Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive192

Dispute at Manual of Style (icons)

Hi. I would like some uninvolved folks to look in at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons) if possible.

Oicumayberight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) wishes to make certain changes to the guideline and initiated an RfC towards that goal on 16 March. As no apparent consensus had been reached after six weeks, I removed the two tags in the guideline (I was not involved in the discussion and it seemed to me to have run its course). Oicumayberight restored the tags with the edit summary "Tags should remain until disputes are resolved."

As it seems only to be this one editor who wishes to change the guideline, it seems unreasonable to restore the tags in this way. I also have concern that by adding a somewhat biased section title to a comment I made in talk, the editor has effectively refactored what I wrote. The discussion may be seen at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)#Removing tags before dispute is resolved. I am not invested one way or the other in the outcome, but it seems to approach WP:POINT that this one editor seems to be trying to hold the guideline hostage until they get their way. Maybe Oicumayberight will listen to other admins if they are able to speak to them.

Best of luck and thanks for reading. --John (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only one that is concerned at the Manual of Style being some sort of administrative/dispute deathtrap with the end result being its contents ignored by a large, perhaps overwhelming portion of our writers?--Tznkai (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I know what you mean,. That would be a shame as any professional quality publication has and uses a manual of style or a style guide. Maybe as this is partly a user conduct issue I should have gone straight to AN/I instead. --John (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who wishes to remove tags should show some patience. The last resolution on that page took almost 2 months between the time the tag was placed [1] and the time that the issue was finally resolved [2]. It's an exaggeration of the dispute to call it an attempt for one user to get his way. The guide was expanded with the WP:CREEP overreaching attempt to capitalize on prior success with a broader, more vague scope, in violation of WP:BURO. Four other users have noted similar problems with this guide on the talk page just this year, not counting those who've noted problems in the 5 other archives and countless article talk pages where the WP:MOS guide was treated as a WP:policy. Even if I was the only one, WP:Democracy is not the way to develop guides or policies. A resolution before dispute tags are removed is wikipedia's way, not just my way. And I'm not assuming that the resolution will be what I hope it will be. Oicumayberight (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai, bit harsh, I think. I believe tension around the style guides is just part of the cost of doing business. They are a rock, an anchor for WP, and important for its transition to a professional outfit, despite intermittent complaints from a few editors who don't like centralised advice (they own their own language, etc). Possibly many WPians don't know that MOS exists, but if they work at the high end (FAC, etc), they soon find out. My own writing improved significantly when I started to consult MOS and sibling pages regularly. Tony (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is harsh, but my own experience confirms Tznkai's opinion. Unless the folks there wake up to the fact that for the MoS to work they have to settle for advising, not enforcing, a standard style, it will drift towards irrelevance. -- llywrch (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the philosophical differences we may have about the proper role of the Manual of Style, can we agree in terms of procedure that after over a month without consensus and no current discussion of the proposed changes and no support for them when there was a discussