed Solution

In an attempt to solve some of the concerns raised here - that speedy deletions might be premature, and that they can BITE new editors - I've drafted a possible alternative to the current Speedy Deletion process. Essentially, templates would be used to add a 30 minute (or whatever length) delay to the deletion. An article tagged for speedy deletion would not be added to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion until 30 minutes had passed - giving time to assert notability, add sources, or whatever. I've drawn up the proposal at User:Ultraexactzz/Time-delayed Speedy Deletion, and would invite input from the community. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Context

Some sort of background statement appears to be necessary, so here's what was up. For a while now I've been doing gnome work in the popular songs articles. Overall that area is not doing well: massive amounts of noncompliance with WP:RS and WP:COPYRIGHT among other problems. Sometimes well-meaning people would come along after me, remove the unreferenced tags, and create new attempted citations to IMDB, fansites, etc. When most of the subject is at that level, who can blame them for following the norm? The area needed better examples so I started creating and expanding articles. Here are some recent examples:

• I Want to Go Back to Michigan
• That Mysterious Rag
• I'm Just Wild About Harry
• That International Rag

Along with that effort I've searched down dozens of public domain musical scores and uploaded/organized them at Commons and Wikisource. Some of them I've also spent hours restoring (even translated a tango from Spanish), and Shoemaker's Holiday has done fantastic work restoring historic recordings and creating MIDIs.

Still, early twentieth century music is an underpopulated area. This site has only 19 articles for ragtime songs--a genre that was on the top of the charts for a quarter century and is closely tied to the origins of jazz. I've searched for a foxtrot songs category by every spelling I can think of; as far as I can tell that doesn't even exist. So our goal with episode 34 was to replicate that article building in real time and maybe draw new interest to the subject. Usually I'm pretty good at starting new articles (getting close to the 50DYK medal), but even an experienced editor could get caught off guard occasionally and that's what happened here--basically a function of juggling too many balls at once.

If I had expected that speedy deletion would be a real danger of course I would have started the article differently. In the moments we started that article I supposed we'd catch a prod or maybe a regular AFD. It caught us by surprise when this happened and we did our best to take it in good humor. Ideally, I'd rather have brought the community's attention to a subject where Wikipedia actually has a shortage of articles (yes such topics exist). This was undertaken with good intentions and I hope good things grow out of it. Best wishes to all, Durova^Charge! 21:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment from restoring admin

"WP:WHACK" redirects here. You may be looking for WP:Wikipedia is not Whac-A-Mole (WP:WHAC).

Not to be confused with Cod throwing.

Whacking with a wet trout or trouting is a common practice on Wikipedia when experienced editors slip up and make a silly mistake. It, along with sentencing to the village stocks, is used to resolve one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior amongst normally constructive community members, as opposed to long term patterns of disruptive edits, which earn warnings and blocks.

Example

Whack!

The above is a WikiTrout (Oncorhynchus macrowikipediensis), used to make subtle adjustments to the clue levels of experienced Wikipedians.

To whack a user with a wet trout, simply place {{trout}} on their talk page.

Xavexgoem (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2008 (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.

Major template (maybe) snafu

Resolved

I just saw, at the top of a page, between the page-source-talk tabs and the title f the page, a birthday message to Avril Lavigne, supposedly from the community. If this was legit, nevermind, and if it's not a template issue, oh well. Occurred at en/computer. 71.145.130.187 (talk) 04:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There's LOTS of vandalism that shows up at Wikipedia. If you can provide a link to the specific page where this message occured, we can find it an correct it. Thanks. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I looked on Computer (based on the comments) and Supercomputer (based on contribs), but didn't see anything (in history, either). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's called template vandalism, folks. I couldn't find which template it was, exactly, but it's been fixed and hopefully the template's been protected to avoid this happening again. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, that wasn't obvious from the comments made (barely anything was obvious, for that matter). (^^) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer , and it's still there for me. The contrib to supercomputer is immaterial. 71.145.130.187 (talk) 04:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Clear your caches, folks. Template:Rh was attacked and Zzuuzz (talk · contribs) blocked the troll. WP:RBI. — Scientizzle 04:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

ITN invitation

I would like to invite you to help me a bit with the ITN section. The system for nominating and posting new items on the Main page (WP:ITN/C) has been worked on during the last months so all it needs is some more people to participate in discussions. And a couple of admins more to ensure the good items get to the Main page soon enough. I can't do this all alone. Appreciated. --Tone 08:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll help where I can. fish&karate 10:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help - Just wanted to know why ITN doesn't have a similar system of 'consistent recognition' as say, DYK, for those that created/expanded the articles that landed in the ITN section on the main page? Wikipedia:In_the_news_section_on_the_Main_Page#Recognition - {this may act as an incentive for more editors to create ITN related articles}.

Just an idea --Flewis^(talk) 13:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This thing exists. We have a "souvenir" box for the user talkpage and one for the article's talk. It looks like this:

On 28 September, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item involving the article One interesting article, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently updated or created article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

and

--Tone 13:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't it handed out consistently then>? --Flewis^(talk) 13:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is run by humans, and that species are not renowned for their consistency. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 13:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(EC) We can make it consistent. There are some details though. What users should get the box? The one nominating it, the ones participating in the discussion, the user(s) who expanded the article, all of them...? At least article talks have recently been updated, thanks to Spencer mostly. In any case, not enough people to handle it all (for example, I don't consider those boxes a very important part of the process myself but if we decide that's what we use, we'll do it.)--Tone 13:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

e/c I'm probably the one that hands out the most recognition...on all the article talk pages and to the nominators. However, the updates themselves tend to be along many people, so I try to get everyone I can. Spencer^T♦C 13:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest at least 3 per article: Nominators, Creators, Significant contributions. If this task seems a little tedious or overwhelming, I'd be happy to help out --Flewis^(talk) 13:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Which is what I try to do. I can get the nominators and the talk pages of the articles. However, sometimes page creators who create a single sentence stub, compared to someone who adds 5 paragraphs of information: The latter should get the recognition. However, I try to hand them out as liberally as possible. Spencer^T♦C 13:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If the only reason you're participating in a process is to receive a little token on your talk page, you're contributing to the wrong project (directed at nobody in particular). I once updated the always late WP:DYK, only to get a message on my talk page and in my email, demanding an explanaition for why I didn't send out the little token templates; I was also told I simply shouldn't update DYK if I'm "too lazy" to send out the token templates. Guess what? Never updated that again. - auburnpilot talk 15:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is not 'rewarding' seasoned wikipedia editors who contribute regardless of whether or not they receive an award. The purpose of these 'tokens' is to reward newbies and give them a sense of encouragement and recognition for positively contributing to the encyclopedia. The better experience they have on wiki, the more inclined they will be to return and eventually develop Wikipediaholsim--Flewis^(talk) 05:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent). I've always contributed to ITN without ever expecting to receive these recognition templates. Since I'm the only on that really gives them, I don't give them to myself, but still keep a personal count of what I've done.

Another comment: We need more administrator attention in general to ITN. There's ususally items waiting to be posted (or fixed/removed/etc.), and though User:Tone (especially) has done an amazing job keeping up with the items, we need more to contribute. So if anyone cares to join, please, I encourage you to. Spencer^T♦C 21:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll help, but why aren't you an admin, Spencer? fish&karate 07:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Aha. I'll answer my own question :) fish&karate 07:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Something odd happening with this page

I hope this is the right place to post this. If not, I apologize. Anyways, I was looking at this page: Image:Logo del m19.gif, which clearly exists, but the tabs across the top act as if the page did not exist. Basically, I see "create this page" and no "history" tab. Maybe an administrator could fix it, or explain what's wrong? Thanks, Colombiano21 (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This is because it's a Commons image. It doesn't exist here on Wikipedia, but since it exists on Commons, it shows up when you put the name in (kind of automatically links the image). Shereth 23:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep. There's a link to the Commons page in the template right below the image, if you need to see a history or add something to the file description. --barneca (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I see, interesting. Thanks. Colombiano21 (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppetry by 203 range in discussion concerning Loretta West

Resolved

• 203.7.140.3 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
• 203.30.75.12 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
• 203.28.90.7 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

All three IPs have voted to delete in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loretta West, which means if it is the same person, they are vote fixing. In addition to all three being in the 203 range and voting to delete in the same AfD, the last IP above has NO additional edits outside that AfD, which is naturally odd, and the first two both have edited articles dealing with Australia related topics, which suggests an additional connection. Note as well that the one IP had commented in a thread concerning alleged sock puppetry against an editor who has not edited for months.--209.247.22.85 (talk) 05:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The article in question was already redirected to Characters in Outrageous Fortune, and the content was merged there three days ago. I closed the discussion since there's no point in continuing it at this point. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Allow this user to edit own talk page while blocked

Admins will have noticed there is a new blocking option which can prevent blocked users from editing their own talk page. It has proved quite popular with some admins in the short time it has been around. Unfortunately this option prevents users from requesting an independent review of the block which has always been considered inappropriate. So can we just establish that this option should not be used without very good reason? I have already added it to the blocking policy as I believe there is likely to be even more consensus about this than about the e-mail blocking option. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you 100% on this one. There's rarely a reason not to allow users to contest their own block. If they're abusing unblock templates or doin' something else bad on their talk page after the block, the page can simply be protected. lifebaka++ 16:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This option is very helpful when dealing with Grawp; otherwise, it should be used very sparingly. Maxim_(talk) 16:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There's only rarely a reason why a blocked editor should not be able to edit their talk page. Per Maxim, this will be useful for things like Grawp, but otherwise should never be used. Can I ask, is it unchecked by default? Thanks -- how do you turn this on 16:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It is checked, which means it is set so that editors are allowed to edit their own talk page by default. It may be useful for proper-banned users and confirmed socks of users who are known to abuse their talk page. Otherwise I see no reason to use it pre-emptively. In fact given our talk-page protection policies I don't see much reason for this option at all. As an aside, as mentioned in a thread just above and at WP:VPT, all previously blocked IPs are currently unable to edit their talk page. I'm hoping this is just an oversight to be fixed. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we add a note or link to the relevant media-wiki page (which I can't find) instructing them on the limited situations in which this should be used?--chaser - t 20:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. The page is MediaWiki:Ipballowusertalk for the text right by the checkbox, or MediaWiki:Blockiptext for the text at the top. -- how do you turn this on 20:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I modified MediaWiki:Ipballowusertalk. How's the wording?--chaser - t 01:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Confusing. I just saw "Allow user to edit own talk page (for persistent vandals only)". I think it should read "Allow user to edit own talk page (Disable for persistent vandals only)" or I misunderstood everything. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Corrected. there was an intermediate revision that not only shortened but changed the meaning.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, because this is the first time I've heard of this new feature: In the event that circumstances arise in response to which we would previously have protected the talk page (unblock abuse, misuse of the talk page while blocked, non-specific shenanigans etc.) ought we still to do so? Or should we be reblocking with the new feature enabled? CIreland (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Would it really make a difference? -- how do you turn this on 16:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, yes? Protection has the disadvantage of preventing all users from editing the page but the advantage of also preventing editing by socks of the blocked user. The reverse is true of the new method. CIreland (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh I was thinking of IPs only, where the page can be semi protected - I guess I forgot about auto-confirmed users. Apologies. -- how do you turn this on 16:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I was aware this option is intended to replace the action of protecting the talk page, so as to allow other users to still edit it normally. It should therefore be used in all and only the instances where protection would previously have occurred. Happy‑melon 16:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

So, in future, if an account is blocked and starts abusing the unblock request process we can unblock/reblock with the edit permission denied, rather than just protecting? Obviously a registered account then need only log on as its ip if they are really wanting to disrupt the page, but I guess they would do that on different pages anyway (and would give away the underlying ip in doing so). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't autoblock stop that? --Tango (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I tested it today with my alt account.--chaser - t 01:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Autoblock has a time limit of 24 hours (I think?). This option would normally be used for blocks of longer duration, I would hazard. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with proposal. Blocking user talk page access should be on a level with full protecting a blocked user's talk page. Durova^Charge! 01:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• Although this may be obvious, I wanted to clarify it. I would presume that protection would still be used in instances where an account, through the use of socks (whether ip's or named account), was abusing unblock requests? Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 15:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My talk page was recently "protected" - without warning - to prevent me from appealing a block, See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Statement by Andy Mabbett. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yet another false statement. It was protected due to your abuse of the {{unblock}} template, as you know perfectly well. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

JzG/ Guy: Your false accusations are becoming tiresome. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Andy, please do not engage in disruption or baiting on this thread. Your situation was reviewed and resolved. Please let Wikipedia get on with its business. Further arguing is only going to cause people to lose patience with you. Jehochman ^Talk 09:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I referenced a current, unresolved discussion, because it is relevant to this debate. There is no "baiting" or disruption" from me. It wasn't me who chose to use that as an excuse to start making fallacious ad hominem attacks; I suggest you address your comments to the editor who did. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because you choose not to hear what others say does not mean it was not true, Andy. Sometimes when large numbers of people tell you that you are wrong, it's because you are wrong. Seems to me you have a fundamental problem with that concept, and it's that fundamental problem that leads to almost all your problems on Wikipedia. It is fixable, but nobody else can fix it for you. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Policy on threats of violence and suicide

We are getting more and more of these, and each one results in drama,disagreement, and long discussion on noticeboards. If they are trolling, we are simply feeding them. If they are genuine, then we are not doing so good either.

I'm generally of the "ignore it, it is trolling" school, however, I can appreciate the other point of view too. So I'd like to propose the following:

1. We create a closed mailing list, consisting of a couple of dozen clued people who think it is important to report such threats, and have the time and willingness to do it. This would just be a normal community controlled mailing list, unrelated to the Foundation and NOT OTRS.
2. We create a policy that says "NO DISCUSSION ON WIKI, EVER." On wiki, we revert, block, ignore. No trolls are encouraged by getting to see the drama they cause. This should reduce instances of fake threats, and allow concentration on others.
3. Users are encouraged to report ALL threats, however, by e-mailing threats@whateverlist.com. There users who have a desire to see these things dealt with (and perhaps some experience) can handle them. What to do can be discussed there, without any troll being given satisfaction watching.
4. The list would have known clued users, but doesn't need to be totally secret as it would only be looking at publicly available diffs, or edits viewable by any admin - not privacy policy stuff.
5. Where the poster is "logged in", people on the list can contact a checkuser to do the necessary. (Checkusers really need to clarify with the Foundation about what they can and can't do - whilst the community has a concern here, it doesn't have a say).

I'd hope that such a policy would reduce drama, end the feeding of trolls, but allow swift reporting of threats.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Strong support. Daniel (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as I proposed nearly the exact same idea 4 months ago, I obviously support it. MBisanz ^talk 12:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. We have essays Wikipedia:Threats of violence and Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm, which could be merged and upgraded to policy. Jehochman ^Talk 12:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Rewritten, merged and upgraded. Daniel (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Question: who exactly do we choose to go on this list? Anyone who cares? Also, I think it would make sense to have a checkuser or two on the list who can respond quicker. -- how do you turn this on 12:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Scott's proposal is sound. No need to include CUs, they have enough calls on their time already and can be paged on IRC or by email anyway. Who gets to join the list? In the first instance, anyone who cares and is judged trustworthy, after that, let the list mods decide unless / until there is some significant disagreement about a particular case. A threshold of tenure may be appropriate in the initial selection. Get the drama off Wikipedia, though, and we'll have achieved something. Guy (Help!) 13:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The list can be fairly wide. It will not handle anything private. Any user who's been about for a bit, seems sane, and wants to help can. Nothig is private, it's just stuff we don't want on wiki, as having it on wiki simply encourages trolling for drama. As for checkusers, any who want can be on it. But ultimately, the community only has control over what we do with public information - we cannot instruct checkuser policy.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• I endorse this. It'll cut down on the trolling/hoaxes and let those who see a need to deal with this kind of post do so without stirring up WP:BEANS. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• I wholeheartedly support this, and would like to offer my assistance to help if this idea does become a reality. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• I'd recommend anyone who considers joining the list get some basic training (enough to know that you don't have enough) and go talk to a lawyer. When you deal with genuinely confused/suicidal individuals you put yourself in some interesting places, and its a good idea to know exactly what you're going into. This should thus be a pure volunteer effort.--Tznkai (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No. Whilst some expertise might be informative, no lawyer is needed. You either report the threat, or you don't. And since no volunteer is legally obliged to report something they happen upon on the internet, there's no liability here. This is about people feeling a moral obligation (and good on them), no need to worry them with legalities. They are just good Samaritans.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Good on them, but they should know what they're getting into. You can gain liability by interfering, not to mention exposure to potentially disturbed individuals. I'm not a lawyer, I doubt you are, and its seldomly a bad idea to get legal advice. Doing what you think is right is great, doing what you think is right and knowing what your potential issues are is better.--Tznkai (talk) 13:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It isn't interfering to report something. And unless the law enforcement officers you contact are the "potentially disturbed individuals", then you will not be in contact with such. There is no suggestion we contact the posters.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Moreover I wouldn't suggest any attempts to counsel someone at all. Today's episode nudged me over the edge on this. My own take would be to always WP:RBI on the wiki, discuss and/or report off-wiki if you like. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• This is a good idea. I support it. Scott, you should post this to the VP and get some wider consensus there. As for Tznkai's comment, I think Scott is right, this isn't a suicide hotline, this is just a private decision to report or not report a possible problem. Protonk (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Which I believe, makes the individual exposed to liability. I'm not sure, ask a lawyer.--Tznkai (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Rubbish. There was a suicide threat reported on ANI today. Dozens of people saw it and maybe one reported it. Those of us who didn't report it are not in any way liable. This is legal paranoia. Oh yes, I am not a lawyer, but I am right.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong direction Scott, I'm primarly talking about people who *do* report/interact with suicide threats become legally exposed.--Tznkai (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Which no-one ever suggested. If people do that, it is up to them. Wikipedia is not your mother, nor your lawyer.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No one is proposing that this be a suicide hotline. RBI and email/call the ISP or local authorities if something seems more than trolling. Protonk (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• I strongly support the idea. But I think that a lawyer (or better several, from various countries) should have a look at it to be safe. I--Hans Adler (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly support the idea and recognise the need for it. One would think we would need a moderately large pool of editors who are calm enough to deal with these things and have a decent whack of WP:CLUE. In addition we should strive (as best we can from volunteers) to provider "cover" across timezones and countries. Very occasionaly RL calls need to be made on these, for example to local law enforcement or a school college, ISP or whatever. It helps if you're in the same country. No comment on any legal position. Pedro :  Chat  14:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• This opt-in, off-wiki, mailing-list-based, drama-free solution is exactly what's needed here. Kudos to Scott MacD (and, evidently, belated kudos to MBisanz). --barneca (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• I think that it should be official and linked to the Foundation and OTRS. But definitely it should exist. I might also mention, however, that suicide threats and threats of violence to others are completely different situations. The former, for example, does not deserve a block; the latter does. Bwrs (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • That's not going to happen. Cary Bass has indicated the Foundation does not wish to involve itself. (So I've been told)--Scott MacDonald (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the discussion of this to Village Pump, as suggested.[3].--Scott MacDonald (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

At the behest of User:Sceptre

Resolved

 – Full protection. — Scientizzle 16:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre (currently blocked) requests full page protection of his talk page citing harassment by anonymous trolls and SPAs. I am relaying this request to the noticeboard. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you an admin? John Reaves 19:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Bit rusty on the policies. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 20:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Headlessness will do that to you.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

*Ahem ahem* nearly headless. John Reaves 06:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

What he really means is his Thompson gun is jammed. Use more snake oil next time. — CharlotteWebb 19:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Featured sound candidates

We could really use more voters and nominatoirs here. Featuured Sound Candiates is a Featured Content project that a lot of work has gone into drawing into relevancy, but it's a type of content that Wikipedia has not, traditionally, done very much with, and so is still building the necessary community.

Expertise is *not* necessary to vote or nominate, interest is all that is needed. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be at Commons? (Of course featured image candidates probably should too, but I suspect that was created before Commons existed.) --NE2 23:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Featured sounds is an English Wikipedia featured content type. Commons has no featured sounds program. Durova^Charge! 23:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It might be a better place to start one. --NE2 00:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If you would like to propose one there, please do. That's a bit off topic for this thread, though. This site has a featured sounds program and it could use more reviewers. Would you like to get your toes wet by helping with that? Durova^Charge! 00:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

We got FS where Commons don't have. And commons got Valued Image but we don't. Time for a swap? And I don't mind help setting up FS in Commons when we get the permission. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, what we could really use right now are more voters for the FS program we do have at this site. Wouldn't mind discussing a FS program separately over there. Durova^Charge! 18:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Quick help

Can someone please revert User:Eugrus' move of Star Wars: The Force Unleashed to Star Wars: The Force Unleashed (video game). The article was initially moved from the latter to the former following a talk-page discussion Eugrus did not participate in; today, he nevertheless reverted the move. I don't have the admin. bit and can't undo it, and although I left a talk-page request on his page (I'm assuming that since he moved the article atop a redirect, he can scoot it back), he seems to be an infrequent editor and might be hibernating until November. So. A little help? :-) --EEMIV (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm moving it back. Although, FYI, the consensus at the talk page is rather weak for it, and mostly silence. Talking to the user should help, and I don't suggest moving it back if he objects again. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Adam Walsh

FYI---name and Bio don't match. they are different people. One-6 yo boy abducted vs spots person/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.184.136 (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what admins need to do here. There's Adam Walsh and Murder of Adam Walsh, which cover both the cases (and which both need work...). Not sure what the issue is. lifebaka++ 20:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

One of them is a spots person.../! It is quite clearly stated in the comment... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I would take a wild guess that there is a link to Adam Walsh somewhere that is about the other Murder of Adam Walsh or vice versa.  ★  Bigr Tex 21:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned up an old cut/paste move from Adam Walsh (football coach) and put the Adam Walsh (disambiguation) page at Adam Walsh. A couple of sets of eyes would be nice on this:

• Make sure I didn't goof anything up horribly.
• Clean up some of the links to Adam Walsh to the correct article.

Thanks!  ★  Bigr Tex 21:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to you, and to User:Deor for helping to clean up the misdirected links. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

loophole in reliable sources? Journalists should be required to declare their affiliation.

We should consider that journalist must declare their profession. The reason is that a journalist can win a potential edit dispute by simply stating their position elsewhere, other than Wikipedia.

For example, journalist X can write in the XYZ Times a fact that he wants inserted into Wikpedia. He then can insert it in Wikipedia citing XYZ Times as a reference.

For example, Jessica Yellin was a contributor to a CNN report [4] that quotes Congressman Jeb Hensarling. Theoretically, Yellin could edit Wikipedia noting that quote. It could be an obscure quote that other sources don't report. For example, I searched the BBC website and he is not mentioned. Note: I have nothing against Jessica Yellin, just chose the names at random.

When Wikipedia was small, this was probably not a problem. With Wikipedia being used more and more and more editors are joining, we should anticipate such problem. If we don't and Wikipedia gets burned, it could lose credibility.

Proposal: Journalist must identify their profession on their user page. If they use references that they are the author or contributor, they must disclose this in the article talk page or edit summary. Chergles (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We already have WP:COI. Corvus cornix_talk 22:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

COI is a guideline, not a policy. The COI guideline is ok but this proposal should be made a policy. Policies should cover events that could burn Wikipedia. The Essjay event is one that burned Wikipedia. Let's not make this scenario burn Wikipedia. Chergles (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

How would you propose forcing somebody to reveal their identity without violating WP:OUTING? Corvus cornix_talk 23:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least part of the nature of a reliable source is having editing oversight, fact checking, stuff like that. So, if all of the people who are involved with the aforementioned CNN report put something on the air, it's probably okay. Or at least, not something that we need to worry to excess about. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My solution has always been simple: it's an honor system. We don't force people to reveal their affiliations, but we don't protect them either. If Editor X acts in a manner that generates an appearance of impropriety and fails to disclose the relationship voluntarily, then there is a small but nontrivial chance it will come back at them in a very big, public, and potentially career-ending way. The choice is up to the individual. Durova^Charge! 23:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

COI may be a guideline, but it's one that is followed very closely and only with the very occasional exception. "COI editing is strongly discouraged. When editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as neutral point of view, what Wikipedia is not, and notability, accounts may be blocked. COI editing also risks causing public embarrassment outside of Wikipedia for the individuals and groups being promoted." Can you point out where Wikipedia is being compromised by the fact that this isn't a bona fide policy? I don't think so. As you stated, you are trying to take a pre-emptive move for an anticipated problem. WP:COI already protects us from this, while being flexible enough to allow interpretation and ambiguity, much like the US Constitution. This is a strength, not a weakness. Tan | 39 23:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I've had some concerns about the Jessica Yellin article for a few days now. How can "During her coverage of the 2008 presidential election, Yellin covered key stories on Bill Clinton [2] , Sarah Palin [3] and the US economy[4]." be a career highlight? That would seem to be what she should be doing as part of her job. But my edits were reverted and I didn't feel like edit warring over it. Corvus cornix_talk 23:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest disclosure: I met a member of the Yellin family 13 years ago but never Jessica. I should have chosen two of the other co-authors.

I am reasonably comfortable with letting this discussion wither. As Durova said, if there is a scandal, it is the journalist who will likely be burned. Wikipedia would get smeared for a short time. In the sneaky event that the journalist cheats and edits using their own sources, then the journalist will be sneaky enough to not disclose the self reference. This is the weakness of WP. To change WP to a non-anonymous format is as likely as --- (name an unlikely event...Yankees win the 2008 World Series, Queen abdicates citing Wikipedia addiction, etc.)

Issue closed (not really resolved)? Chergles (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be an issue, because reputable papers have some form of editing and peer review. ffm 23:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a potential form of abuse. There are known facts that are difficult to find online. However, a reporter can write about it and create a reliable source. I know of court documents that show certain facts as well as findings of fact. If I were I reporter, I could write a story about it and transform a little known fact buried in a deposition into a reliable source. So reporters do have an advantage in being able to create reliable sources. In the US, federal court documents are searchable under the Pacer system but listing a search is not permitted as a citation.

Again, I am willing to let this section become inactive (a defacto "resolved") even though the issue really hasn't been resolved. Chergles (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Court transcripts are primary sources and are not accepted as reliable sources, since it's just the word of a witness, and not vetted for reliability. Corvus cornix_talk 00:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

They are reliable sources as to what was said in court, let's be clear about that. Johnbod (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This is true. Corvus cornix_talk 01:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that, if a CNN journalist were to make something up, and it were published by CNN without adequate fact-checking, then there would be a problem with CNN. Their reputation for fact checking and accuracy would surely suffer as a result. I don't see that Wikipedia has a problem, and I certainly don't think that our policies need to change. 71.65.197.158 (talk) 03:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let me ask you a question. Do you honestly, really believe that an actual journalist with a professional reputation to maintain and an honest-to-God real job that brings him a paycheck, upon which he depends to pay his mortgage, make his car payments, put his kids through college, would crank out a dubious story that has no journalistic merit, just so he could use it as a source on Wikipedia? Pardon me while I try to pull myself off the floor after the laughing fit I'm about to have. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There are safer options for non journalists. Sneak something onto the AP wire (doable if you know what you are doing). Get a paper published in a journal which is posible for non profesionals in some areas. Specialist hobbyist magazines may be professionaly or semi-proffesionaly reviewed but their articles may come from non-professionals some of whom may be wikipedia editors. Professional journalists are not the group I would be most worried about. It isn't generaly a problem though.Geni 10:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

As an evil pawn-of-the-rich/pinko commie scum journalist type person, though one who has only infrequently had his articles picked up by what might be considered a reliable source, I'd suggest that any pro who would publish an article and then run over here to justify its use as a reference is not a professional at all. Hopefully, whoever Guy suggests did it (below) is in a new profession, such as dog poop scooper, because they're the reason that people look at me funny when I tell them what profession I'm in. A responsible journalist would never pull something like that, far as I'm concerned. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

@Steven: Yes, and this has in fact happened. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

When? --Random832 (contribs) 14:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

One I remember is user:THF as was. Guy (Help!) 16:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If a user is truly anonymous, we'd have no way to check or know this, so there would unfortunately be no real reason to worry about it. Like Guy mentioned, though, if someone is "out" about who they are, I'd be surprised if it wasn't totally inappropriate for them to be working on or with sources related to them. His example of User:THF, and then there were Chip Berlet and Dennis King who also edit WP. If they choose to go under their own name, they shouldn't be adding stuff tied to them or involving themselves. rootology (C)(T) 16:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

TLDR, but I felt it necessary to add that we can't force anyone to do much of anything as a practical matter. We also don't do that because of the pseudonymous nature of Wikipedia.--Tznkai (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Unless they decide to edit under their own name (at which point under COI they should stay away from that stuff) it's all moot. For all you know, I'm Anderson Cooper. rootology (C)(T) 17:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I love your show!--Tznkai (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC) (AKA Wolf Blitzer)

• We'd need to be a little wary of discussing individual users here, but if someone is open about who they are then we at least know who we are dealing with. The problem in at least one case was that the individual concerned was, if I recall, using his own column as a way of asserting his own opinion as fact. There is a big difference between someone who is, say, a journalist specialising in investigating cults, editing articles on cults using the knowledge they have gained in the course of their work, and being open about who they are; and someone who writes op-ed, and tries to cite their own publications as a way of boosting the significance of their own opinion on something. In general I'd rather know who people are and help them to stay within the bounds the community considers acceptable per WP:COI, self-citing and so on. Most people who are published in reputable sources, are reasonable people. Guy (Help!) 19:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Continous vandalism and edit warring from 41.245.*.* dynamic IP address, not sure how to progress

• 41.245.131.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 41.245.183.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 41.245.177.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 41.245.128.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• And many more...

This IP is one half of one of the longest running and bizarre edit wars on wikipedia, namely the removal/re-insertion of a section on Talk:Dave Meltzer that is in regards to stoppin an edit war on Talk:Dave Meltzer. This has can be traced back over a year. I wish I was kidding.

The problem has now become that while the edit war was an amusing oddity (I had tried to stop it with sprotects among others but as soon as it wears off the article goes right on back to edit warring) the IP address has taken up to performing large amounts of vandalism on other articles. This is becoming a significant annoyance to myself as the IP is a 2-3 day total dynamic thus making any and all blocks useless against it for any significant reason.

I have reached the end of my rope in trying to figure out how to proceed, and a previous conversation with User:Alison lead to us having no clearer picture than when we started as to what to do, so I was hoping that someone here had an idea? –– Lid^(Talk) 10:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a great example of the selective blocking - where we could indefinitely block this range from editing these few pages (#Ability to block users from specific pages/namespaces likely coming). Any idea if that's ever happening? Otherwise, looks like long-term semi-protection or long-term range-blocking would be in order. Since you've talked to Alison, I imagine she's checkuser'ed and found an unacceptable amount of collateral damage from the range-block idea, so I guess long-term sprotect it is. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That would fix the talk pages war, but the real issue is the wide and varied vandalism the IP has decided to start doing. –– Lid^(Talk) 13:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

A rangeblock is probably out of the question as all of these IPs fall within the class A network owned by Telkom SA. Also given the wide variety of interests by this vandal, I am not sure how well selective page blocking will work. Until then, WP:RBI is probably our best bet. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Too much relisting?

I notice there's been quite a high recent tendency to relist AFDs multiple times. My own understanding (although I can't find this codified) is that relisting is really only for use if an AFD has only one or two participants or three or four participants who disagree; anything more than that should be closed as No consensus (defaulting to keep). Relisting over and above that is fattening up the daily AFDs and (for me at least) increasing the risk that I will double-!vote due to seeing the same AFD two or three times. Opinions? Stifle (talk) 08:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is that big a deal, but instead of discussing it here we should probably set out some sort of unified discussion and guideline on relisting somewhere. WP:RELIST doesn't really say much. I suggest further discussion take place at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process. Cirt (talk) 09:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Good idea; I'll open a discussion at WT:DPR. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Suspected copyright violations backlogged

There's more entries than you can poke a stick at, some going back 20 days. Have at it. MER-C 10:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If you were to be brave enough and have the mop and bucket in your grasp, you wouldn't need to bother with such requests. Not everyone on here is a machine like you, give them some more time. 211.30.12.197 (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Working at WP:SCV requires neither bravery nor a mop and bucket. I am not an administrator, yet I just removed seven items from the list that, variously, were false positives, had been fixed or simply needed a history merge. --Iamunknown 14:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

College professor requesting multiple accounts

Someone claiming to be a college professor has posted to helpdesk about hitting the account creation limit. I've pointed them to the accounts-enwiki e-mail address, the request an account page, and Wikipedia:School and university projects for starters. Can someone follow up as they may possibly need account creator rights, and may need someone admin follow up and monitoring of the project. -Optigan13 (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, here's Wikipedia:Helpdesk#Can't get multiple college students signed on to do a project on Wikipedia! and diff. -Optigan13 (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm on accounts-enwiki-l, so I'll keep an eye on the names that get created, if they end up there. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikiversity loves projects like this. Maybe we want to point him their way. MBisanz ^talk 18:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Nielsen take-down, redux. Article affected?

List of TV markets and major sports teams in the United States was blanked on September 21st, here, with the Nielsen DMCA take-down request cited as cause. It's lingering at WP:CP. A couple of days ago I asked about the matter at User:FT2's talk page (I was under the impression that DMCA take-downs were oversighted), but I was told that any ol' admin could delete this one by User:Swatjester. (See User_talk:FT2#Oversight_committee_matter). What I don't know is if this was an article affected by that takedown notice that was overlooked, or if this one is okay. Anybody know? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Jredmond was one of the people that discussed the original complaint, and has been helpful in figuring out what happened. My gut feeling is that the numbers are probably a problem, the specific market names may be a problem, but the information contained in the table is not; you should certainly talk to Jredmond. (You might want to look into making it sortable too.) --NE2 21:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll talk to him. As far sortability, I'll leave that to editors of the article. I just want it off the CP list. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Severe Checkuser Backlog

Just want to bring it to everyone's attention that Checkuser is in a severe backlog. The oldest request is from the 10th of September (almost 3 full weeks old). Admin help would be appericated. - NeutralHomer • Talk 07:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Only a handful of admins have checkuser rights though [5], it's not a standard tool. Equendil Talk 07:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed (why aren't there more?), I am just bringing it to everyone's attention. - NeutralHomer • Talk 07:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There aren't more because being granted CheckUser demands a lengthy istory as an active admin without ever attracting a coterie of grudge-bearers howling for your blood and your sysop bit, which takes a special kind of person. Guy (Help!) 08:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so Joe Q. Editor couldn't be a checkuser? OK, kills that idea :) I just told Alison that if they ever needed extra checkusers, I would be glad to sign up to help. Ooops! Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk 08:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

And a good technical knowledge of IP addresses et al. Viridae^Talk 08:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

And be over 18. And have identified themselves to the Wikimedia Foundation. And be trusted with IP data by the Arbitration Committee. Daniel (talk) 08:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

And be interested in doing a boring job that attracts nothing but crap, including real life crap, and from all sides (those who are socking, those who are found not to be socking and those who accuse others of socking). I'd rather stick pins in my eyes than do that job, frankly. More power to the elbows of those who do. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 08:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There should be several new eager checkusers soon (see WP:Arbitration Committee CheckUser appointments August 2008), fighting with each other for the chance of using those  Confirmed and  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust templates. – Sadalmelik ☎ 09:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Myself and User:YellowMonkey spent a bunch of hours over there tonight, and cleared a lot of the backlog. Yes, the job is sucky and thankless. Vandals will hate you and wreak havoc on your userpage. And that's the good stuff :) I'll do some more in the morning - it's 3am here now - Alison ^❤ 09:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed that Alison and Yellowmonkey are saintly people doing a thankless job on a pay scale even Wal-Mart would be ashamed of. Guy (Help!) 11:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Let's give them a 20% raise! Protonk (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Of workload? YellowMonkey (choose Australia's next top model) 06:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

What? Checkuser is magic pixie dust. I'm sure of it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I represent the Lollipop Guild, and we thank Wikipedia's checkusers for the invaluable job they do, and do well. (How they keep their cool is beyond me.) Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 17:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this backlog is for Severe Checkusers only. You want the backlog for cuddly fluffy Checkusers, which is over there ---> Guy (Help!) 17:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

OH "backlog" -- I thought you said "back lot"!.

Never mind. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 22:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Backlog

Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention is quite backlogged at the moment. If any administrator could spare some time and sees this message, help would be appreciated. Thanks! Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The ultimate dictionary

It's necessary for us to add false-friends, transparent words, black wallpapers (for energy and eyes preservation), crossword requests, listing requests from definitions instead of updating several existing lists (e.g.: hyponyms of horse in 2 selected languages, or all English + French + Spanish false friends, or all etymologies of the words ending with the -logy suffix...), and to allow Internet users to build all of that a link towards the articles to check (which doesn't exist or are incomplete). Some recorded text pages in .ogg have their sound files now obsolete, would it be possible to create an interface for the sounds 2.0, with a differential or incremential vision of the history, and the roll-back function? And finally, a release for PDA and mobile phones with differential updates. JackPotte (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well off hand this might be better at the WP:VPR, but we do have black wallpaapers, transparent wording, linking, and a mobile portal version already available. MBisanz ^talk 19:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A print preview option would be useful, for the whole page arrays (like Derived_units) as for small arrays (eg: Punctuation). JackPotte (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If you look in the left side column, where it says "toolbox" there is an option link called "Printable version" which should do what you are seeking. MBisanz ^talk 22:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you but it doesn't work on the object punctuation array linked above. JackPotte (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC) We need also a bot which would import lists and definitions from some other site, for instance I've published one of the longest free homonyms and false friends list of the Net (6 years of researches), and I can't share it with Wikimedia today, moreover the Wikipedia list isn't an extraction in real time of articles containing the tag "homonym", but an independent object (consequently someone has to regularly compare it). JackPotte (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC) & a list ordered by word occurrences in the selected language.

(this data has already been proposed on mediawiki.org, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Project_Multilingual_Translations, http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro/13_septembre_2008#L.27encyclop.C3.A9die_ultime, & http://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionnaire:Demandes_aux_administrateurs#Le_dictionnaire_ultime) JackPotte (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Below the summary :

1) Black wallpaper with colored fonts.

2) Crossword research.

3) Print link for all objects (arrays, pictures, schemes...).

4) Link towards articles to achieve and external links to include in the encyclopaedia.

5) Photo, sound and video edition interface, with history.

6) An option for page reading, with several voices at a choice, and the possibility to read some pages with video plugins in addition (karaoke, colored fonts, films, video algorithms). A speech recognition compatibility would be enough ergonomic.

7) Download version for PDA and mobile phone with regular updates (at the moment there [6]) JackPotte (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

8) Bar or template showing degrees of holonymy, meronymy, hypernymy et hyponymy. For instance, horse [7] would be the 2nd degree meronym of equidae [...] and the 14th degree of animal. JackPotte (talk) 22:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia in Private Eye

Thought people may be interested in the following snippet from this fortnight's Private Eye...I've tracked down some of the diffs referred to. _Gb^T/c 11:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"Idly sabotaging the user-generated online encyclopaedia Wikipedia following the UEFA cup draw back in August, a user of the b3ta web forum going by the name of "godspants" made a few amendments to the entry for Cypriot team Omonia Nicosia.

He (or she) noted that they were sponsored by Natasha Kaplinsky, that their former players included Jean Claude Van Damme and Richard Clayderman, and claimed that "A small but loyal group of fans are lovingly called "The Zany Ones" - they like to wear hats made from discarded shoes and have a song about a little potato". As you do.

Writing up his pre-match report on Omonia's match against Manchester City for the Daily Mirror on 18 September, sports hack David Anderson decided to do some in-depth research. Thus it was that Mirror readers were informed that City manager "Mark Hughes will not tolerate any slip-ups against the Cypriot side, whose fans are known as "The Zany Ones" and wear hats made from shoes".

Brilliantly, by the rules of Wikipedia - which relies on "verifiability - whether readers are able to check that material added has already been published by a reliable, third-party source" such as "mainstream newspapers" - this is now officially true."

In started a discussion about this over at WT:V Fritzpoll (talk) 11:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Was picked up over a week ago no?Geni 13:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes it was, can't remember the exact thread name though. Stifle (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It was in b3ta newsletter 346 on the 19th September. Not sure if it got other coverage. Also the latest newsletter is quite cunningly challenging people to create something notable titled "Main Page". the wub "?!" 16:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, that was my old idea! (item two in the blue box) If someone has a front page dab on Wikipedia for their magazine or book (or band, or website, or TV show) called Main Page, they would get so much free publicity. fish&karate 10:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite block vs. infinite block

What is the difference between an indefinite block and an infinite block? Just wondering.

Indefinite block:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AJustlikeyou&year=&month=-1

Infinite block:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AAlfjkadl%3Bfjadlfkj&year=&month=-1

--68.93.135.252 (talk) 06:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

To be honest...a "d". An "Indefinite" Block and an "Infinite" Block are essentially the same thing, just the way the admin wishes to say it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • Work • October 3, 2008 @ 06:23

(ec): Technically it's the same, afaik, it's just two different ways the standard dropdown menu has for calling it. I guess most admins are hardly aware of the difference. One could use it to make a useful distinction, of course: an "infinite" block would be one that you really intend should remain in place forever; an "indefinite" block would be one that you intend to see lifted at some time, possibly quite soon, you just don't know when. But I don't think this distinction is routinely observed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary defines indefinite in three non-mathematical ways:

• (1) Without limit; forever, or until further notice; not definite.
• (2) Vague or unclear.
• (3) Undecided or uncertain.

Wiktionary defines infinite in two non-mathematical ways

• (1) Boundless, endless, without end or limits, uncountable, innumerable.
• (3) (figuratively) Very large.

I suspect the developers were thinking of the "forever, or until further notice" or "not definite" senses of the word 'indefinite' when coming up with terminology for the pick-list for the block screen, though the ultimate history might originate with when blocking was first used (2001? 2002?) and the terminology developed at that point. I'm not even sure that infinite (in the "without end or limits" sense) wasn't added later by a pedant... Carcharoth (talk) 06:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no technical difference - either way the user is blocked and remains blocked until and unless they're unblocked. But there is an important difference in meaning - infinte is definitely infinite, whereas indefinite means that the period of blocking hasn't really been decided and the user is blocked "until further notice" (implying they could well be unblocked again at some stage). It's like deleting a file on your computer - you can put it in your recycle bin where it's deleted indefinitely, and can still be restored - or you can delete it permanently (infinitely), which means you can't get it back. So "infinite" blocks should be very rare indeed. Hope that helps, Waggers (talk) 07:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The two terms are synonymous in a Wikipedia context. As it happens, the block function on Meta refers to "infinite" blocks, rather than indefinite. So far as linguistic semantics are concerned, "indefinite" implies the possibility of unblock at some time in the future pending a change of circumstance, while "infinite" implies that the block will never be changed. In this way, I suppose "indefinite" is more accurate, as many blocks that would otherwise be known as "infinite" have been reversed. From a technical standpoint, "infinite" is referred as a length of time in the block drop-down menu, below "1 year". Therefore, in this way, an "infinite" block is technically a block that has a time limit of "infinite" appended (as opposed to "1 year", "2 weeks", etc.). On the other hand, the "indefinite" is placed atop the list of time blocks, so, in that way, "indefinite" has no time-limit appended. At the end of the day, they are evidently equal; while "infinite" is timed and "indefinite" is not, the two are equal because an infinite period never terminates anyway. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The meaning of infinite may hint at less likelihood the block would ever be lifted (say, as with a grawp vandal user account) but as noted above, they're technically the same. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as far as the software is concerned, the two blocks are the same, as many have noted. Blocking me, though, Iridescent was careful to note that her block was "indefinite," not "infinite." I.e., she considered, I'd interpret her comment, that the project was protected by a block, but that she was not making any decision about how long it would be, and she backed that up by immediately noting that she would not mind any admin unblocking. An "infinite" block signifies that the admin intends it to be permanent, i.e., expects no reversal and is not consenting to unblock. Admins can change their minds, the community can reverse, or, indeed, any admin can reverse, but reversing an infinite block without discussion would definitely be wheel-warring.

From the point of view of the one blocked, though, an indef block like that of Iridescent, can create a problem: it creates a need for process to unblock. Maybe that's good, but if an offense is of a fairly minor nature, not something which has been ongoing (as reflected, presumably, in prior short blocks) it might be better to set a maximum block duration, while consenting to unblock as Iridescent did. "Indef block" tends to be read, later, as being severe, block policy doesn't recommend such blocks, particularly for users with no block history. I know one long-time user who was blocked, successively, indef, three times until he was considered banned. He was never, in the known history (about three years), given a short block, and the offenses were such that each one of them, if it had resulted in a block at all, would probably have been a 24-hour block.

When a user is indef blocked, it may encourage them to create sock puppets and IP accounts, leading to even more disruption. In my view, a fair amount of administrative attention is going to dealing with disruption or block evasion or even vandalism resulting from too-severe blocks. On the other hand, some accounts practically get away with murder, sometimes for a long time, before blocks even begin. My own opinion is that we should block easily and more reliably, but for short periods, with very gradual escalation if needed. Before indef blocking, we should try to find a way to negotiate with the user, to include them in the process. Too often, blocked users believe that they have been abused, unfairly treated; this, then, justifies their block evasion, disruption, or even vandalism. From what I've seen reviewing blocks, the blocks are often justified in some sense; but seem to get converted into some kind of punishment of the user for their "bad behavior," whereas our goal should always be to channel editor energy into improvement of the project. I believe we can do more in this respect. The goal should not be to exclude the "POV pushers," it is to include them in our process, to convince them that our process is fair and balanced, and to make sure that this is really the case. Most of them, in my opinion and experience, can be converted into genuine supporters of NPOV, once they realize that true NPOV does give their views the best opportunity to be fairly heard. --Abd (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Edson da Silva & Édson José da Silva

Hi folks. I've raised this at the BLP noticeboard, but nobody there seems to be looking at it at this point in time. A user claiming to be Édson José da Silva is repeatedly blanking that article, and also randomly vandalised/blanked another related one. Since I'm not sure whether this user has good intentions, and have been labelled unfriendly toward page blankers by one editor, I need an administrator (or, indeed, anyone) to take a look at this user and see if there's possibly anything to his claim. I don't really understand the whole BLP "my article is on Wikipedia, maybe I should blank it" thing, and whether to revert a possibly legit blanking or not. Some other rollbackers have just reverted it and warned the user, but I'm just being a bit careful - if anyone could take a look at the article/user, I'd appreciate it. SMC (talk) 10:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to be patient with this guy, but he's really pushing it. He just made a legal threat. --Closedmouth (talk) 10:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he's resorting to blanking random pages, as well as the whole of this noticeboard and BLP/N too. Amongst all the blankings, he's yet to tell us what's specifically wrong with the article. And he's still bent on legal action. MER-C 10:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see those user talk comments that he's made before I gave my level 4 warning. It looks like it's been blanked like everything else, though... SMC (talk) 10:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. I blocked him infinitely for making legal threats. I'm sorry to have to dump this on someone else to deal with the fallout, but I have not gone to sleep at all tonight and I have to be at college in 2 hours. I really have to get a little rest (or some Red Bull). I made the block because Possum should not have to put up with this, he's just a kid. Again, I'm really sorry to be dumping this off, but I don't think I had any other choice. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 10:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone asked him what he's objecting to. Remember that if this is the subject, he doesn't know wikiprotocol, and may simply be annoyed that we are in his face. Does he have a legitimate complaint? Has this article had crap on it? Take a look at WP:DOLT before jumping on him.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 10:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the last diff before the user started blanking it looks fairly innocuous, although I suppose there might be something on those Portugese external links that might be a bit nasty. Speaking of which, it strikes me as a bit odd that the English version of the page was getting blanked while the Portugese one was apparently left alone. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC).

According to the user, this was the "true article", as compared to the "untrue" current article. MER-C 10:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The only vandalism that has ever occurred to his article is his own blanking. He was asked here to give details via BLP noticeboard (where he went ahead and blanked my original post), as well as here again, encouraging him to tell us what was so wrong with the article. Aside from "I want my article removed" (1, 2,3 etc) he never told us just why he didn't want it there, or what was wrong with it. SMC (talk) 10:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed the contribution history of this account and my strong suspicion is that it is NOT the subject, but merely a troll. This is not the behaviour of a subject. I think we need to be careful that we don't leave a wikitrail that implies the subject was involved in this - that could be libellous itself. (Of course, I could be wrong with my hunch)--Scott MacDonald (talk) 10:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. He seemed to know an awful lot about how to cause disruption and the like, more than I'd expect an outsider to know. Given the fact that there is nothing objectionable in the article as far as I can see, his inability to articulate his problems with the article despite being able to make a perfectly coherent legal threat, and the contents of the "true" article, I'd say it's probably just someone having a little joke. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC).

Agreed. He does not seem to be the one in the article. The article is fine, the Portugese version in pt.wp says basically the same, and the external links are just pointing to profiles of the player in the online trade rags and the CBF (Brasilian Football (soccer) Federation). I do speak Portuguese and see nothing there that could cause problems. He seems to be impersonating the subject and I agree with the block. -- Alexf⁴² 16:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Freakishmedia

We might have a user name problem here and concerns regarding some of the images being uploaded as free images (put in the info box of an article too) which seem to be owned by some Freakishmedia.com .— Realist² 13:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've left him a {{uw-coi}} and {{uw-username}}. Haven't looked at the images. Stifle (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

this issue has continued on an article talk page. Could an admin please complete this thread. Cheers. — Realist² 21:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

sockfarm to block anyone?

Check this, this, and this out. Thingg^⊕⊗ 14:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This one needs to go to Wikipedia:RFCU#Requests_for_IP_check. Stifle (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked those three editors btw, but this is essentially whack-a-mole. Stifle (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I sprotected Berlin Wall for a week too. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The 19th block ever - Request for a serious topic ban/ban for a former community banned edit-warrior

Resolved

 – Clearly, no consensus for a community ban at this time, and similarly, sanctions 2 and 5 failed. However, sanctions 1, 3 and 4 have passed, as noted at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions.

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.

---

Today, we witnessed the 19th block ever of Koavf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

Refer also to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Koavf.

This user and edit-warrior has been editing for so long and has amassed a large number of edits. He's been an asset to Wikipedia in some areas especially with edits dealing with tagging and other technical ones (moves, redirects, etc) though I am not sure if some other editors would agree with me since there have been many editors discussing his moves during different periods (see his talk archives).

However, his history of blocks (with no less than 18 19 blocks) is more than alarming. He has a history of edit warring and tendentious editing. In fact,he was community banned back on November 2006 for "[his] extensive block history for perpetually edit warring and disruptive behavior, but behavior is unmodified. Exhaustion of the community's patience" as his block log shows. (see indefinite block of 10 November 2006 by user:Dmcdevit). At that time, I opposed an indefinite ban and opted for a topic ban instead (see comments by my former username user:Szvest by following the link above)...

A couple of months later, he filed an unban request and sent it to the ArbCom. And on June 2007 user:Newyorkbrad, acting as an ArbCom clerk at that time and implementing the ArbCom ruling, unblocked him with "implementation of Arbitration Committee ruling; user unblocked and placed on 1RR parole for one year" as shown on his block log.

Between June 2007 (his return) and May 2008 (his last block) he was blocked no less then 6 times for the same behavior.

...Now, and after exactly 2 years after his community ban, here we are again. Nothing has changed at all.

I must say that I've had relatively good interactions with him for more than 3 years now but I really regret seeing no change in his edit-warring behavior. It is really too much and it is more than "exhasting patience". I cannot edit articles with someone who has a long history of edit warring with no signs of restraint.

So please comment on this issue because it is really tiring to see someone with a long history of non-stop edit-warring still editing Wikipedia and never caring about wp:Consensus (he refuses to acknowledge there has been any consensus as long as he's the only one not accepting it - see Morocco's talk page and the archive page N°2 of the talk).

I, therefore, see no other option except requesting a topic ban (or a complete ban) for user:Koavf unless he promisses the community seriously that he'd be respecting wp:Consensus and abide by [[Image:CCC Flowchart 6.jpg]]. He's said this before requesting his unban appeal and I must be very cautious to assume good faith now. A 20th block would be a joke.

Note: The following is a summary of the community ban of 2006 for people who won't read the whole detailed link above (copied and pasted from that same thread):

Summary of 2006 community ban poll

• Endorsing: 8(3) BGC*, Kylu, Dmcdevit, A_Jalil*,Argyriou*, wikima*, Dudesleeper*, Doc
• Endorsing a partial ban on Morocco/Western Sahara related articles: 2(1) FayssalF, Francis Tyers*
• Endorsing a long block: 3(3) Michael, Robdurbar, User:Luna Santin
• Endorsing a short block: 2(2) Nightstallion, Aldux
• Endorsing a topic ban or a revert parole: 1(0) Asterion*
• Not endorsing: 1(0) Arre*

• • Total for not-endorsing indefinite ban: 9(8)

* indicates non-admins.

- Francis Tyers · 17:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

-- fayssal - wiki up^® 00:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I was just acting as an Arbitration Clerk last year implementing a committee decision. I don't believe I had any opinion one way or the other at that time regarding the unblock/restriction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Very true. I've just noted it. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 01:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why ArbCom didn't either reopen the case, or implement the sanction they deemed appropriate by adding another motion for that case...particularly if this was the 15th or 19th block, basically concerning the same issues that were encountered in that case.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

• Endorse ban. I know the history rather vaguely, though i have read up on it just now. 19 blocks? Inexcuseable, no matter the cause. Note that if you remove the later unblocks, it's 15 blocks total. That's still a ridiculous amount. Wizardman 01:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban Ditto, and really does seem incapabl of working well with others. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• I have no objection. It looks like they have such a long history of disruption that they are incapable of changing. Jehochman ^Talk 02:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban I don't have any memories of interacting with this person, but having just spent some time reviewing his case, and he has not shown any desire to abide by either the standard set of expected behaviors of all Wikipedia editors, nor has he been particularly good at abiding by the specific set of guidelines developed when his last indef ban was lifted. It is an insult to all editors to be given a second chance as he was, and then to refuse to ammend ones behavior. The ban should return. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban I do not think I've interacted with this user directly, but a look through his history of interactions with other editors and block history shows ample cause for a ban. henrik•talk
• Endorse ban This shows why we need a forum like WP:RfBan. MBisanz ^talk 10:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban - 19 blocks is simply too many second chances. Where is the theoretical limit to the amount of blocks one user can be issued before they can be banned? I'd guess at less than 19. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 12:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Seems he hasn't learnt his lesson. However, I'm hesitant to say ban permanently because of all the good he has done. Some people are just very passionate about the topics they're interested in. I don't see that as a problem. -- how do you turn this on 12:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, this argument has been used and tested more than once. I, myself, used it twice in different years. It never worked and I, among many admins and users since 2006, see that as a problem indeed. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 13:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

  Indeed. Well, one of our guidelines is WP:COI, and I suppose Koavf is breaking that by his constant revert wars to his own preferred version (please correct me if I've completely misinterpreted that guideline). If he's causing even an arbitrator heartache, I suppose a ban would be needed, unfortunately. -- how do you turn this on 13:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• That's WP:OWN, but still a problem. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see any WP:COI issue at all, not even WP:OWN. His userpage has the answer:
• a) I think that Wikipedia is one of the few Internet communities worth joining, and the anarchistic approach to editing is its strongest feature.
• b) I particularly try to represent the interests of truth. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 14:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Um. A consistent troublemaker, but looking at it in more detail the last block was in May, which is a while ago. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse 19 blocks negates ANY amount of good work. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 13:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban - Inexcusable behaviour and thus ban, trumps any 'good work' seen. Time between recent block and last block only highlights the sustained disruption. Caulde 14:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment/Question - Koavf also has 110K+ edits, so that's basically one block per ~5,500 edits. Looking through his contributions, he has a pretty varied interests. The latest block was for edit warring on Morocco - I would assume most of his blocks and problems were for edit warring on Moroccan or Western Saharan topics? If that's the case wouldn't it make sense to try a strict topic ban on all Moroccan/Western Saharan articles (interprated broadly), perhaps even with 1RR per week restriction to go with it? I'm not familiar with this editor, but looking through his contribs shows that he's also doing a lot of good editing, and I would like to explore the alternatives for the ban. – Sadalmelik ☎ 17:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I see what you're saying, but making a lot of edits doesn't excuse a user from poor conduct. I mean, User:Bearcat has 200K edits, but no blocks. Wizardman 23:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh, I simply wanted to note the number because it shows Koavf has done a lot in addition to the stuff that lead to the previous ban. What it also means is that there is little chance of doing a comprehensive review of his contributions... However, my impression is that his behaviour outside Morocco/Western Sahara is – as far as edit warring is concerned – within the community norms. There are some blocks outside his hot topics, but not that many. The past history has shown that he is either unwilling or unable to moderate his behaviour, so the solution is either a full ban or a topic ban. At the moment, I would favour trying topic ban and seeing where that leads. – Sadalmelik ☎ 05:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban in favour of a partial ban on Morocco-related articles. Everyme 20:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comments A few things that may (or may not?) be informative: In the past (at least), the user uses tools to "help" with page moves from WP:RM and WP:CFD. This is part of why the seemingly high edit count. We've had quite a few issues with the user's past use of the tools. (Including using the tools to edit war to "enforce" a "decision" (which may or may not be "appropriate"), followed by less-than-civil comments to the users in question.) I'm roughly neutral to the ban - quantity of blocks don't sway me as much as the quality of blocks - and he may indeed deserve a new lengthy block for continually getting blocked for 3RR. And based on past experience all tool usage should probably be revoked. - jc37 22:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban. This really saddens me, because I've worked with the editor in the past in encouraging him to use WP:CFD rather than performing unilateral category renames, and I think since then he's become a net asset to CFD. (All of the blocks are relatively unrelated to his good work there, though.) But 19 blocks is just too many for the community to tolerate, especially when the blocks seem to be for the same problems repeating over and over again. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Question isn't the problem limited to Morocco and Western Sahara-related articles? I'm concerned about throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Topic bans are a solution for productive editors who have one hot button; why aren't we entertaining this instead? Durova^Charge! 02:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban, user may have made some positive contributions, but these are outweighed by the constant edit warring. At this point, I think the user is more trouble than they're worth. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC).
• Oppose ban - I would like to see a topic ban tried first, along the lines Durova suggests. And remove all his tool access (purge his monobook etc). fish&karate 12:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• By the looks of things this bloke is an incorrigible edit-warrior, due to the whole Western Sahara independence POV thingy. In which case I would simply suggest a topic-ban from this set of articles. A full siteban may not be needed. Moreschi (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban in favor of a topic ban on the set of articles that he usually gets in trouble with. I'm very hesitant to ban any editor with that amount of good edits because he is very passionate about certain subjects. However, his disruption to those certain subjects should be ended. --Banime (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban in favor of a topic ban. Clearly Koavf has a lot to contribute to the project but just can't be relied on in this single area. — Hex (❝?!❞) 21:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• I don't know him outside of CFD. Yes, we had problems with him in the past, but as GO has said above, he appears to have taken positive steps since then. I would strongly like to see a topic ban tried first, but if consensus is for a full ban, well, 19 blocks does say something. --Kbdank71 13:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban It's good to see that this guy is overall highly helpful and has contributed more than almost anyone else, but 19 blocks...unless it could be established that some or all of the blocks were unwarranted (which I can't imagine, given that this guy's case has already gone through ArbCom), this is just too many. Note, especially, that he was on parole, getting blocked several times but for never more than a week: if someone commits an offense while on parole, they get in worse trouble than they would have been if they'd not been on parole. I'm sorry (no offense intended toward anyone who thinks otherwise), but I think there's no good reason to permit such a dedicated edit warrior to continue at a website where edit warring is prohibited. Nyttend (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban Having been familiar with a very large mess he created in the past, and the fact that he has been blocked so many times now, there comes a point where enough is enough. -Djsasso (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. For the record, I have been blocked (by my count) 20 times, making me even more disruptive that Koavf, so I suppose by this logic someone should be opening a similar discussion about me. No, this is not the way we deal with dedicated and constructive contributors, regardless of any disputes they may be involved in. Everyking (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Specific Sanctions - proposals

Should the above community ban proposal fail, I propose that any or all of the following sanctions be enacted by the community on Koavf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) due to the long term nature of disruption in this area:

1) Koavf is prohibited from editing pages relating to Morrocco and Western Sahara, broadly construed. This includes talk pages, and other related discussions.

2) Koavf is limited to one revert per week per page. This includes page moves.

3) Koavf is subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on their talk page by the administrator and logged at User:Koavf/Community_sanction.

4) Koavf is limited to editing with a single account.

5) Koavf is prohibited from editing articles relating to Morrocco and Western Sahara, broadly construed, but may edit talk pages provided that he is civil in his interactions.

NOTE: Sanction 1 and 5 are alternatives so only one of them can pass - if sanction 1 passes, it will override sanction 5, or if sanction 1 fails, sanction 5 will override it. Please indicate whether you support/oppose each sanction. Eg; "Support 2 and 3 only", "Support All - prefer sanction 5 over 1", "Oppose all", etc. The rationale for #4 is to explicitly prohibit evading these sanctions under other accounts - something that certain tendentious editors have somehow argued as being non-explicit in the past. Hopefully, that sort of gaming of the system will as a result, no longer be an issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support All - prefer 1 over 5 as it is tendentious editing. Passionate in the area he was editing in; I don't want to see him acting on that passion in other areas if we're allowing him beyond that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't like clause 5, I'd prefer to see a total topic ban, if not a site ban, which is my first choice. MBisanz ^talk 15:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, tweaked it once more as they're individual sanctions, so although 5 may not pass, the rest can if the community supports. (I personally don't see any benefit in 5 so I only supported 1 2 3 and 4.) Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• I'd support proposal 1 if reworded to read Morocco and Western Sahara-related articles, broadly construed. The rest is overkill. This discussion has already made it clear that he's inches from outright sitebanning. Hands off the hot button and we're glad to have you around. Durova^Charge! 05:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Amended. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support the total topic ban. Perhaps they can be useful in areas where they are unlikely to edit war. Having steps before a site ban is a good idea, and I support it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support 1, Oppose 2-4. I feel sanction 5 is not broad enough, and may lead to disruptive behaviour in talk pages, but should sanction 1 fail, it's acceptable, too. As far as 2 & 3 are concerned, I have not seen enough evidence to justify them, and I still lack time do comprehensive research myself. I think they would generate more heat than prevent. – Sadalmelik ☎ 05:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Either he's community banned or not. If not, then, unless talk page disrution is subseqently determined, he should be able to edit talk pages, so I oppose #1, but I support #5. #4 should be presumed in any case involving a topic ban, and as such should automatically be part of #1 and #5. So since I support #5, I support #4. I don't like the subjectivity of #3 - a topic ban should require at least a couple admins agreeing - so I oppose #3. Based on other blocks and situations, I also Support #2. Also, based on past history, he should be strongly and seriously reminded that inappropriate usage of "extra tools" (such as AWB, and Hotcat) may result in their removal. (I thought about suggestion "tool removal" as #6, but while that was a concern in the past, I'm not certain (so far) that it's now to the point of tool removal (yet). That said, new evidence may suggest differently.) - jc37 07:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support 1-4, with the caveat that odds are if he violates any restrictions here, I'll just indefinitely block him. (20th time now?). ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support 1,3,4. Oppose 2. Prefer 1 over 5 but if necessary 5 is okay. I don't think clause 2 is required if clause 3 passes, which would cover most disruptions immediately. His probation would taper off his tendencies I believe, and if not the topic ban would definitely. --Banime (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support 1,3,4. Oppose 2, 5. With 3 in effect, there is no reason for 2. Restriction 5 does not make sense, because talk page disruption can be more problematic than article disruption. The editor could sidetrack or stonewall discussions politely. No, let's not open that option to them. Item 4 is necessary because it will provide a basis for indefinite blocking if he uses another account (presumably to evade sanctions). Jehochman ^Talk 12:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support 1, 3, 4. 5 is ok if 1 doesn't pass. --Kbdank71 13:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support 1-4 I see no point in 5 unless we were to change 1 to a topic ban; also, I agree with Jehochman about the seriousness of talk-page disruption. For me the critical thing is that this be probationary. He has been blocked so many times that I am close to feeling he should just be banned. All his constructive edits seem minor and technical, but they are constructive. However, his content edits seem almost always to be disruptive. 1 and 2 address the most recent issue, but 3 gets at the heart of the matter (and 4 is a no-brainer). Slrubenstein | Talk 13:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - somewhat surprised this is the topic of the discussion given the prior conversation; nevertheless, I'd support 1, 3, 4 and this would be the last straw and then I would switch to supporting a total ban, including but not limited to complete topic bans. Caulde 19:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support 2 through 5', with the caveat that at the slightest hint of any future incivility on talk pages or other related pages, sanction 1 is applied in place of 5. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC).
• Support 1, 3, 4. 2 would prevent Koavf from making legitimate protective edits to other articles. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Suppport 1, 2, 3, 4. #5's okay too though 1's my first choice. Wizardman 14:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Definitely not 5 as Justin never used talk pages to accept or understand wp:Consensus. In fact, most of his reverts were due to his denial of the existence of any form of consensus whatsoever. On the other hand, I don't agree with 4 since he's never chosen sock puppetry as a tactic but I agree with the rationale. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 00:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support all but 5. There is no reason for letting people who don't grasp the concept of consensus try to create it, or destroy efforts to create it. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support 2 and 4 (I think 4 is a reasonable restriction for virtually all editors and should be applied as a general rule). Ambivalent about 3. Oppose 1 and 5. Everyking (talk) 03:05, 4 October 2008 (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.

Suggestion for DYK Mailing List

May I please bring your attention to Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#A_Couple_of_Suggestions...

Many thanks,

BG7even 08:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the link you gave us didn't lead to the specific section you were trying to point to, so I fixed it. I don't think this specifically needs administrators' attention (at least to me it doesn't), but thanks for the note anyway. -- RyRy (talk) 05:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

GFDL question

The article on the Spanish wikipedia on the song 409 seems to have been copied, word for word, from the English wikipedia. Is this allowed? I thought that there had to be some attribution to the original writers (of which I am one) under GFDL.

Even if you can't read Spanish, you should be able to tell that these articles are almost identical, save a transcription error or two:
original Spanish verison: [8]
English version at the time the Spanish version was written: [9]

Since then I have done a small amount of work on the Spanish page (just clarifying things and fixing errors; my Spanish is not good), and rearranged the English version quite a bit, but you can still see similarities:

Current English version: 409 (song)
Current Spanish version: 409 (canción)

So... What is the deal here? Thanks for any help/answers that can be provided. MookieZ (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• IF we can find someone who speaks spanish they can log onto the spanish wikipedia and just ask for a history merge. That should fix the issus up. If we can't find that, a note on the talk page of the article with a pointer to the english wikipedia version might help. Protonk (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just drop es:Plantilla:Traducido de on the talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, now I'm confused. Does this mean that my babelfish-fueled translation of Episodios nacionales (which I took from es:Episodios nacionales) needs a history merge from the Spanish WP? I know of at least three other articles on similar topics which have the same issue. Spanish Realist literature, Doña Perfecta, and Fortunata y Jacinta are all pulled from the Spanish language Wikipedia. My boyfriend created the latter two (on en.wp), and did extensive copy-editing to the first, which is why I am aware of the issue. I have the tools to do a history merge, but I have no idea how to do it, especially trans-wiki merges. Horologium (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a straight history merge, but you may want to use something like {{SPATRAref}}. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, hist-merges are not used for translations. They can be used if a page is created on one project that actually belongs on another, in which case it should have been transwiki'd and then the original one deleted. For GFDL purposes, a translated article need only mention what article it was copied from in what language, either on the article itself, or the talk page, or the first edit summary. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, we're good on the three we created; the first edit summary for each contains a link to the es.wp article. Spanish Realist literature doesn't, but I'll note it on the talk page. Horologium (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

More generally, there's a {{translated page}} template, to add to the talk page, or {{translated}} for mainspace. Both point to the foreign language article and refer the reader there for the history. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for directing me to the proper templates. I have used the talk page template on Spanish Realist literature; it's a much better fit than the generic notice template I had used earlier. Horologium (talk) 00:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This one is almost word for word from the English one. Looks translated with Google or some tool that allows for rapid subpar translation. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Special Boat Service‎ image

An User:86.164.45.198 has removed the image form the info box (but not the actual image) initially without explanation but then posted what seed to be the patent details on my talk page after I reverted. I have pointed them at Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Copyright and mentioned Fair Use (rational on image) but in one of his comment on may talk page the editor seemed to imply they owned the copyright, which unless they are a representative of The Crown this is unlikely. Mentioning here more as a head-up then as a problem. --Nate1481 16:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I encountered this user at User talk:212223sassbs; more than one of us implored him to discuss, and I pointed him to the fair use guidelines, but he refuses to do anything but copy-paste that legalese bit. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering what is going on with that article as well, so here is some more info: Since 30 September the image on that page has been removed 15 times by an IP editor and User:212223sassbs (who has since been blocked) who kept replacing the image with the text "Intellectual property crime" and this text. He also left this message on the articles talk page. After that user was blocked another IP suddenly appeared and continued removing that image. It seems to be an ongoing issue and i'm unsure how to proceed. Is this a case of RBI or is there more to it? Erebus Morgaine (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

User contacted unblock-en-l with the same complaint after the first block. Was told to explain on article talk what the ownership issue was with the image. Hasn't appeared to listen to that request.

Use normal discretion - block if they're disruptive. But PLEASE tell them on their talk page if you do, to contact info-en@wikimedia.org if they have a genuine trademark registration issue or copyright violation issue. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The message that was left on the talk page appears to be from http://www.ipo.gov.uk/design/d-find/d-find-number, search for 3017175, if that sheds any light on this. The actual image of the registered design will not be available from the UK IP Office site until after 6 am or so UK time (the site is not 24/7). -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 02:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Should we at least semiprotect the article to stop the repeated disruption? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Napoleon I of France

Just appeared on Sports Guy on ESPN.com:

"If Mike Shanahan was Napoleon, then this [Arrowhead] is his Waterloo." Great point. Can we make sure someone gets that on Napoleon's Wikipedia page? Just stick it right after the section about the 100 Days. Thanks.

A heads up more than anything. Thats a high traffic page.--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 22:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:Unlikely. There are likely thousands of cultural references made to Napoleon, and if we noted each and every one, including insignificant throw away comments like this, the article would degenerate into an unreadable list of people compared to Napoleon and places compared to Waterloo, and it would ultimately decrease the quality of the article by swamping it with lots of information that really has little to do about Napoleon. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

He's saying there's likely to be Colbert-like vandalism attempts to insert that fact in. SirFozzie (talk) 03:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Never mind. Carry on. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you know? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I warned that user. Also, it should be noted that the page is already indefinately semiprotected. Thus, under current autoconfirmed rules, it is likely to receieve much problems, except by old sleeper accounts, and they will then only expose themselves... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Personal Information at Talk:John Lewis (pastor)

Resolved

 – Revision deleted, oversight request sent, note left on IP's talk page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Talk:John Lewis (pastor) (edit | [[Talk:Talk:John Lewis (pastor)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not entirely sure how this is usually handled, but that the revision usually should be deleted by an admin so that the personal information is no longer viewable in the history. An IP revealed the phone number, email and physical address of the article's subject about a half hour ago. I had reverted it and then put a note on the talk page. Thanks, Boccobrock•T 00:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Stuff like this should really be emailed to be oversighted. -- how do you turn this on 00:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Adminbots up at BRFA

Just as a quick heads up, there are currently 2 BRFAs up for adminbots:

• Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SoxBot 11
• Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Ilmari Karonen's adminbot

Xclamation point 04:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic

Relevant discussion at

→ User talk:Elonka#Notification → Talk:Chiropractic#ArbCom restrictions → Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log

• Chiropractic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've been watching a fair amount of disruption at this article for several weeks now, and believe it could be helped by the general sanctions laid out by the Arbitration Committee, specifically the discretionary sanctions which would allow uninvolved admins to take measures to reduce disruption to the project. The scope of the Pseudoscience case, "interpreted broadly", is said to include but not be limited to all articles in Category:Pseudoscience and its subcategories. Although Chiropractic is not specifically categorized (by us) as a pseudoscience topic, it seems fairly obvious that Chiropractic does contain some ideas that are at least "pseudoscientific". For example, see this article,[10] titled "Chiropractic: science and antiscience and pseudoscience side by side". In fact, I'd say that the "pseudoscience" aspect of the topic, is one of the key sources of the problems leading to the disruption. So, I'm thinking that the authority from the case's discretionary sanctions would be an appropriate way to address the dispute. Anyone have strong objections? --Elonka 07:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic is pretty mainstream anymore; I'd be pretty hesitant to call it "fringe" given its level of acceptance by pretty conservative groups, like insurance companies and government health programs. There are pseudoscientific elements within mainstream medicine as well. The editing issues in this article are reminiscent of those seen on psychiatric articles. While there is something to be said for helping this article get into shape, I think it's stretching things a fair bit to say this should be considered pseudoscience. Risker (talk) 07:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Risker, I think you are confusing generic "mainstream" with "scientific mainstream", which is what is generally meant in this type of discussion. Insurance coverage and legal registration are notable for being influenced by political and economic pressures unrelated to the scientific legitimacy or illegitimacy of the subject. Even the most pseudoscientific of all alternative medicine subjects - homeopathy - is protected by special legal exceptions in the USA. If enough voters will sign a petition or write letters to their Congressman, or if an insurance company will earn money by it, anything can get "recognition". Chiropractic is at the crossroads of mainstream and alternative medicine. It has characteristics of both, or as some reform chiropractors jokingly put it: "Chiropractors are alternative, but are pretending to be doctors." (Said in the context of how scripts are used in practice building, some of which have been leaked to the outside world as the manipulative things they are. They are normally used only by actors, but are also used by many chiropractors, showing how both professions are pretending (acting) to be something they're not.)

The profession is a blend of obvious CAM, and yet has some mainstream characteristics, so it's "at the crossroads." "Chiropractic still maintains some vestiges of an alternative health care profession in image, attitude, and practice." The last two paragraphs in this article deal with this, as summarized in the introduction: "The medical establishment has not yet fully accepted chiropractic as a mainstream form of care. The next decade should determine whether chiropractic maintains the trappings of an alternative health care profession or becomes fully integrated into all health care systems." The implication is obvious: if the "trappings of an alternative health care profession" are dropped, acceptance and integration may follow. Many notable chiropractors have pointed the profession in the direction of dropping belief in the fictive vertebral subluxation and overreliance on spinal adjustments, and seeking acceptance as a back care specialty, akin to dentistry and podiatry. -- Fyslee / talk 14:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion - while chiropractic is a topic with some mainstream acceptance, in looking at what's going on on that page, it's being treated as another battleground for the pseudoscience wars between editors who are already under restrictions elsewhere. I think for the purposes of applying the discretionary sanctions it can be included, since it is being included in the same edit wars. This does not reflect any judgment on the classification of the subject matter but rather the classification of the nature of the dispute and its participants. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Morven. -- Fyslee / talk 02:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been involved in many of the disputes at Chiropractic, and have some comments.

• Whether chiropractic is "pretty mainstream" depends on what one means by the word "mainstream". Although there's a strong consensus among reliable sources that chiropractic is not "mainstream medicine", there's no agreement about what category it should be in. To quote Chiropractic #Scope of practice: "Mainstream health care and governmental organizations such as the World Health Organization consider chiropractic to be complementary and alternative medicine (CAM); however, a 2008 study reported that 31% of surveyed chiropractors categorized chiropractic as CAM, 27% as integrated medicine, and 12% as mainstream medicine."
• Chiropractic is an unusual profession in that so many of its practitioners are clearly WP:FRINGE, and at the same time so many practitioners are just as clearly mainstream (for some definition of "mainstream"). For more on this subject, please see Murphy et al. 2008 (PMID 18759966), entitled "How can chiropractic become a respected mainstream profession? The example of podiatry".
• With the above in mind, I expect that it will take some expertise in the area to know whether a series of edits to Chiropractic is about the "mainstream" or the "fringe" parts of chiropractic, and that it will therefore be relatively difficult for uninvolved administrators to decide the best action for a dispute.
• I should mention that User:Elonka and I had a discussion in July about the contents of Chiropractic, with respect to a relatively-minor formatting issue; see Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 25 #Speedy deletion of former red link. After discussion, we ended up doing things Elonka's way. During the discussion, successive comments by Elonka on Talk:Chiropractic accused me of WP:CIVIL[11], WP:POINT[12], and WP:OWN[13] violations. These accusations were not helpful to the discussion or to Chiropractic, and if this is the sort of oversight that's being proposed here, then we should not do it.

Eubulides (talk) 09:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not chiropractic itself is "mainstream" may not affect whether the wikipedia disputes about its article have a lot in common with the pseudoscience disputes, and whether the user/s in the dispute are those seen engaging in other disputes on fringe and pseudoscience articles. So I would not look whether the topic is mainstream, but more whether the nature of dispute is similar to the pseudoscience disputes. If it contains a fringe/pseudoscience element or associations, then it is quite possible those same kinds of aspects and issues are at the heart of the dispute here too. On the last point, perhaps a lighter touch in some ways would lead to less contention, but that's a separate matter. Brief comment only on application of a sanction. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Largely per FT2, I notice a strong correlation between the dispute over chiropractic and that over homeopathy and other examples of alternative medicine. The same people are involved and the same arguments used, although chiropractic is probably closer to the mainstream medicine side. There is a pending legal action in Britain between the British Chiropractic Association and an author who disputed the benefits of their craft - see Simon Singh - so be careful. My view is that articles about chiropractic do fall within the ambit of the Pseodoscience case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point. This lawsuit is one of many of a similar type, and is another type of behavior engaged in by supporters of pseudoscience (Scientology, Hulda Clark, Matthias Rath, etc.) Such attempts to silence criticism, which are normally part of scientific disputes and discussion, are pretty much unheard of in the mainstream scientific world. Such disputes and criticisms are normally dealt with through discussion, rebuttal, and the provision of documented evidence, not by suing the one who is criticizing. If any editor receives threats (legal or otherwise) because of their editing here on these subjects, Wikipedia authorities need to be contacted immediately. -- Fyslee / talk 03:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

And psychiatry: [14]. --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• I suspect this belongs on WP:AE but I agree that while the content overlap is not 100%, the editor overlap is pretty high, especially if you consider those editors who are making a lot of noise. So it makes sense. In fact, I think that sanction is a sound and pragmatic approach to any long-running content dispute. Guy (Help!) 12:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The presence of expert editors like Eubulides and Fyslee has helped keep the article balanced. Elonka's summary seems not to recognize this. Ludwigs2 has recently showed up on the talk page; Elonka champions him [15] very much like Jagz/161.243.114.45/Fat Cigar. Mathsci (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic is mainstream, the sources even say so. This one is a no brainer. AtticusLecter (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Bye now. [16] Thatcher 00:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I just want to add that I agree with Mathsci comments. There are regular editors there that work hard to have everyone follow the guidelines for editing that article to try to keep it balanced. Eubulides works especially hard to listen to all comments and writes what they all want to put into the article on the talk page to let everyone edit it there until they reach a consensus to put it into the main article. It's actually very impressive to watch this routine they have set up. I don't think that Elonka needs to step in at this time. My personal opinion on this is that she is not 'uninvolved' since she did have the situation with Eubulides which wasn't pretty plus she has already been involved with a few of the editors there with her restrictions at other articles and isn't really received that well. This is just my opinion that I felt I should share from being mostly a watcher of this article. Thank you for listening, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

We operate by consensus. Arbitrators and administrators are nothing special. Their opinions here count no more than those of regular editors. Several involved editors have expressed doubts about Elonka's perceived neutrality in this area. I agree that the article can be covered by the pseudoscience case, and encourage her to make a request for sanctions at WP:AE, but to leave enforcement to other administrators. It is best if the parties to a dispute view the referee as a neutral party. Jehochman ^Talk 16:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a decision anyone can make, who wishes to act as an uninvolved admin. Looking at this thread, some brief observations:

1. Elonka as I understand it, is not asking to sanction any editor. She is asking for guidance whether or not topic X may reasonably be construed to fall under Arbcom sanction/remedy Y. That is something anyone could ask, involved, uninvolved, anyone. There is no restriction on checking for views or suggesting it. In fact if a user were involved this would be where to bring the idea for consideration. Its a fair reasonable question.
2. Elonka clearly feels that if allowable, the general sanctions would help the disputes on this page. If she has significant "history" (ie, roughly, bad blood) with any editor, of a non-admin nature (ie beyond that she has been an admin on issues related to them in the past) or would not be seen as neutral in warning, tools, or sanctions on them, then she has to weigh that up before making a decision related to that editor. And others may want to comment, or she may wish to ask another admin to review it instead of her. That's normal. but it's not salient for the question she's asking here.
3. Elonka's main involvement as evidenced by QuackGuru's diffs, does seem to be of an administrative nature. This one is about civility, editors' roles and some content issues others need to attend to, and this one and this one about editor conduct. None of these three shows any significant involvement in the topic beyond that of an administrative nature.

Hope that helps. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Three arbs have commented on this routine WP:AN thread. You don't see that very often! In any case, please review this conversion, and then this one for full cluefulness about why Elonka might not be the best before choosing an administrator to manage sanctions at chiropractic. Jehochman ^Talk 19:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, are you ever going to let Elonka get on with it without critiquing her approach? How many times have you declared an intention to "avoid Elonka" and yet continued to spring up to comment on threads that involve her? You disapprove of her conduct, the whole wiki probably is aware of that by now - we don't need periodic reminders... WJBscribe (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on the merits of what I said. Did you read the links? It is not appropriate for you to attack me because of who I am. Please look at what I said and evaluate it objectively. You will see that I am pointing out an actual issue, citing evidence, and making my remarks in the correct forum, with perfect civility. I wish you would uphold those same standards. I have been active in both Homeopathy and Chiropractic. It is not necessary for me to run and hide when Elonka appears at a locus where I am already active. Jehochman ^Talk 20:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course you are not required to, bar your own undertakings (e.g. [17]). You could have stuck to just commenting on whether the article fell within the scope of the Arbitration remedy being decided, but apparently couldn't resist needling an administrator you have been a perennial critic of. I don't see an attack in what I posted and my reason for commenting is nothing to do with who you are but rather your attitude with regard to this particular admin. WJBscribe (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

As you mentioned once yourself, Elonka and I both operate in the same areas of Wikipedia and will inevitably bump into each other quite often. I very much want to avoid strife for the good of Wikipedia. FT2's comment above seems not to be fully informed, which is why I posted the follow up, including links. There is history surrounding chiropractic that is not obvious. I agree with the approach being proposed, but suggest we recruit an administrator who does not have a history of disagreement with one, or two, of the main contribut<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MarkS/XEB/live.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">ors to the article. Thanks for your input. I have edited my remark above to make it less personal. Jehochman ^Talk 20:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Striking while the iron is hot- not having read every bit of this thread: I think there are only three editors at that article who are likely to get sanctioned. I won't name them, but I think that since the main source of disruption is so limited, but quite pervasive, it would be a good idea to apply the sanctions. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If the number is so small, why don't you present evidence at WP:AE and then those particular editors can be warned or sanctioned individually. That way other editors need not be inconvenienced. We should aim to use the minimum force necessary to resolve a problem. Jehochman ^Talk 21:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Not suicidal, myself. It isn't an article where I have a lot of interest or involvement, and so I don't want to cause myself so much hassle. Further, it isn't as good a solution, because the problem is so totally about only a few of the editors who edit war and argue per IDIDNTHEARTHAT on the talk page, the sanctions won't have any effect on the other editors. This is a good way to make it not about particular editors: just apply it, and whoever falls into the net, those are the ones who should be caught. So, the sanction is the minimum force. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The disruption at the Chiropractic article appears to be fairly complex. On the one hand, there does appear to be a lot of drive-by POV pushing, so some editors there have been doing good work in standing guard over the article and keeping it free of cruft. However, based on what I've seen of the history, I think that at times the article may be being guarded a bit overzealously. I have sometimes seen what appear to be reasonable edits from established contributors, added in good faith and with reliable sources, but the changes are still reverted within minutes. Edit summaries on the reverts range from things like "rvv" to "added without discussion" or "rv to consensus version". However, there does not appear to be an obvious consensus at the talkpage. Indeed, I could probably point out a few places where people in the discussion are saying that there's a consensus, but I think that other reasonable editors might disagree as to whether a true consensus existed or not. At times, some editors seem to be confusing the idea of "consensus" with "majority", which is definitely not in accordance with Wikipedia:Consensus. So with strong opinions on either side, the article appears to be in the middle of a large game of tug of war, being yanked this way and that.

Another conflict at the article has to do with the sequence of edits. Some editors seem to be of the camp of "Discuss controversial edits before they can go into the article," and others are more following WP:BRD, meaning they're going to make controversial edits until/unless someone reverts them. And of course it's always problematic when an editor uses one method for themselves, but insists on something different from everyone else ("I can add anything I want at any time, but you have to get permission first before you can post something ...")

In order to try and get the article back to a state of healthy editing via discretionary sanctions, this could proceed in one of two ways:

• Sanctions focused on editors, meaning identify a few editors whose presence might be causing more disruption than it's resolving, and asking them to stay away from the article for a certain period of time to see if that helps stabilize things.
• Sanctions focused on the article, such as to put it under a revert limitation, or other editing conditions such as, "Do not delete citations without discussion".

My own feeling (which others may disagree with), is that one of the first things that needs to be done is to get people away from using the Revert button as an editing tool. So a revert restriction might help to calm things down a bit. I tend to like a "0RR except for vandalism/unsourced" restriction, but others may disagree. In my experience though, once an article's atmosphere can be changed to a style of, "Don't delete other people's edits, change them", that it can help get past the kind of roadblocks that this article is experiencing.

What do others think? --Elonka 21:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Has there been an extensive history of edit warring and protection? If so, I think we should allow a single revert (1RR) followed by discussion. We may need to ban A-B-C-D type revert wars where each editor does one revert. The problem with 0RR is that it puts good faith editors on par with tendentious editors. If something goes in, there needs to be an ability to take it out, and then follow up with discussion. That is the natural state of things. Ordinary dispute resolution and noticeboards can be used to help resolve disagreements, even when general sanctions are in effect.

If there are limited number of editors who have been causing problems, can we identify them and apply warnings or restrictions? If so, I would very much support that idea. This article does fall under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Lastly, I recommend starting with the least intrusive sanctions, and then increasing the restrictions as needed until the problem resolves. Jehochman ^Talk 21:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, some combination: something like 1RR, plus sanctions on disruptive editors. The problem with 0RR is that one can put in or delete anything, and no one can do anything about it. You could take out a whole section, and to put it back, an editor would have to re-write the whole section. Also, one can put in information which just should not be there- and no one can do much about it. So I don't think focusing on the article that way is a good idea: you are dealing with clever people here. However, a 1RR per day on the article coupled with editor banning for disruption or other violations might help a lot. (1RR helps because editors are much more conservative with their one revert, being as it's golden). The "Do not delete citations without discussion" might help. However, what you say about consensus- Is that true? My reading of it is that consensus = supermajority, between 75 and 90 percent, as I interpret it myself. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

As Martinphi says, 1RR coupled with article banning for disruption should work. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a disheartening example of admin or ArbCom actions taking article editing out of the hands of some of our finest editors (eg Eubulides) and really making a mess of things. Anytime we're deprecating an editor of the caliber of Eubulides, we're on the wrong track; that appears to be where Elonka's direction has taken the article. This is ranking right up there as one of Wiki's greatest gaffes. Placing editors of the caliber of Eubulides (who actually know what they're talking about, are civil and courteous, and can cite high quality reliable sources all day long) on par with tendentious POV-pushing SPAs, and then deprecating his knowledge to second-guessing by admins who don't know the topic, does not bode well for Wiki's future. It's most discouraging for the many civil and knowledgeable science editors to see this happening. I hope that if Wiki persists in staying this disastrous course, taking editing out of the hands of the most knowledgeable, that we will at least bring in neutral, unbiased and clueful admins who are known to work well with others. I can think of many who could do a fine job here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoever said Eubulides? I doubt it would effect him. He and I disagree about the issue of what is and is not OR/SYNTH, but he is not going to get whacked with this. And I promise that any admin who goes into Chiro and does anything they do based on what they think in a content dispute, rather than what they think of user behavior, I will take every action against them that I can. Yes, I've heard things like this have been done on other articles. Admins have no business in content disputes when they are acting as admins. But I'll certainly do my best to see that doesn't happen here. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

On the basis of her past actions, Elonka would probably not draw a distinction between expert contributors and POV-pushers. I would guess that she is probably a little out of her depth here: her analysis of editing behaviour was made independently of content issues, a bad sign. Her use of the word "overzealousness" is also disturbing. My fear is that her 0RR rule and push for micro-compromise will not result in a more scholarly encyclopedia article. It could create a borstal atmosphere on the talk page that could well alienate star contributors. It would seem more appropriate if one of the many administrators that have been more actively involved in discussions on WP:FTN could keep an eye on the page, e.g. Dougweller, MastCell, etc. Elonka's recent brush with pseudoscience was not particularly helpful, when she edited on behalf of a POV-pusher Zero g over a fairly minor matter. Elonka got caught up in her own pet conspiracy theories which she trumpeted on talk pages. A hands-off more informed touch is surely what is required when dealing with pseudoscience. Mathsci (talk) 07:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Further, that three arbs have weighed in here in favor of Elonka's management of these articles, even after seeing diffs of her treatment of Eubulides, should give anyone reading a clue as to whether good, civil, conscientous, knowledgeable science editors are going to want to continue to engage these articles. How many editors of the caliber of Tim Vickers and Eubulides does ArbCom think we have; they don't grow on trees. This entire situation gives the appearance that we've turned article editing over to those who know the least about the topics, and we put knowledgeable editors on an equal stance with tendentious POV-pushing editors. If these articles need this sort of oversight, I can think of several knowledgeables admins who also have good interpersonal skills. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, you're missing the question being asked. Elonka asked whether the scope of Arbcom remedy X "broadly interpreted" covers topic dispute Y. That's why arbitrators have posted comments. It's to be expected when an Arbcom matter is the subject of the question.

Separate from "can this sanction be applied", if you are worried that Elonka may misjudge Eubulides' editing, I'd encourage talking with Elonka herself about the legitimate concerns. Also consider asking on the talk page, that any admin using general sanctions to try and reduce edit warring might take extra care. Make sure you discourage editors on all sides from problematic behavior if they engage in any, as well, so that they are completely unaffected by any sanctions that may be in force.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

(Separately, some of your apprehensions are badly mistaken. You say that three arbs "weighed in to favor Elonka's management". In fact the question the arbitrators here were addressing was applicability of the remedy. Of these three, not one mentions Elonka, much less shows any "favor" for any named editor to "manage" the issue. My second post mentions Elonka in the context of correcting others' errors, and likewise doesn't "favor" anyone. Without great discussion, can you take care not to claim others to be saying or doing things they haven't.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

1) You're missing the question being asked. No, I'm answering the question that should have been asked and is implied in the question that was asked: the question goes beyond "should sanctions be applied" to "should Elonka continue to be among the group of admins monitoring such sanctions" considering the judgment she has already shown. As others have stated here and elsewhere, she does "not draw a distinction between expert contributors and POV-pushers", so how effectively the sanctions can be applied is a function of who is applying them. 2) I'd encourage talking with Elonka herself about the legitimate concerns. My conversations with Elonka have already been linked in this thread, and you can see how they went. I can link you to other examples of other discussions with Elonka if you're interested. 3) Also consider asking on the talk page, that any admin using general sanctions to try and reduce edit warring might take extra care. Make sure you discourage editors on all sides from problematic behavior if they engage in any, as well, so that they are completely unaffected by any sanctions that may be in force. The editors I most often interact with are never in territory of having any sanctions applied to their editing. More importantly, with the heavy handedness already in evidence, what I am trying to make very clear is that I (like many other editors) have no intention of going anywhere near those pages. That is the problem being created and that is the question I'm answering, even if the wrong questions are being asked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, your post clearly stated as a given fact that "three arbs" had spoken up to "favor" Elonka's "management" -- and that statement was one you knew wasn't accurate in any way. If the question you have is (quite reasonably) "should Elonka be one of those monitoring the sanctions", that's fine, discuss it. But don't ascribe to others, stances that they haven't in any way held, for the purposes of arguing against it. Like it or not, that is the very definition of straw man. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Take care there with the same, FT2: ... and that statement was one you knew wasn't accurate in any way ... rather than obliquely accusing me of making false statements, in fact, it would be helpful if you would explain how the notion of ArbCom endorsement of Elonka management of these cases evolved, for the benefit of everyone who doesn't spend all their time following ArbCom cases. Are you saying ArbCom's doesn't endorse the preferential standing Elonka has assumed in the management of these articles? I don't knowingly make false statements so I thank you not to accuse me of same. Heavy handed replies to legitimate editor concerns aren't going to help restore good editing by content experts to troubled articles—a situation which appears to have been created and furthered by ArbCom; please address the current issue rather than digressing into how closely I followed what brought us to this point or how intimately I followed the ArbCom case. (You may not have noticed that keeping up with one massive ArbCom case at a time detracts from content contributions, which is what some of us primarily spend our time on.) No, my question goes even farther than "should Elonka be monitoring these sanctions" to "how did we get to a place that ArbCom appears to be appointing or sanctioning people who aren't content experts to place content experts on equal footing with tendentious SPA POV pushers. Now if my impression of what is going on here is incorrect, feel free to correct that impression without accusing me of misrepresenting what I perceive to be the current situation. I'd like some understanding of how this approach (favoring SPA POV pushers over content experts) is going to result in better article content, but please don't ignore the impression created with heavy handed responses that create a distraction. Why is ArbCom furthering an arrangement whereby one admin, who has already been in conflict with content experts, is managing these articles over content experts? I realize you may have a different view from the time you spend in Wiki's messiest situations at ArbCom, but accusing a good editor of POINT, OWN and being UNCIVIL is not something good editors take lightly; regardless of whether Elonka actually used admin tools, that sort of management of these articles sends a very clear messages to Wiki's finest science editors to stay away from those articles, so they are likely to fall under the influence of the kinds of editors Elonka has supported. The threat of action can be as powerful as admin action. Surely, FT2, you agree that intimate knowledge of sources, and reliance on and understanding of how to use the very best sources, should be a goal in editing science articles, no? Particularly when that intimate knowledge comes in an editor conveniently packaged to include a healthy amount of AGF and civil and courteous editing? Surely that's not the kind of editor you want to discourage from editing, no? So how have we come to a position whereby ArbCom appears to be behind an arrangement that places content experts on par with tendentious POV pushers, an arrangement furthered by what many have stated is ineffective management of that decision? Is the problem in the decision to begin with or in by whom and how it's being enforced. And if my understanding of ArbCom's role in this case is incorrect (which it very well could be, considering the time it takes to wade through them), I welcome you to politely set the record straight for all readers, but accusing me of knowingly misrepresenting something isn't going to resolve the unfortunate fact that POV pushers are now favored over content experts on those articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I chose my words carefully. I wasn't commenting on the administration, the editors, or any other matter. Questions of how sanctions got chosen, who operates them, other peripheral issues -- none of that was the topic of Sam, Morven or my own comments. You made as a starting point, a comment that you knew was absolutely not so. Three arbs had each made utterly clear they were commenting on applicability of the existing sanction to the topic, and nothing more. Not one specified Elonka or any other admin in any way. (I posted a follow-up post that mentioned her to correct visible errors.) Despite this, you represented as a fact in your post, that "three arbs weighed in favoring Elonka's management", which clearly was not so. Although the posts and their authors specifically and obviously did not comment to suggest who should manage (if anyone should), you stated as fact that all three did so post, a clear, obvious, and significant misrepresentation. It is courteous not to misrepresent others in a discussion, and to apologize if you have inadvertantly done so. That is true for all of us, whatever the case. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, Mathsci, content issues are not to be considered. Both the admins you mention, while of good intent, carry heavy POVs relative to the subject area, and DoughWeller has expressed a willingness to allow OR. So no- an admin willing to restrain herself to editor behavior is exactly what we need. Tim Vickers and Eubulides, I guarantee you, are not going to get whacked- certainly not over content decisions on the part of the admin, not without me making such a stink as you've seldom seen. However, again, any use of admin authority (including threats) to determine content is out. Thus, what the admin actually knows about the subject does not need to be that great. Rather, they need to know policy. If people here want to set up WP as something done or overseen by experts, fine, just change WP. But don't try to apply it in limited cases, or without officially changing WP. So, please leave off thinking that an admin should determine content. Else, I have a few admins I'd like to oversee articles and apply these sanctions. Not really (that is, I respect NPOV and WP too much), but you get the point. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi is a problematic wikipedian. He has made extraordinary statements about adminstrators Dougweller and MastCell. Elonka's interactions with Eubulides have been problematic. It is unclear why she feels that her intervention here will help matters; is she determined to make a point with one of her ill-fated "experiments"? Why has she made no mention of the beneficial participation of experts on this page? She has not said one positive thing about Eubulides, which surely must sound alarm bells for many wikipedians, including those on the arbitration committee. Elonka appears to have serious problems with expert contributors. Mathsci (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I edit the Chiropractic article, though not much in recent weeks. I think 1RR would be preferable to 0RR and no remedy may be needed at all. I follow 1RR voluntarily, and if 1RR is applied to the page I might decide to voluntarily follow 0RR at that page.

I agree with SandyGeorgia that Eubulides is an extremely valuable contributor to the Chiropractic article. Eubulides puts in a lot of time and effort following the various discussions and reading the sources. Eubulides listens and responds to the substance of arguments, is very civil and knowledgeable, avoids editwarring, and acts as a stabilizing influence to help form compromises between other editors. I often disagree with Eubulides in content disputes, but I nevertheless believe that any remedy applied to the page which alienates Eubulides would be doing far more harm than good.

I agree with Martinphi that admins acting in their role as admins should not enforce decisions on content disputes; this is essential to having the best chance of maintaining a NPOV encyclopedia.

WJBScribe, I don't quite understand on what basis you're criticizing Jehochman for expressing an opinion here. Perhaps your theory is that if someone has criticized someone else extensively, then they should not criticize that same person again. With respect, I disagree with that theory, and apparently so does Elonka.

Mathsci, re "Martinphi is a problematic wikipedian": please comment on the substance of this discussion, not on the participants. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I have refactored the first comment. Martinphi's comments about MastCell and Dougweller seem quite unjustified, in view of their known qualities as administrators or editors. This debate concerns how various personalities might interact if certain sanctions were implemented. I would add that WP:expert retention is also a major issue here. Mathsci (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for refactoring, Mathsci. You've stated that some of Martinphi's comments seem unjustified, but you haven't explained why you hold that opinion. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, because MastCell and Dougweller are commonly accepted to be two of our most able, informed and balanced administrators? Mathsci (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Notification of Elonka's involvement at chiropractic

Per WP:UNINVOLVED: Uninvolved admins An administrator is considered "uninvolved" if it is clear that they are able to exercise their tools from a position of neutrality. If they have been involved in a content dispute, were a significant editor of an article in question, were involved in revert wars, or are under their own sanctions for that topic area, they do not qualify as uninvolved.

Elonka has been involved in a content dispute with significant editor of this article.[18][19][20] and Elonka has participated in edit war against a significant contributor, Eubulides.[21][22] Special:Contributions/Elonka is not qualified as uninvolved. QuackGuru 01:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Those were all in July. Any evidence that she should recuse herself from the recent dispute? --erachima talk 01:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated. While Eubulides has edited the article recently, he is not a part of the current dispute, so past dealings regarding him should be moot. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whether Elonka is not part of the current dipute. Per WP:UNINVOLVED: If they have been involved in a content dispute, were a significant editor of an article in question

Since Elonka has been involved in a past dispute she does not qualify as uninvolved. QuackGuru 05:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

She isn't a significant editor of the page, and she wasn't in this content dispute but rather some trivial thing over redlinks that's unrelated to the issue. --erachima talk 06:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact, this wasn't a content dispute, but rather a dispute over the style of formatting for references. This misrepresentation is typical of the disruptive editing that occurs at Talk: Chiropractic. DigitalC (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whether Elonka is a significant editor or is not involved in a current content dispute. Once an admin has been involved, then that admin is disqualified to be uninvolved.

She has been involved in a content dispute in the past with a significant contributor[23][24][25] and was edit warring against a significant contributor.[26][27] QuackGuru 17:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru, the diffs you cite show Elonka in a rather mild tussle with Eubulides about a technical issue of whether or not to link journal names and publishers in references. This is Manual of Style matter rather than a content issue. Elonka hasnt participated in writing the content of the article at all. I personally agree with Elonka that all journal names should be linked, even if they are redlinks. When I am acting as an uninvolved admin, my first step is to improve the citations that are already in use (collapsing duplicates, adding redlinks, finding ISBNs and OCLCs, etc), so that I as an uninvolved admin can better grasp what parts of the article are well cited and which are not. It also invites editors to research the sources that they are using in order to write meaningful stubs, which helps everyone involved to understand exactly what bias each source has, so that the source can be evaluated more thoroughly. If the editors dont do this, I will often go ahead and create bland stubs for them to get the ball rolling. I am sure that a lot of admins do the same, or if they dont -- they should! The tussle that Elonka had with Eubulides over this was ages ago, and is not a content issue. Do you think that those diffs indicate that is Elonka likely to take a side against Eubulides? Or act like an involved admin? What conclusions are you making about those diffs? It looks to me like you are inventing a problem in order to declare that Elonka is involved. To what end? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 19:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait! For purposes of the discretionary sanctions, the proper definition of "uninvolved administrator" to use is this one: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Remedies, subsection "Uninvolved administrators", which says "For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions." Therefore, a dispute in the past over formatting of references does not prevent Elonka from enforcing sanctions at this article as an "uninvolved administrator". ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Followup query

Per the three links posted at the top of this thread, I see a message at Talk:Chiropractic stating: "FYI, according to discussions at the administrators' noticeboard, there appears to be a rough consensus among uninvolved editors and admins that the Chiropractic article falls within the scope of the Pseudoscience arbitration case." I'm not seeing that rough consensus; I'm seeing as much well founded doubt, concern and opposition as support. Does the consensus reside in the fact that the decision is under the remit of ArbCom per the previous case, and some arbs and former arbs are in favor, in spite of concern and warnings from other editors? I just want to make sure I understand what drives this process. Since the result of putting expert good faith contributors on par with tendentious SPAs and POV-pushers could be article deterioration, I hope we're clear on why we're doing this. I'm not yet clear if it's a good idea because I have yet to see it well implemented, but what I have seen is editors of the caliber of Tim Vickers bringing controversial articles like Evolution to featured status rather quickly; this is what we don't want to risk losing by putting our finest editors on par with tendentious SPAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there are two issues here. One is whether chiropractic should be under "article probation"; it appears there is support for this, and I would tend to agree, since it has been the scene of unfortunate editing practices and in theory probation simply makes these easier to deal with. Properly implemented, probation should make it easier for excellent editors like Tim or Eubulides, or User:Dematt, to develop the article while better restricting tendentious or agenda-driven accounts.

The other issue is whether Elonka should be one of the admins enforcing the probation. While Elonka undoubtedly does many things well and I have absolute confidence that she acts in good faith, I am not confident that her involvement here will lead to a better editing environment or an article which better furthers the project's goal of producing a serious, respected reference work. That is my opinion based on a series of prior events which I don't feel like elaborating upon at this juncture, but which are probably high-profile enough to be familiar. My concern is that her approach has in the past tended to place solid editors at a disadvantage with respect to agenda-driven tendentious accounts. I think that's the sort of "probation" which Sandy and a few others are concerned about. MastCell ^Talk 21:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I second SG's concern regarding the rough consensus.

• The notification at the Chiro talk page was 00:43, 26 September 2008. The discussion on the notice board at this time was thus. Of the participants who had taken place in that time frame, four had raised objections (Risker, Eubulides, Mathsci, and CrohnieGal), and four had made "in principle" agreement (Matthew Brown, FT2, Sam Blacketer, Guy).
• Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log page was created two-ish days before at 15:35, 24 September 2008.

brenneman 01:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I dunno'. Most of the people who don't like the idea say the reason is Elonka's involvement, and not whether or not the article falls under the ArbCom case. Since there are other admins who've volunteered to work on this (such as myself, MBisanz, and brenneman on Talk:Chiropractic), it shouldn't be a problem.

Elonka has stated that the Admin log was created early as a platform to figure out which editors would be considered involved, so that they could be notified if the above thread resulted in a consensus that the article falls into the ArbCom case. Being prepared seems kosher to me.

Given the amount of resistance to having Elonka work on this above, though, I do have to agree that she might wish to remove herself from the list of uninvolved admins. I make no assumptions about her actual involvement, but editors would raise a royal stink if she actually applied any sanctions, which I believe is generally not worth everyone's collective time.

As a possible other solution, which I believe would actually be better all around and should address the concerns, perhaps everyone on the list of uninvolved admins should discuss any sanctions with the others on the list before applying them? This should ensure that heavy-handed, improper, unnecessary, or otherwise improper sanctions aren't carried out. I know that I have no bones to pick in this area and can remain neutral, and I believe that MBisanz would be the same. Cheers, everyone, and I hope that however this turns out doesn't involve too many drahmahz. lifebaka++ 03:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not only sanctions: it's the threat of sanction and unjust accusations towards solid editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I would assume that solid editors shouldn't have to worry about the sanctions and can continue edit as normal. The sanctions, as far as I can tell, should and will only be directed towards users who are disrupting work on the article. However, if these solid editors could actually be affected by sanctions, under the instance I just described, I would hope that they will adjust their editing patterns such that sanctions will not actually be necessary.

What I believe you are objecting strongly to, when you allude to "putting expert good faith contributors on par with tendentious SPAs and POV-pushers" (and please correct me if I am wrong), is that you believe the sanctions imply that all editors working on Chiropractic are somehow disruptive. I'm not sure that this necessarily holds true. Simply because there are issues involving an article does not mean that all users working on that article are at fault. From what I've seen watching the article for the past few days, most of the contributors there don't cause trouble. So, the purpose of the sanctions first should be to determine which editors are holding up consensus by beating dead horses; are edit waring in excess, with or without consensus on their side; or are making edits specifically against consensus. Then, these editors can be properly dealt with through the use of whatever sanctions are necessary so that the article can continue to be developed/worked on/etc. I personally am still working on the first part of this process, since I haven't been watching the article very long. I can assure everyone keeping tabs on this that whichever editors are considered the most solid at Chiropractic probably are not currently the ones I am watching. Cheers, everyone, and I hope that made sense. lifebaka++ 04:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

All editors working on Chiro are disruptive? No, that assumption is completely incorrect; have you read this thread? Aware that I'm repeating myself, I'll try again. It is not the threat of sanctions, because the editors that I most often associate with and edit with would never put themselves in a position of being anywhere near sanction; they just don't edit that way. When reputable editors, known for solid reliance on the highest quality sources as much as they are known for civil courteous and respectful editing and "writing for the enemy" are accused of POINT, OWN and being UNCIVIL, the issue is that good editors will simply stay away from the article and our articles will suffer as others who are coddled and supported move in. We have someone involved in managing these articles who has already shown tendencies towards some editors and not others. Most editors of repute don't enjoy having their reputations damaged by heavy-handed accusations. And if this begins to happen across other science or medical articles, well ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll also point out the level of commitment, knowledge and awareness of policy that it takes to maintain multiple articles subject to off-Wiki canvassing at featured status: articles like autism and Asperger syndrome. Eubulides has 875 edits on autism, 848 on Daylight saving time and 309 on Asperger syndrome (and he maintains just about everything related to those articles), and yet there has not been an issue with his editing until Elonka's accusations; how many admins have that kind of record on any article, or a featured article, or a controversial article? For this arrangement to result in the professional articles we should aspire to for medicine requires effective and fair management by experienced admins who respect, understand and recognize quality edits, editors and sourcing. We already have indications that may not be the case here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I believe I understand. While there have allusions to activity of that sort on the part of Eubulides above (of which I have no opinion), I do not believe that is the reason the article falls under the possibility of sanctions. The reason for that is that the article involves a dispute between mainstream and minority views of science, and is the issues cropping up are of the same sort as those in the Pseudoscience case (the application of which is supposed to be "broadly interpreted"). Specific actions of editors don't appear to have factored largely into this decision, whether these actions be disruptive or not. It seems your complaint is with Elonka specifically and not the sanctions generally. Because of how apparently widespread sentiments of this nature are, I asked Elonka above to please remove herself from the list of uninvolved admins. It will and is clearly a cause of contention, and I'm sure that myself and MBisanz, as well as any other admins who would like to help us, can handle the dispute on our own. Elonka has indicated to me that she was hoping to leave this mostly to us anyways, so this shouldn't be too big of a deal.

If there are similar sentiments about me, I will also gladly remove myself from the list of uninvolved admins. It is not worth the collective time of everyone involved if actions undertaken by myself in this need to be second-guessed and checked over, or will become the source of unnecessary drahmahz. There are other admins who could easily perform the same function. So, please let me know. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to add in my two cents, I'm intending to take a light-touch method to sanctions on this article. It is on my watchlist now and I will probably at some point place a comment on the talk page invoking the need for reliable sources, adherence to the fringe guidelines, and an emphasis on discussion over edit warring. Hopefully that will be all that is required. If not, then other methods will need to be considered. Ideally the article should be editable to the most people, so I am thinking that per-editor restrictions will be the way I will lean. Probably starting with 1RR on warring editors and escalating to article-edit bans. My goal is that the mere fact sanctions may be applied will persuade tendentious editors from disrupting things. MBisanz ^talk 15:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

1RR proposed for all editors of Chiropractic

An administrator has now proposed a 1RR rule for every editor at Chiropractic. This proposal seemingly goes against several of the comments made above. For example, it disagrees with the comment "solid editors shouldn't have to worry about the sanctions", as the rule affects solid editors along with everyone else. Discusson of this proposal is currently at Talk:Chiropractic #Requesting page protection. Eubulides (talk) 05:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

A bit late for the party, I'm afraid. Consensus over there is already well against it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka proposed 1RR, MBisanz wrote that 1RR is better than qualitative restrictions, and Levine2112 favored 1RR; QuackGuru and I opposed 1RR. This isn't consensus for 1RR, but it's not "well against it" either, surely. Unless that "well against" is not counting the uninvolved administrators (Elonka, MBisanz)? Eubulides (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The language I used is rather strong, but that consensus is much easier to read than a lot. I guess it'd be more appropriate to say "obviously" against. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I would be curious as to who exactly Eubulides thinks are the "solid editors" and who are the "non-solid editors". --Elonka 16:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Solid editors are those who use high-quality sources (as per WP:MEDRS for medical articles), and who summarize what those sources say as accurately, as clearly, and as concisely as possible. Also please see #Coaching suggestions for Chiropractic below. Eubulides (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Coaching suggestions for Chiropractic

• Coaching can help non-solid editors become solid, and solid editors to become more solid. When coaching, though, it's better to focus on the core aspects of Wikipedia, e.g., summarizing what reliable sources say. It's less helpful to focus the coaching on procedural issues. For example, coaching an editor to modify unrelated pages so as to not appear to be a single-purpose account focused on Chiropractic, in such a way that the editor immediately goes off and adds some other pages to their contributions log, is not that helpful for advancing core Wikipedia goals.
• Another suggestion for coaching is to give similar coaching advice to both sides of the dispute. Advising one side of a dispute to avoid the appearance of being a single-purpose account, without giving similar advice to the other side, gives the impression of partisanship on the part of the advisor.

Eubulides (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Lurking comments: the crux of the first suggestion should be to persuade the user to not edit like an SPA, not to not appear like one. The underlying message of the noted suggestion is to have them become further interested in building a better encyclopedia. When that is not made explicit, a user whose goals are not all aligned with the project can follow the suggestion to the letter but return without their goals changed. This helps no one, and in fact may be subtly harmful, as in the worst case scenario a user who needs coaching has learned a skill to avoid scrutiny, and thus deflecting incentive for others to support calls for their coaching.

For the second suggestion, in any case the coaching should take into account the individual editors' areas deemed amenable to coaching. No specifics were given, but of course if the areas are the same for more than one editor, appropriate equity is needed. I should point out that in the case of the topic page, different editors have considerably different areas where coaching could help. But in general, the advice is sound.

A third suggestion from my uninvolved but not disinterested self: Let's always keep in mind that we are not a battleground. Even when good faith differences of opinion exist, it pays to remember that we are here to write a good encyclopedia. We can all be on the same side of that endeavor. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this shouldn't be a battleground. There aren't "sides", either in talking about the dispute or in reality (from what I've seen over there). So, my view is that suggestions should be given to editors who are a problem, and it'd be sorta' a waste to give those suggestions to editors who aren't a problem, regardless of the ideological position of said editors. I mean, you'd find it disruptive if I cautioned you "not to edit like an SPA", right? Anyways, just my two cents. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru topic ban

I'm considering topic-banning User:QuackGuru from these articles for one week, since the consensus on the talkpage seems to be that his editing is disruptive. I'd welcome other input about this, on the article talkpage (Talk:Chiropractic#Topic_ban), and if anybody wished to volunteer to act as a long-term mentor for this editor that would be most welcome. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

BLP issue

Oh for transcludable sections. From Mediawiki talk:Spam-blacklist:

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

A large number of links to this site, a poker players' advocacy organisation deeply opposed to control of online poker, have been added to politician biographies. In each case it appears that the text is similar: a couple of sentences sourced to the group's website stating that a group member has blogged or spoken out against the politician. No independent sources are cited, only the negative content about the politician at the site of the organisation originating the negative comment. Example:

* Poker rights blogger Rich Muny, a board member of the one-million member Poker Players Alliance, rated $BLPSUBJECT "F-" on support for poker rights.<ref>http://theengineer.pokerplayersalliance.org/congress-and-internet-poker-rights TheEngineer's Blog: Congress and Internet Poker Rights, July 10, 2008]</ref>

As this is a WP:BLP issue and the user has repeatedly reinserted the links and text, I have temporarily blacklisted. We now need to decide whether the site should stay blacklisted. It is an advocacy group seeking to redefine poker as a game of skill in order to avoid gambling controls, and does not appear to be a reliable source for anything other than itself. The idea of including, in political biographies, a pressure group's assessment of the politician's status as a supporter of poker "rights" seems to me to be unsupportable.

The above boilerplate text, or minor variations, all ratings F or F-, accounted for over 40 external links to the group and virtually all the internal links as well. This seems to me to be a pretty straightforward case of using Wikipedia for advocacy.

I am removing these "ratings" paragraphs per WP:BLP and have warned the user concerned, but more eyes would be appreciated. Guy (Help!) 08:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Definitely the right thing to do. The opinion of some poker blogger is not really needed on political biographies, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Considering the only edits Cactusframe has made to Wikipedia is to push this advocacy, if he carries on, block him - nobody will miss him. fish&karate 10:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This is inappropriate unilateral action, and calling it an "emergency" is silly, since the editor in question has only edited one article in the past ten days. This is a problem with a USER, not the organization. It is even a problem with the subdomain of the main domain, block that if need be. The misguided action needs to be corrected. The orgnaization is solicited and interviewed by major media for its opinions. It has done no wrong, and certainly no spam. The USER has, and the user is spamming a distinct subdomain. A warning, or any other action should be taken against the user or the subdomain, not the organizations website. 2005 (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to make it more clear, there was exactly one article (besides the one about the organization itself) that linked to the main pokerplayersalliance.org domain. There is zero issue or spamming involving the main domain. The "theengineer.pokerplayersalliance.org" subdomain is where all the BIO links pointed at, and since it is a blog anyway, blocking that would be a no-brainer at this point. So, there is no reason to block the main domain, and the solution to this issue is very simple and should be non controversial: warn the user and lock the subdomain, not the main domain. 2005 (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually that one article's link was superfluous, it was a list and the link should have been an internal one (I fixed that). Two pages used as sources in the article about the group, are whitelisted; I did that this morning. There is no suggestion that the site is a valid source in any other article, so this seems to me to be the minimum admin action to control a policy violation: no users blocked, no articles protected, no article edits disabled (I can edit and save the article on the group without problems), no valid content prevented because the site is not a reliable source. As an aside, every single administrator action is unilateral, with the possible exception of implementing ArbCom bans. Guy (Help!) 14:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"There is no suggestion that the site is a valid source in any other article," Huh? It obviously could be a valid source in numerous articles. You seem to just want to be stubborn here. Some dude with a blog subdomain did some spamming. That is the problem. There has been zero spamming of the main domain. None. Spam blocking it is plain weird. Instead of digging your heels in, just change the block to the subdomain. 2005 (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Really. I'm just trying to work out which part of WP:RS it would satisfy, but I'm having some difficulty, epsecially since at least some of the content there violates copyright. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh c'mom. They make what could be plausibly called fair use and link to the original article. Now it's obvious that if they file a lawsuit against somebody that a page on their site that says they filed a lawsuit and has the entire PDF there could be linked to. They can be linked to in the same way as the Republican Party, or any PAC with an agenda. They have a point of view but they can be linked to for stuff like "John Doe is on the board of the Poker Players Alliance.", etc etc etc. Now just switch the spam blovck to the subdomain. You know that solves everythng. 2005 (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

See L.A. Times v. Free Republic. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Guy. To devote so much space of about a living person by adding the opinion of a source that fails WP:RS is a serious violation. To top it off, the account adding its sole edits gave the groups ratings on biographies of politicians. We66er (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Well now. The root domain has now been removed form the blacklist, at which point user:2005 immediately re-added it as a source about the organisation in online poker. Problem: if we allow advocacy organisations to insert claims about themselves in related articles, sourced from their own sites, then we have a nightmare of POV, undue weight and potential WP:OR violation. As I said when I removed it, self-sourced material is a problem. 2005 described it as an absurd edit and of course reverted as soon as he was able. Me, I think advocacy organisations should not be discussed in such articles without reliable independent sources, even if people who are really passionate about the subject might disagree. Noting in passing that I have less than no interest at all in online poker, I will leave this for now, but ask someone else to counsel 2005 on the appropriate use of sources and self-sourced material, and also the appropriateness of describing other users' edits as "absurd" when the issue is one permitting of legitimate differences. Guy (Help!) 18:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:SSP is heavily backlogged

Please help. Enigma ^message 17:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Can non-admins assist in this somehow? -- how do you turn this on 17:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Giving it a quick glance, several of these have been addressed but need to be archived; perhaps a non-admin can do that. I will try to do some work on this over the weekend. One of the challenges with this page is that there is often the clamour for technical evidence of socking (whether or not it is really needed), and that places an excessive burden on our few checkusers. Risker (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Non-admins wouldn't be able to help in situations where users may need blocking. D.M.N. (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, well I'll assist by archiving, and commenting on cases. -- how do you turn this on 17:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I just archived a bunch. Thanks for helping out, by the way. Just a note: add comments to the comments section, not too conclusions. That's usually reserved for whomever is closing the case. Enigma ^message 18:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, got it down from 77 to 67. That's just cleanup, though. Many, many cases need an administrator to review them. Enigma ^message 18:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Down to 55. WP:SSP almost always has a backlog, though - even if we get it down to 0 (as has happened in the past) it'll get back up to 20 or 30 outstanding cases within a week. _Gb^T/c 19:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll do some tonight. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously new cases are constantly being added. We need administrators who will keep an eye on it and close cases. That'll prevent it from getting backlogged. It's always been backlogged for months because we don't have administrators committed to SSP. Ongoing problem. Enigma ^message 21:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Whatever happened to that propsal of FT2's a while back? Caulde 20:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Which proposal might that be? -- how do you turn this on 20:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure which proposal but wasn't there a proposal to merge WP:RFCU and WP:SSP at one point? How did that come out? ++Lar: t/c 21:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, that's the proposal I was about to bring up as well. I edit-conflicted with you. Enigma ^message 21:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd probably support such a proposal. Surely most sockpuppet cases would require checkuser intervention anyway? -- how do you turn this on 22:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Lar: Indeed, the proposal is still pending the final details being "ironed out." Ultimately, we are awaiting FT2's having spare time to undertake the merger; I suppose that's all that is holding this up at the moment. The merger thread (note: now historical, what with consensus-building discussion having concluded in support of the proposal) is located at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/SSP-RFCU merger proposal; a "sandbox" for the new centralised system is located at Wikipedia:SSP2. Anthøny ✉ 23:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason why RFCU gets more traffic and attention because SSP is a murky guessing game. Sometimes things look like they are together but they're not. And other times things look like they are not together but actually they are. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

FT2 and others are almost done with the proposal to merge SSP and RFCU. I've had SSP to zero a few times but it doesn't last long. Long wordy statements only slow things down, be short and to the point when filing cases. 18:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

MfDs transcluded into AfD logs

There presently are 26 MfD pages transcluded into the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log. I plan to fix this by adding the MfD pages into the MfD archives and remove the transclusion from the AfD log. Last time I monkeyed with the deletion archives, there was an objection. If there are no objections, I would like to proceed with the clean up. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 18:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. Stifle (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Review of unblock request...

...at User talk:Patrick Bernier - could someone who knows about these things review the unblock request and, if necessary, action it? I would do it, but to me squid is something that you eat, and not a type of proxy, so I'm probably not the best person to judge whether the request is reasonable or not..._Gb^T/c 18:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

When I ran an nmap scan on it just now, I came up with several open proxy ports other than the one he mentioned there. I have no way of knowing if the ports do require authentication, however, although I would have thought they would have come up as either "filtered" or "closed" if they were. I'm also not certain why he has to edit from the proxy, so unless he has a exceptional reason for needing it, I'm hesitant to grant a block exemption. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. - Squid (software) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Seriously - that was just noise to me ;-) _Gb^T/c 19:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed process for removal of administrator rights

A proposed process for removing administrator rights is under discussion. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Removing administrator rights/Proposal. Jehochman ^Talk 19:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User:CarloscomB

Resolved

 – User blocked 72 hours. Blueboy96 23:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, CarloscomB (talk · contribs) has been changing heading levels across a very large number of astronomy articles from == to === and subsequent ones (adding an equal sign). This has been noted on his talk page, and he has not responded on why he doesn't like standard layout of all other articles on Wikipedia. I think someone should look into this. (Thjis has already been noted at WT:ASTRO) 70.51.8.75 (talk) 06:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest warning them if they continue to do so without reacting to those messages. Changing stuff to mess up the layout without explanation or willingness to talk about it may be a sign of vandalism. Regards SoWhy 08:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe CarloscomB is a vandal in the traditional sense: he seems in general to be making good faith edits but does not seem to understand various features of the articles he edits (in particular, putting values in infoboxes to far too much precision, displaying a lack of understanding about what the infobox fields actually mean, etc). Given the state of the articles this user creates, I suspect we are dealing with someone who, despite being an extremely prolific editor, is not someone for whom English is a first language, nor are they particularly strong at it. Icalanise (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This user is not responsive on his talk page, so I'm not sure how we can communicate concerns with him. But he is making revisions to many astronomy articles. I don't think he's a conventional vandal either; more like a rogue editor who disregards consensus and input from others. It's unfortunate.—RJH (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This user has been blocked before for not responding to concerns on his talk page. It doesn't look like it's made much of a difference--he has exactly zero edits to article talk or user talk pages. Time for another block, I think. If no one objects, I'm gonna give him a 72-hour block, with the warning that it'll be indef next time unless he makes some effort to engage other editors. Blueboy96 21:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No objections ... so blocked 72 hours. Blueboy96 23:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Mackie Academy

This seems to be another death threat (although might be a joke but doesn't matter that is not a pleasant joke at all) there but I already blocked him. I'm just notifying everyone in case he is starting again after his block expiration. --JForget 01:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You've already posted this (twice) to ANI.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 01:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I've removed it when I've noticed the redundancy and that Flewis posted it just before me. --JForget 02:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

FlyFF article

There is a problem with the Fly For Fun article, especially in the "worlds" section. The grammar is terrible, and the "Unknow World" section needs to be deleted. I'm not sure how to fix it. Kirmuii (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

All you need to do is click the "edit this page" tab up at the top of the article, make whichever changes you feel are necessary, and then click on the "Save page" button below the edit box. I suggest using "Show preview" first, to make sure everything works properly, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiport ANIs

Greetings to all. I'm sure some are aware of the now three ANI entries that Blaxthos has levied on me. I think it is clear that Blaxthos and I have differing opinions, although I don't believe it warrants constant ANI entries. I have not attacked him, or degraded his character in any way. I think it is clear that he is using the ANI process to further this feud which quite frankly doesn't need to exist here. I believe that these constant attempts to have me blocked is contrary to the existing philosophy of this section. I would be appreciative if this issue of constantly reporting me could be addressed. He is reading a bit too much into this, to the point of accusing me of making condescending quotation marks! Thanks Wikiport (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Posted to WP:ANI Pedro :  Chat  21:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I have seen many concerns regarding the speedy G10 deletions of the FNC article I made a little while ago. I should have researched it a bit more, but I was mistaken thinking that people would vote on it. I was corrected by Pedro. I know I don't know everything here regarding Wikipedia, but I do think a couple of growing pains are natural. I am passionate about the issues that I believe are important, as I believe many editors are. This feud with Blaxthos is quite simply childish on both sides. I believe much has been taken out of context, and elevated to a point where it doesn't need to be. My goal here is to address the FNC article, and edit a couple other of articles which interest me. My goal is not to perpetuate a "back and forth" argument with Blaxthos in a community setting. We disagree, yes; but, that's how progress is made in history. It isn't made by silencing one side of the table. Thanks again..Wikiport (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Posted. Wikiport, you should be autoconfirmed, so if you could just reply at the ANI thread itself it'll probably be easier. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reposting, I'll make it my final rebuttal here, if you could repost again hehe, the first time I replied to the actual thread I erased or reverted come comments, I didn't want to repeat that. >>I don't wish to continue the back and forth. Blaxthos, it is clearly a feud ok? I am not trying to play nice in the wake of a 3rd ANI. I believe you are a bit quick to nominate here quite frankly. Otherwise, I have explained my prior actions. I did nominate the FNC for speedy deletion, prior to me actually understanding it - which was addressed and corrected by Pedro on my talk page, in fact, I thanked him for his patience and viewpoint. I never accused you of "sock-puppetry", I stated I had SEEN controversy regarding the issue which I quoted. You explained what I saw on your talk page. Now, I have tried to establish sections within the talk page of FNC to address this issue, which you continue to perpetuate a back and forth argument. I understand there is a consensus, I am challenging that consensus in the wake of new information given current events and objectivity. I appeal to you to stop this silliness and move on. You have been in constant argument with several editors, that's apparent to see in your history. Please stop the back and forth on the FNC talk page, and move it to my page if you want to continue slamming me for being a novice and etc. etc. Thanks..Wikiport (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh, no problem. Posted. lifebaka++ 00:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments removed from talk:Hungary even if they are not against the rules

I'd like an admin to take a look at this, comments are removed from talk:Hungary only because people over there don't agree with the POV of the posters. I started a discussion about the case talk:Hungary#Stop_removing_discussions_from_talk_page and I've been accused for soapboxing and other things and I have been told that my comment and the whole thread will be removed too.

If I'm in the wrong for trying to stop people from removing comments from the talk page and if I'm told so by an admin I will stop, but to me this looks like a clear case of censorship, see for example [28] FWIW, I don't even know if the facts enumerated in that post are true and indeed they are not sourced, but removing comments from talk pages because they are unsourced and because you don't like the POV seems wrong to me. (again if an admin tells me is OK, I will accept that without further comment). man with one red shoe (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

First: I didn't remove any comments from the talk page, just adding my opinion on this.

User:Man with one red shoe himself described those comments as "trollish", and per WP:TALKPAGE these are rather "personal views" than real attempts at improving the article. One of them talked about the "revisionist writer of the article", the "revisionist POV" etc., the other one summarized the history in the territory of today's Slovakia according to a POV (on the talk page of Hungary).

Take a look at the thread and the comments and decide for yourselves if those comments are appropriate there or not. Squash Racket (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have the right to personal opinions about comments in talk pages, however I don't have the right to impose my yardstick on others by removing comments that I don't share a POV with, that's the issue here. man with one red shoe (talk) 19:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you have the right to post personal opinions or not per WP:TALKPAGE:

Talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.

This is emphasized with bolding there. Not to mention personal attacks on the "revisionists" who write the article in the first post. The second post tries to deal with a POV version of the history on the territory of today's Slovakia which is not the topic of Talk:Hungary, but I'm repeating myself. Squash Racket (talk) 06:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As a side editor, I have to say it doesn't look like the comments were "trollish" or being used as a platform. If they're wrong, they should be addressed, but they were clearly designed as "this is how the page should be improved". Removal of legitimate criticism is indeed "censorship". I hope I have read this correctly. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

When you post or repost comments you take full responsibility for their full content as far as I know. Actually in the trolling question there is actually agreement between both sides of the argument who previously commented, so at the very minimum when you repost you are accountable for that. The posts actually goes much farther than that and they really achieved all a troll can dream for huge discussion multiple threads that they achieved with the inflammatory comments, the very definition of trolling. At this point there was enough discussion, those who repeatedly post the troll comments at one point will hopefully see the inherent risk to their reputation in taking full responsibility for the content. Hobartimus (talk) 07:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Coase's Penguin

Resolved

Can someone copy the text of the deleted version of Coase's Penguin into somewhere in my userspace like User:Benjamin Mako Hill/Coase's Penguin? History information would be good as well as I'd like to use it in another GFDL wiki. It was deleted on notability grounds. Thanks! —mako๛ 23:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Done. History information is pretty useless though as practically all the content was added by two anonymous editors. Black Kite 00:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks! —mako๛ 05:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Can someone step in?

Resolved

 – —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

User Erigu has been editting all the articles involving the game series Wild ARMs, changing that spelling to "Wild Arms". The title is a matter of debate, and there is a discussion for it on the talk page for the series as a whole. Erigu is editting this word in over a dozen articles, in each of which it appears numerous times. I've asked the user to please refrain from doing this and participate in the discussion, as there are numerous official sources that confirm "Wild ARMs", but the response was confusing and came off as a bit rude. I don't want to edit war, but if Erigu's edits are left in place and someone else comes and makes a non-harmful edit, it will be heck to change each and every "Arms" to "ARMs" manually, on every single page. Can someone please pay a visit to Erigu's talk page and request that they stop making said changes and discuss it first? It's getting more than a little frusterating.TwilightRukia (talk) 08:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please step in and ban TwilightRukia, another sockpuppet of Fragments of Jade, created less than an hour after she got blocked from commenting on her own talk pages. She sure hasn't changed... Erigu (talk) 08:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this how you handle any sort of conflict, Erigu? I've been a member here for quite some time, and I've never heard of any of these people you seem to think I am. And in case you have not noticed, this is about your vandalism of the Wild ARMs pages, not who you think I am or am not. Please take your accusations to the appropriate area and stop throwing them in my face.TwilightRukia (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Erigu (talk) 08:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That's nice. Do the admins have any imput? Not on Erigu's accusations, but the real topic of this entry?TwilightRukia (talk) 08:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

TwilightRukia has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Fragments of Jade. And, I've also fixed the leads for the various Wild Arms articles to include the Japanese rendition of the name where it says "known in Japan as...".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Erigu (talk) 09:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

K-Poincaré group - Cannot start this page

Resolved

Why cannot I start the page "K-Poincaré group"? I already have successfully started the page "K-Poincaré algebra", planning to start the corresponding "group" page later. In fact since the date of its creation, the page "K-Poincaré algebra" points to the non-existent page "K-Poincaré group". The system tells me that this title is blscklisted... Can somebody help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinoro (talk • contribs) 08:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Is K-Poincaré group it? I was just testing and it seems fine to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, solved... the page was just already there and I couldn't create a new one. Now I edited It, it's no more empty. -- Spinoro (talk) 09:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

1RR enquiry

Myself and User:Boodlesthecat are subject to 1RR restriction. At Żydokomuna, I have reverted Boody's once and I ceased, per 1RR. But he has been revert warring there, before and after my edit (he is now at 3 reverts there), with incivil edit summaries - and in addition to edit warring, he claims that me and Tymek are spreading anti-semitic propaganda] ("This is Jew baiting claptrap. Pure and simple. tymek and Piotrus think the article is simply a repository for them to insert arbitrary claims about evil Jews"...as a justification of your own attempts to make this entry into a vehicle for anti-semitic libels""). Is his behavior acceptable in light of our 1RR restriction and our other editorial policies? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You should probably bring this up on WP:ANI rather than here where it may get more attention. I haven't had time to look at the issue in detail but if your comment above is accurate then he's way out of bounds. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Reposted there, per your advice. There has been no reply; in the meantime, reverts continue, including removal of citation requests, as well as further personal attacks on talk: "stop your bullying threats to vandalize articles that contain referenced material you dont like'". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe indeed Boodles should have expressed his worries more precisely, f.e. "Piotrus and Tymek, could you please stop inserting links to websites of extremist and openly anti-Semitic organizations such as Antyk". This would be precise and factually accurate, because this is what you guys exactly did [29][30]. Now I can only repeat what you've been told by Jayjg "Try to win the content disputes on the article Talk: page, not by getting your opponents banned, ok?" Especially in case like this one, when it was you who was inserting link to website of openly anti-Semitic organization. I've removed that link, and we could consider this case closed if links to extremist websites would not be reinserted again. Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Dude, this is not about the insertion of extremist websites. They are under 1RR and one is breaking the sanction. Just because one inserts an extremist website does not give the other license to revert. He can and should have had someone else deal with it. Geoff Plourde (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I Am Rich merge suggestion close requested

A DRV request lead to a 23 September 2008 relisting of I Am Rich merge suggestion. To give this matter some finality and the participants an ability to move forward, would a kind admin please close the discussion with a conclusion and with top and bottom archival templates. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 14:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Feh, iPhones suck anyway. I have a new iPhone 3G, it's hopeless. Guy (Help!) 11:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"Problem" user

I've been regularly working with Fractyl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for some time now, as we both tend to edit the same articles. I don't know why, but he always seems to have an issue when it comes to grammar or spelling. I've asked him many times to try to improve, but I've seen no improvement. The threads on his talk page where I have contacted him to do so are Just something to note, "Destory", Please..., Editting issues, "In vain", and Multiple issues. I really don't know how to go forward with this now. It seems he simply does not have a grasp of the English language (that he told me is his first language) or he just does not listen to me in that regard anymore. I would like advice in dealing with Fractyl, as I've run out of ideas.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I am too unfamiliar with the article subjects to comment on some of the "in universe" spellings in my brief review, but I didn't see a whole lot of typo's or poor grammar. Is there any diffs of specific examples you might give? Generally, any hope of "improvement" does depend on how old they are - students, and particularly younger ones, can be expected to improve while older adults less so. Some folk may simply be incapable of improving, for any number of reasons. I would suggest that if Fractyl is contributing in good faith then we just accept the need to copy edit - and they have to accept it to. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked at some contributions of Fractyl and I don't think he is a native speaker of English. Ryulong is right: He doesn't seems to have a grasp of English. AdjustShift (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You've apparently been dealing with this issue since May. Requesting that Fractyl improve is fine but at some point you might want to start determining whether Fractyl shows "a lack of disregard for the consequences" in continuing to post grammar or spelling errors (with the consequences including more work for others, posting difficult to find problems, lessening of Wikipedia's reputation, etc.). If his actions show a regard for the consequences in continuing to post grammar or spelling errors, then continue to try to work with him/her towards improvement. If his actions do not show a regard (or an increasingly improving regard) for the consequences in continuing to post grammar or spelling errors, they that may justify other efforts (RfC etc.) in addressing the problem. You can have good intentions, but if you don't also show a regard for the consequences of your actions that would seem to warrant process steps even in the face of good intentions. Focusing on regard for the consequences may help because it doesn't focus on intent or promises, but focuses on actions takes in the face of understood consequences. In other words, having a good intent does not address whether a person shows regard for the consequences. If Fractyl is actually aware of the potentially adverse consequences to continuing to post grammar or spelling errors, but has gone ahead anyway, then you may have a basis for taking process steps. If Fractyl does not desire negative consequence to the encyclopedia but foresees the possibility and continues to edit grammar or spelling errors into the encyclopedia in view of this, then this eventually may show that Fractyl does not care about the consequences of his or her actions on the encyclopedia and may justify process steps. -- Suntag ☼ 14:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolving a CfD

I was told that I should ask for an administrator's help once five days had passed since the posting of a Category for Discussion notice on a category I created, Category:Radio Tales. Otto4711 wants to rename the cateory -- we had a disagreement about the renaming, with no consensus reached. I'd very much like to find some resolution to the issue so that the CfD notice can be removed. Can anyone help me with this? Soundout (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

eToro trademark

Hi everybody, My name is John and I work for eToro, which is a software company. eToro just received notification that it has been approved by the U.S. Principal Register as a trademark, and I was wondering how that information changes our wikipedia status, concerning the articles "etoro" and "etoro trading platform". I have the necessary documents and I will gladly email them to any editor who wishes to view them, I'd like to clarify all issues beforehand so that when we edit the article it would have been after a proper review.

feel free to email me if you wish to view the certificates, John Carry eToro —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Carry (talk • contribs) 16:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi John. Unfortunately, simply being trademarked does not count as sufficient notability for a company, it has to have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, please see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Also, it is innappropriate for you to be writing an article about your own company, see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest, as it will be difficult for you to remain neutral, one of the key cornerstones of wikipedia. If your company is notable, then it will no doubt get an article sooner or later. Thanks--Jac16888 (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

See WP:NOTE for the notability guidelines. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 17:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Can Someone Welcome Me...

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.

If you're experienced enough to post on this board, have an incredibly fancy and intricate user-page header thing and use hidden <!-- comments then you don't need welcoming. And why would we post it here rather than on your talkpage? If you simply want to read the text then see this page. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 17:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Resolved

 – I, Alberto García, am welcomed to Wikipedia by User:Ev. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 17:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

...to Wikipedia? I haven't received my welcoming yet. Could I have it please? -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 17:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Mister Alcohol :-) Ev (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 17:51, 5 October 2008 (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.

Billybobhortons's only edit on Wafa Sultan

Resolved

 – Blocked indef.

Billybobhorton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

is a vulgar attack on the subject of the article. This is that user's only edit, but is very similar to an edit made by a permanently banned user just a few days ago. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 18:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Protecting talk pages of indefinitely blocked users

Hi. After I had protected the user talk page of User:Pedro821 ([31]) because of continued disruptive editing, I received this message at my talk page. As I was not sure what the advantage would be in doing so I replied accordingly. After this reply I could see the advantage, unblocked the user, reblocked him and unprotected the talk page. However, considering that (1) there is absolutely no need to edit the talk page and (2) that it's simply additional work to unblock the user first and then to reblock rather than just protecting the talk page, I have to ask whether it's really an advantage to do so? I would appreciate some input, as I'm really unsure now how to handle such things in the future. Regards, —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've already said that this would be a good idea if it were an option when protecting the page itself rather than when blocking the user. It would save the block logs becoming congested. Garden. 20:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I think blocking only the user should be done. Better to have it so everyone can edit the page except them. -- how do you turn this on 20:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Aitias raises a good point here. I think it probably is best to handle a blocked editor disruptively editing his/her talk page through unblocking and re-blocking with the +cannot-edit-own-talk option flipped. It is indeed additional work, but in the interests of limiting the disruption to other editors (namely, non-administrators), it is the best option. Anthøny ✉ 20:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with Garden. Is there anyone who could report this as a bug here? I would do so, but I couldn't figure out how this system works. :( —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This would probably fall under bug 10080. Mr.Z-man 21:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The main advantage of protecting the page is to stop others editing it inappropriately, baiting for example. Durova puts it well here. The question is, what would User:How do you turn this on have possibly written? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. I don't see the point in protecting pages to everyone that don't need to be. -- how do you turn this on 21:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

A WP civil and Assume Good Faith Warning Needed

There has been a small dispute about who should be listed in the commanders box on the American Revolutionary War. I and several others have reverted edits by User:Albrecht. The dispute is beside the point here. Here is his last edit summary. That's quite enough of your vandalistic non-edits with non-summaries. The only "unneeded" entry is John Paul Jones, who commanded 1/20 the tonnage of d'Orvilliers or Cordova. Many of his other edit summaries, while not as bad as this one, have been, well, it is difficult to describe, but offensive is a shaky word to use. Montgomery & Arnold led a miserable little band into Canada and J.P. Jones was a glorified frigate pirate. Cordova, d'Orvilliers and Suffren captained large fleets. No comparison. I just ask that he be advised to assume good faith in disagreements.-Kieran4 (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK clock reset

Resolved

 – – RyanCross (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Could an administrator do a simple task for me and reset the DYK clock? It's fairly easy. Just follow the directions when editing the page. Thank you. – RyanCross (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Ryan. Now resolved. – RyanCross (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser appointments

Avraham, Luna Santin, Nishkid64, and Rlevse have been appointed by the Arbvitration Committee as checkusers for the community, pending identification. Links: Detailed post, Meta request.

For the Arbitration Committee

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK clock reset

Resolved

 – – RyanCross (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Could an administrator do a simple task for me and reset the DYK clock? It's fairly easy. Just follow the directions when editing the page. Thank you. – RyanCross (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Ryan. Now resolved. – RyanCross (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser appointments

Avraham, Luna Santin, Nishkid64, and Rlevse have been appointed by the Arbvitration Committee as checkusers for the community, pending identification. Links: Detailed post, Meta request.

For the Arbitration Committee

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

IP editor redirecting talk page to indefinitely blocked account

216.153.214.89 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who made a series of abusive statements about other editors on Talk:Barack Obama (see [32]), insists on redirecting his/her talk page to that of an indefinitely blocked account they created.[33][34][35][36][37][38][39] This seems to have started about a month ago when Frogger3140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) moved and redirected the IP's talk page to a new account[40][41] the IP editor created several hours before.[42] I noticed this during routine article patrol of Talk:Barack Obama as I was about to put an article probation notice (see Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation on the IP editor due to ongoing abusive comments.[43][44][45][46][47][48] When I looked into it the whole thing seemed fishy. The IP is an accused (and likely) sockpuppet of a banned user (see [49]), and Frogger3140's edit history is odd, to say the least. It did not make sense to me for an IP to direct to a blocked user account so I restored it, together with the various prior warnings - and that's when the IP started reverting the redirect and page blank. Do IP users "own" their pages the way account-holders do, in the sense that they can make their page say anything they want? Does that extend to redirecting their talk page somewhere else? I don't want to continue revert-warring this editor over the matter, though it seems likely they'll eventually be blocked or banned for other aspects of their editing. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have not notified the IP editor - I don't want to leave the notice on the wrong account, and leaving it on the IP talk page would involve reverting the redirect.Wikidemon (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have undone the redirect and move protected the page, giving my rationale here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you put that well. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Move protection doesn't prevent redirecting the page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't it? Oh, well, if you don't tell them I wont... It can be our secret! LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirecting a page can be done by any user who can edit it - including blocked users redirecting their own talk pages. If this anon tries to redirect his/her talk page again - they will discover that it can be done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Mass of hoax biology stubs

A year ago Blake3522 (talk · contribs) was caught creating a host of hoax stubs on monoclonal antibodies. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ananeuzumab. They were deleted and he was indef blocked.

His earlier/alternative account BlakeCS (talk · contribs) was also blocked at the time. However, that account had a pile of stubs that were not deleted. Some of them just may be legitimate, but some/most are hoaxes. After I stumbled upon this, I contacted a couple of admins on IRC who've been working hard to sort the mess out, however 108 article remain [50] and more work is needed. Some may be legitimate, but it may be safer to nuke the lot and restore later.

Some clued admins with some time to spare would help. Beware, googling these will throw up a lot of mirrors.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Working on this. I am not, however, opposed to nuking these if others agree. Risker (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I picked four at random; Zalutumumab, Labetuzumab, Ofatumumab and Iratumumab, and found non-mirror references which confirm the existence of all four. [51] [52] [53] and [54] So based on this small sample, most of them are not outright hoaxes. However, "used to treat cancer" is misleading; from a quick glance most of them are in early clinical trials at best, which is not really the same as being used to treat a disease. I don't have enough knowledge of antibodies to feel confident about expanding them myself though; if others feel the same or don't want to plough through them just now then as most of them have virtually no content beyond that slightly dubious sentence, deleting them wouldn't be the end of the world. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 22:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Argh. Okay, here's a full list. Whenever you have confirmed the existence of an entry on the list, cross it out and add the word 'verified'. Sound good?

1. Bapineuzumab verified [55]
2. Ecromeximab verified [56]
3. Abagovomab verified [57]
4. Oregovomab verified [58]
5. Technetium (99mTc) fanolesomab verified [59]
6. Besilesomab verified [60]
7. Lemalesomab verified [61]
8. Sulesomab verified [62]
9. Denosumab verified [63]
10. Gavilimomab verified [64]
11. Afelimomab verified [65]
12. Faralimomab verified [66]
13. Catumaxomab verified [67]
14. Ertumaxomab verified [68]
15. Adecatumumab verified [69]
16. Altumomab verified [70]
17. Anatumomab mafenatox verified [71]
18. Aselizumab verified [72]
19. Arcitumomab verified [73]
20. Atorolimumab verified [74]
21. Bavituximab verified [75]
22. Bectumomab verified [76]
23. Belimumab verified [77]
24. Bertilimumab verified [78]
25. Biciromab brallobarbital verified [79] (this is as close as I can get, but it looks legit)
26. Bivatuzumab mertansine verified [80]
27. Cantuzumab mertansine verified [81]
28. Cedelizumab verified [82]
29. Ipilimumab verified [83]
30. Lerdelimumab verified [84]
31. Metelimumab verified [85]
32. Zanolimumab verified [86]
33. Ziralimumab (preliminarily looks OK but I couldn't find any sources I really liked)
34. Dorlimomab aritox (same here)
35. Zolimomab aritox verified [87]
36. Elsilimomab verified [88]
37. Inolimomab verified [89]
38. Odulimomab verified [90]
39. Vepalimomab verified [91]
40. Galiximab verified [92]
41. Gomiliximab verified [93]
42. Golimumab verified [94]
43. Maslimomab verified [95]
44. Keliximab verified [96]
45. Lumiliximab verified [97]
46. Teneliximab verified [98]
47. Vapaliximab verified [99]
48. Tremelimumab verified [100]
49. Erlizumab verified [101]
50. Fontolizumab verified [102]
51. Ocrelizumab verified [103]
52. Pascolizumab verified [104]
53. Pexelizumab verified [105]
54. Reslizumab verified [106]
55. Rovelizumab verified [107]
56. Ruplizumab verified [108]
57. Siplizumab verified [109]
58. Talizumab verified [110]
59. Tocilizumab verified [111]
60. Toralizumab verified [112]
61. Visilizumab verified [113]
62. Pemtumomab verified [114]
63. Mepolizumab verified [115]
64. Exbivirumab verified [116]
65. Libivirumab verified [117]
66. Sevirumab verified [118]
67. Tuvirumab verified [119]
68. Felvizumab verified [120]
69. Motavizumab verified [121]
70. Inotuzumab ozogamicin verified [122]
71. Lintuzumab verified [123]
72. Matuzumab verified [124]
73. Nimotuzumab verified [125]
74. Sibrotuzumab verified [126]
75. Sontuzumab (looks OK but no good refs)
76. Tacatuzumab tetraxetan verified [127]
77. Tadocizumab verified [128]
78. Tefibazumab verified [129]
79. Tucotuzumab celmoleukin verified [130]
80. Epratuzumab verified [131]
81. Atlizumab verified [132]
82. Nerelimomab verified [133]
83. Urtoxazumab verified [134]
84. Pagibaximab verified [135]
85. Volociximab verified [136]
86. Iratumumab verified [137]
87. Lexatumumab verified [138]
88. Mapatumumab verified [139]
89. Ofatumumab verified [140]
90. Pritumumab verified [141]
91. Zalutumumab verified [142]
92. Stamulumab verified [143]
93. Efungumab verified [144]
94. Raxibacumab verified [145]
95. Labetuzumab verified [146]
96. Capromab pendetide verified [147]
97. Detumomab verified [148]
98. Epitumomab cituxetan (once again, no great refs but looks alright)
99. Igovomab verified [149]
100. Minretumomab verified [150]
101. Mitumomab verified [151]
102. Nacolomab tafenatox verified [152]
103. Technetium (99mTc) pintumomabverified[153]
104. Satumomab pendetideverified[154]
105. Taplitumomab paptoxverified[155]
106. Edobacomab verified [156]
107. Imciromab verified
108. Technetium (99mTc) nofetumomab merpentan verified[157]

I'd recommend making it a subpage in someone's user space. That will keep this organized. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It will also ensure that nothing happens, or that two people are expected to do it. Actually, it is more useful than half the moronic threads that appear here.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, from what I can see everything has been checked and from what I can see 100% of these contribs are legit. The ones I marked as not having any references I liked only had hits on suppliers in China or that sort of thing, but were the sort of pages that were unlikely at best to have picked up from Wikipedia. Seems resolved to me. hbent (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The ones with no good sources could probably go to AfD, I can find them listed here but there is no indication that they are in common use. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say we can use the duck test here and assume the rest aren't hoax since only 4 out of 108 are unverifiable. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

They are witches?! Burn the witches!! BURN THEM!!! – Sadalmelik ☎ 07:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Ringkorea

Ringkorea (talk · contribs) This is a request to keep an eye on this new editor, whose only contributions to Wikipedia have been edits to promote South Korea and South Korean companies at the expense of Japan and Japanese companies. I've issued him a final warning, but past experiences with nationalism here on Wikipedia have shown that warnings have little effect on nationalist editors. Horologium (talk) 06:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Didn't stop after the warning. Cheers. lifebaka++ 12:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Request an uninvolved admin to close a merge debate on lycanthrope and werewolf

 Done --CBD 12:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, I proposed a merger here of lycanthrope and werewolf and discussed it at Wikipedia_talk:Merge#Protocol_in_mergers.2C_how_much_is_consensus.3F about when and how to end this. I can't see how this can be closed as anything other than a merge and would close it myself as such, but it may be more appropriate for an uninvolved admin to do so. I did try to close it early after a flurry of early support but was reverted. I can do the moving around of material from lycanthrope. Thoughts? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty straightforward. --CBD 12:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - much appreciated, just felt an impartial close was prudent :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Double Redirects

I just did a merge and don't have time to fix the Double Redirects, could somone please do that for me the Source page was "Chigger" and the destination was "Harvest mite" Thanks Etineskid (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it to a disambiguation, per the discussion on its talk page. Euryalus (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

... and fixed the redirects. This wasn't something that required admin assistance - next time there's a mite-related editing issue you can usually find someone to help at the Arthropods Wikiproject. Euryalus (talk) 04:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought the software does that now? -- Ned Scott 04:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That's moves. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 04:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Requesting admin make note in my block log

Resolved

 – I came here to make a simple request but I too many it seems not not so simple, I don't see how this block-log note is controversial, he admitted his block was in error. I will try to contact him about this but I doubt he will respond as he seems to be retired. But anyways, I am sorry for growing AN by another couple thousand bytes, there are better things too do than argue over this. -Icewedge 05:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Back on 1 July I was mistakenly blocked as a "Vandalism-only account"; this block was incorrect, the blocking admin saw a page move I was making to a page with an allready obscene title (see below) and thought I was committing move vandalism.

20:52, 1 July 2008 Icewedge (Talk | contribs) moved Talk:It's the Bootleg, Muthaf*ckas! Vol. 1 to Talk:It's the Bootleg, Muthafuckas! Vol. 1 ‎ (The cover title does not contain the censor.) (revert)

20:52, 1 July 2008 Icewedge (Talk | contribs) moved It's the Bootleg, Muthaf*ckas! Vol. 1 to It's the Bootleg, Muthafuckas! Vol. 1 ‎ (The cover title does not contain the censor.) (revert)

He quickly realized his error and rescinded his block in less than a minute however but now looking back on it his unblocking edit summary "maybe not" leaves a lot to be desired in terms of explanation so could some admin give me a one second block with a block reason explaining the circumstances of the this block and how I was not committing vandalism, I imagine something like " note: the block at 20:53, 1 July 2008 by User:Pilotguy was in error, he misinterpreted a good faith page move by Icewedge to a page with an already obscene name and incorrectly assumed he was committing move vandalism". Icewedge (talk) 05:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you ask Pilotguy first? Jehochman ^Talk 05:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(EC With Jehochman's comment above)I would not be comfortable doing so unless Pilotguy acedes to it; I have no idea what he was thinking, and for that reason, I cannot comment on his intents in these matters. You may have a better chance if you contacted him directly. If he made an honest mistake, he may be willing to make such a note himself. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought about that, but PilotGuy has not edited for over a month and a half. I must say I don't see what is even minutely controversial about that, PilotGuy made an honest mistake for which he later apologized to me on my talk page ([158]) and I just dont want users who go to my block log getting the impression that I was committing vandalism (but that I was not vandalism-only). Icewedge (talk) 05:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you might need this diff ([159]) to get the context of the first diff. Icewedge (talk) 05:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Generally, if an admin blocks someone and then immediately rescinds the block, it means that the original one was wrong. If someone yells at you for your block log, just show them the diff of Pilotguy apologizing. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I have let it be for such a long time but looking back at it now I see how it would be easy for a user to get the impression "Icewedge vandalized something, but he was not vandalism only so PilotGuy decided not to block him". Its not a huge issue as, yes, if it is brought up I can explain easily, but it is more about impressions, if a user wants to see who I am they might go to my contribs and maybe check my block log and then wander off thinking I had in the past committed vandalism. Icewedge (talk) 05:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I think you would care (and go through all this trouble) is if you're planning an RfA. I know there are some irrational RfA opposes, but I think a simple statement in the nom or acceptance section would take care of it. You're getting pushback here because I think us other admins would prefer that the original blocker make a statement, instead of us presuming his reasoning/error, etc. Tan | 39 05:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think most editors would see that block as a (very) quickly undone mistake. It seems to me that adding something to the log would draw more attention to it, not less. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh true, but too visitors to my block log it still begs the question why was I blocked in the first place. I am just trying to explain it too them, how about just the note, "the below block was made after this page move: 20:52, 1 July 2008 Icewedge (Talk | contribs) moved It's the Bootleg, Muthaf*ckas! Vol. 1 to It's the Bootleg, Muthafuckas! Vol. 1 ‎ (The cover title does not contain the censor.)"? (#to Tan) Yes I am thinking I may submit another RfA sometime around Christmas but this is not really why I am doing this (as you are correct, it would be easy to make a note of it) but when I come across a new user in and AfD or something I will often check their contribs and block log to see what kind of user I am dealing with and if someone does such a breif pass on me I would rather not have them walk away with misconseptions. Icewedge (talk) 05:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you should ignore any editor who actually would care about a block lasting less than a minute where the blocking admin wrote "maybe not". Anyone who would honestly have any misconception based on that would probably be able to find a lot more things to make misconceptions from. Adding more short blocks will lead to questions and, playing devil's advocate, pointing to this thread as the reason you asked for the additional "explanation blocks" by outside admins starts to look like someone who is way too concerned with how others view them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Request uninvolved admin to make a determination of outcome for RFC

Please see here. You may also be interested to read the comments here if you wish to be the one to close the discussion. Thank you! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Raj Patel

Is this article a hoax or is this for real? --Túrelio (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's a hoax, it's fooled amazon. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) For real; Patel has been (at least seemingly) omnipresent since the publication of Stuffed & Starved. Joe 18:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably should have checked the history before replying; the version about which you (one imagines) wrote was, as you suspected, not wholly accurate. Joe 18:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 07:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Champ Car circuits

I added Image:Detroit Grand Prix on Belle Isle route.svg to the B column next to Belle Isle. The image is not there. An X with the words "Belle Isle" is there. What happened? And can it be fixed? Fclass (talk) 03:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Please provide with the diff of what you are talking about. You have a dozen edits to that article in the last few days alone. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It was in this edit. It's something to do with the image size but the question is more suited to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Image not appearing. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 09:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem with anti-Vandalism bots?

Is there a problem with the different anti-Vandalism bots which usually revert page blanking and other blatant vandalism? Unless I missed something, these bots don't appear to be working this morning. There's a ton of vandalism they used to revert slipping through the cracks.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

ClueBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) hasn't made an edit since Sept. 30. —Kww(talk) 14:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

VoABot II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) hasn't made an edit since Sept. 19.—Kww(talk) 14:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

XLinkBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems healthy.—Kww(talk) 14:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Was there some consensus change I missed which disallowed these anti-Vandalism bots? I always thought they did a great job.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. I just hope people remember that I can't do anything but comment.—Kww(talk) 14:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the ClueBot system seems to be up and running, except for ClueBot itself. The most recent ClueBot report (from today) says:

ClueBot is currently enabled. ClueBot currently has 764137 contributions.

ClueBot has attempted to revert 0 unique article/user combinations in the last 24 hours. ClueBot knows of 1003 different articles that have been vandalized in the last 48 hours.

I don't know what's happening, this does seem strange. VoABot is also working today. I'd recommend asking Cobi about ClueBot, and Voice of All about VoABot II. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've left them messages - hopefully they will deal with the problems with their respective bots. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, everyone. I raised this issue here because I wasn't sure if there was a larger problem behind the scenes that an admin would have to address, or if this was a problem with the specific bots. Until this issue is resolved, I also hope my fellow admins will join in on the vandalism patrol. Best, --SouthernNights (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

What in the world? Removing my comment? Which admin tool are you suggesting we use here? —Wknight94 (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for that. I was working on another project when I saw your edit summary and I thought you'd deleted this thread. My intent was to place the thread back on ANI, which obviously wasn't needed. As for bringing up bot problems there, this is an admin noticeboard and I wanted this issue brought to the attention of my fellow admins, figuring some of them would know what to do. It appears this was a correct assumption, based on the helpful comments in this thread.--SouthernNights (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The ClueBot's control panel is accessible to all admins, but only admins.—Kww(talk) 16:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah ha. That should have been mentioned earlier. Communication Breakdown. Still, SouthernNights is an admin and could do something there him/herself. But I'll drop this sub-thread........ —Wknight94 (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Admins have access to the emergency-off switch and the IRC-side of ClueBot. (Where to report things and such) Only I have access to anything resembling a "control panel", though. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 17:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. It's VOA Bot II with an admin-adjustable control panel.—Kww(talk) 17:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any experience with bots. That is why I brought the issue up here. --SouthernNights (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolution

Yes, ClueBot has been broken for a few days. The server which was running it had a hard disk crash. Luckily I have a backup from 1 day prior to the crash, so nothing was lost. I have moved the backup file to another server and am setting up the requisite databases and such and will likely have it back up and running very soon. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 17:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy reply! Nothing makes you appreciate the AVBs as much as when they are out of action and we are forced to revert vandals by hand! --Kralizec! (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No wonder we have to undos and reverts ourselves recently... OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 12:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The Anomebot 2

User:The Anomebot2 need stop be stopped temporarily, until this problem is fixed. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked; anyone can feel free to unblock once it's resolved. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've found and fixed the bug ("WP:" was incorrectly being detected as an interwiki prefix), and confirmed correct operation using one of the test cases given by the reporter on my talk page; I'm currently running a short test run. Please reblock it if there are any more problems. -- The Anome (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for Topic ban to be lifted

As my topic ban of an inital topic ban of 2 months has long since expried i now request this to be offically lifted.--Rockybiggs (talk) 09:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you link to the original discussion for those not familiar with it? MBisanz ^talk 12:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, please see here [160]--Rockybiggs (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• It seems to have been extended to 3 months - so please wait 11 more days. I don't know the details of this, but if your contributions were so bad as to earn you a 2 month (extended to a 3 month) topic ban, and you are now so keen to get back to the same topics, I'd not be optimistic that your involvement in those topics is likely to be so valuable to the project that we'd been keen to have you back 11 days before we have to.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This was imposed on the 8th July (original) this exprires this week, and should be lifted, also as per these findings these user have had bans lifted [161] and can freely now edit, same should apply to me.--Rockybiggs (talk) 12:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

According to Mangojuice's unblock, your ban should expire on Oct 18th. It's far from clear, looking at the diffs, exactly how or why a decision regarding Domer48 would be applicable to your ban. Can you explain why that should be? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well as Mango states `Note that you are still topic banned, and the topic ban will expire in *three* months now (that is, the same date as before). That to me means the 8th of July is `the same date as before`. Hey if you guys want me to wait another 11 days then thats fine, doesn`t bother me either way, ive had it for three months, just seems to me that it should be up now. I felt the ban was OTT anyway, and i brought the Domer case up a proof of my OTT sanction. So if i have to wait another 11 days i take it i dont have to come back here, and i assume im free to edit anywhere i wish.--Rockybiggs (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

From the comments in Rockbiggs' user page and block log, it appears that the topic ban expires 3 months from July 8. Month can either mean what it usually does, and thus, by my watch 14.5 hours from now, or it can mean ninety days. Either way, we're splitting hairs here, but it is not 11 days, its at most one, maybe two.--Tznkai (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Technically, as I read it, it's 3 months from this edit, which is about 22 hours from now (or from the time the block was shortened, which was 1 minute later); however, you should probably be very careful about your edits to that page. There is no need for some "official" lifting - as soon as it expires, you are technically free to edit those pages.

I would also like to point out that the ban wasn't extended - part of it was to be served under a full block, and some was merely a topic ban; Mango reduced the first part without reducing the whole ban, thereby the second part naturally got the difference. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The original topic ban notice suggests that the ban lasts for at least 2 months, but Mangojuice noted it was 3 months from the original date, in which case, the minimum duration of the term (I think) will be served in 2 days time. Now the question is if the community has a problem with the topic ban being lifted or would like it to continue after 9 October 2008? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

How can it continue ? a harsh ban was imposed and time served, surely you can`t suggest amending the sentence after the punishment has been issued and served. I am truly staggered by your comments Ncmvovalist. This should not be put to the community --Rockybiggs (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it depends on your point of view. From your point of view, it was a punishment. But in reality, such topic bans are to prevent disruption to the pages within a topic. So in reality, it can be put to the community in the form of a question as to whether or not the community is willing to allow you to edit those pages again. Not taking a side here, but there is a fundamental misconception in your post. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don`t see a fundamental flaw, as i was banned and imposed with a topic ban. The Ban was expired/lifted and now the same applies with the topic ban. Which Mango quite clearly stated was a 3month ban. I see your point Fritzpoll may apply in other cases, but i am dealing with hard facts which were clearly stated here [162] --Rockybiggs (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The fundamental flaw in your reasoning that "This should not be put to the community" is that, as a community-driven project, the community have every right to reexamine a topic ban. Consensus can change, after all. As policies of Wikipedia, these too are "hard facts". Again, no opinion either way Fritzpoll (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

After being banned for about 3 weeks and also concurrently serving a 3month ban on ALL Irish related subjects, i think that arguement is flawed. As User Od Mishehu stated, there is no need for an offical lifting, the ban is finished and technically im free to edit. --Rockybiggs (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, absolutely. But my point was that if the community wants to consider it, or someone wants to put it to them, then they can. Your earlier comment implied that you believed that this was not allowed, and I was pointing out your error. But yes, once the ban is completed in around 2 days, you are free to edit as you like. Caution is advised though. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Namespace name change

For those who do not follow the technical Village Pump, please take note of this thread. In short (assuming no major issues arise) in about a week the Image namespace will be renamed to File. All links using the Image: prefix (i.e.: Image:whatever.jpg) will still work fine. This change will effect all Wikimedia projects. Regards, Rjd0060 (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

When did our verifiability policies change?

Regarding the article of the recently deceased Johnny "J", there appears to be a dispute regarding verifiable content. Is this diff [163] correct when non-verified content is in dispute? I am fairly certain it is inappropriate but perhaps I need a reality check. RFerreira (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Restoring unsourced content to a biography of a living person isn't acceptable. PhilKnight (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the subject is no longer living, but the dispute over this article is a perfect example of why we have notability criteria in the first place. If a person has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", it is not possible to write an encyclopedia article on their life (and death) that meets the non-negotiable policy of WP:V. — Satori Son 18:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The person died less than a week ago, so while I'm not looking to enact WP:BLP in this instance, although it may arguably still apply, my question is really about content that has been challenged as unverifiable. Is it proper to restore said disputed content and fact tag it, or should it be left removed until a valid source can be cited? RFerreira (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you believe it to be untrue? --NE2 19:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that it is disputed and I cannot verify it, despite multiple Google searches. It has been my experience in my several years here as a Wikipedia editor that many times false information is inserted into biographical articles, perhaps in good faith, and later caused problems including publicity problems for Jimmy Wales during certain interviews with newscasters. That is certainly something I'm not looking to perpetuate despite whether or not I think something may or may not be true, that's not for me to judge. Any help here? RFerreira (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." If it cannot be verified by reliable sources after a good faith attempt to do so, it should be removed. — Satori Son 19:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of the page Mood city as it was created by me by a mistake.

Please delete. The correct site is named Mood (city). Thx UndersavedHassan (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have redirected that page to Mood (city). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at Wikipedia:Requested moves

Assistance is requested to assist in clearing the backlog at WP:RM. Any help is, as always, appreciated. Thanks! JPG-GR (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The Anomebot2

Resolved

It appears that the changes being made by User:The Anomebot2 are having some strange side effects. See this change. Large portions of the article show changes, but I cannot tell what the changes are. I suggest stopping the bot until the changes being made are understood. -- Tcncv (talk) 01:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Are there others? I looked at about a dozen random diffs from the bot's contribs and didn't see any like that one. Mr.Z-man 01:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the great majority are OK, but I found a few more here, here and here. I also saw a few changes where the bot removed some extra blank lines, which seems harmless. Perhaps the changes are harmless, other than cluttering up compares. -- Tcncv (talk) 02:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I checked the edit-window text in the version of Hampton Roads preceding the bot's edit against the current edit-window text, and what the bot appears to have done was delete some extraneous word spaces that were present at the end of various paragraphs. Doesn't look like a problem. Deor (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. That seems harmless. I guess that's the kind of cleanup that probably doesn't need approval. Sorry to be a bother. -- Tcncv (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I've now made the tidying code a little less agressive, so although it will still compress multiple blank lines into one, it will no longer trim whitespace off the ends of lines, which was what was causing the diff tool to see these as paragraph changes. -- The Anome (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Fclass

I lifted User:Fclass's indefinite block a few weeks ago, in spite of his blatant block evasion and many broken promises, because I thought I saw a spark of helpfulness in his edits. However, he seems to keep sliding back into his old disruptive editing habits, so I have again, unhappily, blocked him indefinitely. Since I've had a kind of stake in this user, I'm putting the block up for review here and will very happily abide by whatever outcome the community sees fit. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with an indef block of Fclass, after looking through his talk page and his previous blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good call to me. Unfortunate that he didn't take advantage of the opportunity offered. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

While I greatly admire Gwen Gale’s patience with this editor, I will repeat what I have said many times: We waste far too much time and energy on this kind of user. And after wasting a half hour myself reviewing the editing behavior of Fclass, I can say with confidence we should move from indef block to site ban. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right, and it’s time for this person to find a new hobby. — Satori Son 21:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse block - I've noticed Fclass in the past few weeks, most recently raising a concern with Gwen about this. I support the block given based on the above. D.M.N. (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the block and also agree this user should be considered banned. Mangojuice^talk 23:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

A WP civil and Assume Good Faith Warning Needed

There has been a small dispute about who should be listed in the commanders box on the American Revolutionary War. I and several others have reverted edits by User:Albrecht. The dispute is beside the point here. Here is his last edit summary. That's quite enough of your vandalistic non-edits with non-summaries. The only "unneeded" entry is John Paul Jones, who commanded 1/20 the tonnage of d'Orvilliers or Cordova. Many of his other edit summaries, while not as bad as this one, have been, well, it is difficult to describe, but offensive is a shaky word to use. Montgomery & Arnold led a miserable little band into Canada and J.P. Jones was a glorified frigate pirate. Cordova, d'Orvilliers and Suffren captained large fleets. No comparison. I just ask that he be advised to assume good faith in disagreements.-Kieran4 (talk) 02:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest Acts by Admn Guy

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.

---

This is a dead horse. Stop beating it. lifebaka++ 21:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Guy has resorted to conflict of interest acts. 1) 'making the complaint yourself and immedialy blocking it yourself is wrong.' here. 2) In the similar manner Guy participated as an editor influencing the discussions on a framed sanction on Naadapriya then passed the judgment and resorted to blocking on the same issue as Admn. this discussion:It is wrong and clear conflict of interest. It is like acting as one of the Plaintiffs and the judge on the same issue. Naadapriya requests Admns to null Guy's decision as Admn on sanction. Naadapriya (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The removal of that opinion wouldn't change consensus on the issue. Besides, that's a community discussion, and Guy was merely carrying out what appears to be the community's will on the subject. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Guy participated from the beginning of the event as an editor that has led to framed sanction which will be protested. During the discussions Guy has dragged unrelated personal statements from my user's page which other editors also used it to attack me. Guy's comments have influenced and encouraged other users to persuade a wrong procedure to resolve a content issue which otherwise could have been settled based on consensus based voting. Passing the judgment as an Admn on the same issue and also blocking on related matter are clear conflicts of interest. To the best of my knowledge it is wrong as per wikipedia guidelines. I will rebut the issues that led to the make believe consensus separately. This ANI is to null Guy's inappropriate actions as an Admn. Allowing such actions will set an wrong example to scholar quality archival information of Wikipedia. Guy should have left other editors to conclude and decide if sanction procedure by ad-hoc group was valid or not. Therefore please NULL Guy's concluding decision on the sanction and the notice that he posted on my talk page as an Admn. ThanksNaadapriya (talk) 06:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can't. He still read consensus right. So, all I can reasonably do itis back up the application of a topic ban. I'll look into Guy's actions later, however. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately Guy was intensively involved in arriving at the consensus. Thanks for your effort to follow-up on this. Being a Jr editor I do not understand 'reasonably do it back up the application of a topic ban '. Please explain. Naadapriya (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

That was a typo. I meant "all I can reasonably do is back up...". Fixed above. lifebaka++ 21:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. Please explain what does 'So, all I can reasonably do is back up the application of a topic ban.' in the present context. Also please let me know possibly when you can look into Guy's action. Since the obvious conflict of interest actions by Guy have significantly influenced the framed sanction, I need to include it in my appeal if sanction is not reversed by Admns here. ThanksNaadapriya (talk) 03:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I won't be overturning it. Having reread the discussion, consensus is clearly that a topic-ban is appropriate. Beyond that, it is not my place as an admin to defy the will of the community.

I also just looked over Guy's actions regarding this. He doesn't appear to have done anything wrong. He participated in an RFC on the article, and then notified you of the sanctions, which clearly were forming a snowball. Having been involved in the one doesn't preclude the other. So, you should include it into your appeal if you still feel that it is an issue, but I'm relatively sure it isn't. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This ANI was not to overturn the framed sanction. It is to address the Conflict of Interest by Admn. Responses are drifting away here. ' doesn't appear ' ?? Guy has explicitly walked the opinions through from the beginning. Following the Admn's Etiquette Guy should have excused from any Admn related action. Guy's final conclusion and notice as Admn are not ethical. Please provide answer to ANI issue. Without nulling the Admn improper role it is almost impossible to proceed with an appeal on the framed sanction. Thanks Naadapriya (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Naadapriya has continued to engage in distraction fallacies and misrepresentations, and is now continuously beating a dead horse and forum-shopping. He was blocked and sanctioned for disruptive editing (and atrocious POV pushing). The reason he thinks it is impossible to have the sanction overturned is because there's nothing to justify it. The next step after a topic ban is a community ban. I suggest he cease with the disruption and move on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Please focus on the issue in ANI

Above comment by Ncmvocalist is like comments from Loose cannon. As in the past Ncmvocalist is missing the point again and started misleading. This ANI is about improper Admn actions not a request to overturn the framed sanction. Above comment by Ncmvocalist is mute in this context. Naadapriya (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Unusual Acts (here) by Admns LessHeard vanU and Guy

Admn LessHeard vanU who had ongoing intimate transactions with Ncmvocalist

Blocks me just within about 37 minutes after Ncmvocalist posts an ANI to block me

Acknowledged that it was done without reading the comment which clearly showed my edit was not a revert.

Completely ignored the edit protect decision made by Georgewilliamherbert just about 5 minute back on a related matter.

Making a major decision to block within such a very short duration of time, not reading the comments and ignoring the other Admn action just minutes before are very unusual. It takes a while to make such a drastic decision of blocking that too without knowing the article.

In addition Admn Guy endorses the blocking within about 20 minutes. Guy was never involved in any of the past related discussions

All above decisions by Admns have been made within unusually very short period of time regarding a content dispute that is going on for months, that too when they were not involved any of the past discussions. Such unusual chain actions by Admns discourages and unnecessarily misleads to think otherwise many Jr editors like me. Admn need to investigate what led to such hasty decisions.Naadapriya (talk) 07:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything obviously bad going on there. Appears to have been a proper block. Looking at the article, both you and User:Ncmvocalist appear to have been in a revert war, and blocking is acceptable in such cases. It only takes a few minutes to verify these things. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that deliberate reverts results in immediate blocking. Please see the history. Mine was not a revert. I added back a section (which was there for months with consent of many editors) that Ncmvocalist had deleted without any discussions. Ncmvocalist's action was concluded earlier by erachima as vandalism (here). Though one can accept the decision by Georgewilliamherbert to edit protect the full article to cool things, singling-out me for blocking by LessHeard vanU (who just had intimate transaction with Ncmvocalist on other matter) and instantaneous endorsement by Guy (who participated in the framed sanction later) are highly questionable. Hope Admns investigate it in depth. That action has led to further intensify personal attacks by Ncmvocalist and also might have even served as an encouragement for framing a sanction. Though nothing can be done about the expired unjustified blocking, throwing light on the issues will prevent others to follow similar actions. Thanks Naadapriya (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The three revert rule only doesn't count "blatant and obvious vandalism", not content disputes, which that appears to have been. I suspect you're beating a dead horse here. If you'd like to appeal the topic ban, I suggest you compile your evidence and drop a line to the Arbitration Committee. Cheers. lifebaka++

Please note just before my edits Ncmvocalist more such acts. Still I was singled-out by LessHeard vanU who just had intimate correspondence with [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist] on other issue. Yes, I am working on rebuttal on the framed sanction. This issue and my rebuttal are separate. This is about questionable Admns role. horse is not dead . Admns' impartial, diligent, objective and careful roles (that were missing in this issue) are keys to continued success of wikipedia. I may leave this here hoping that Admns look into it further which is needed for future healthy editing articles. Naadapriya (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the actions of others don't have anything to do with your block. Whether or not Ncmvocalist was also blocked doesn't matter in regards to your block. As I stated above, it was a proper block. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not imply that Ncmvocalist should been blocked not me. To date I have not posted a single ANI to block any editor. Always I have worked towards consensus and reasonable compromise on extreme content disputes. Here I am questioning Admns improper blocking approach. You stated 'proper block' but did not comment on three observations I made. No one has explained including LessHeard vanU why blocking was done in a such a hurry without even reading comments and contradicting another Admns action that happened minutes before. Hope some one clears the air soon. Thanks Naadapriya (talk) 03:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The difference between blocking edit warriors and full protecting an article during edit wars is usually admin discretion. When there are fewer editors involved in a war, blocks are often better, as they allow other editors to continue working on the article in peace. Only you and Ncmvocalist were involved in this one, and you had been warned on August 30 about the three revert rule, so a block was more appropriate than protection of the article. Hope that explains it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

'blocks are often better, as they allow other editors to continue working on the article in peace '. What! is wikipedia is a charity group to allow a selected editor to work in peace pushing POV. Please explain if not the whole discussion will be inconclusive. Looks like answers drifting from the purpose of ANI and are becoming evasive. Thanks Naadapriya (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite the contrary - this discussion is conclusive. Naadapriya has continued to engage in distraction fallacies and misrepresentations, and is now continuously beating a dead horse and forum-shopping. He was blocked and sanctioned for disruptive editing (and atrocious POV pushing). The reason he thinks it is impossible to have the sanction overturned is because there's nothing to justify it. The next step after a topic ban is a community ban. I suggest he cease with the disruption and move on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Please focus on the issue in ANI

Above comment by Ncmvocalist is like comments from Loose cannon. As in the past Ncmvocalist is missing the point again and started misleading. This ANI is about improper Admn actions not a request to overturn the framed sanction. Above comment by Ncmvocalist is mute in this context. Naadapriya (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2008 (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.

Bong video

I found a public domain video while going through some image categories earlier, and added it here to the appropriate article. Given the subject matter, is there any historical consensus on this sort of thing? Since it's not illegal in all jurisdictions (even in the United States, where Medical_marijuana#United_States is allowed legally in some places) I'm wondering what past precedent with this sort of thing is, for, well, drug videos. rootology (C)(T) 22:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is remove it from the article (it's not really needed there), move it to Commons (as PD), and let them deal with it. Not that I'm condoning passin' the buck on this one, or anything... Anyways, unless anyone's got a better idea, I'd rather not actually touch the issue. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's already on commons, but moving it there isn't something for them to deal with, since PD is PD, I'm an admin there. :) I meant as far as usage here, for the points Rod mentioned below. rootology (C)(T) 00:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

As soon as author info's recorded, mark the local version for WP:CSD#I8. Discuss the use on the article's talk page. That should do it. lifebaka++ 01:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering that the article in which it is displayed clearly says "marijuana, tobacco or other substances", there is no necessary inference that we are depicting a crime. I'd agree that if it's PD, it can go to Commons, where I would argue the same. --Rodhullandemu 00:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually moved it to commons as soon as I saw it. It was the points that Rod brought up that I was curious about. rootology (C)(T) 00:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Possession of marijuana is illegal in most of the U.S. but possession of the video isn't. Any legal liability would rest on the the person seen in the video, and only in the event that his local jurisdiction identified him from the video, and decided it is probable cause for a search warrant on his home. This is unlikely as his face is off-camera, so I wouldn't worry about it. That's assuming he's not actually using some non-prohibited smokable substance like tobacco or salvia etc. This couldn't be proven in a court of law anyway, not based on the video. I wouldn't worry about it. — CharlotteWebb 03:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any use in having it in an article, and there may be long term fallout from outside the 'pedia to having it. I would suggest leaving it out. Dlohcierekim 03:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, there may be at least a handful of readers who have never used a bong (and may have difficulty understanding, from the article alone, the physics behind it). I suppose we could instead have a cartoonish looking cannabis user getting stoned in an animated gif. — CharlotteWebb 04:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

To throw in my two cents, I'd probably link to it (indirectly) via one of our sister link boxes for commons. "Commons has media related to Bongs.." That way it's available to the reader, but less.. prominent (for a lack of better words). -- Ned Scott 04:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

editing my Wikipedia page

Dear, Wikipedia administrators. I REALLY appreciate the service that Wikipedia provides as a research tool. I would like to add biographical information and some related links to the page that describe me and my work on Wikipedia. I tried adding the bio on 2.28.09 and it never showed up. I'm sure that I must have not followed the proper protocol. I tried again today unsuccessfuly. It's important to me that this section reflects the latest data and links regarding my investigative work. Can someone from Wikipedia get in touch with me so that I can follow the proper procedure and update my section. Many thanks. Peter Lance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Lance My email address is netgraph@earthlink.net

Multiple problems here with WP:COI and copy-pasting, POV, etc., I'll drop a note on the editor's talk page. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)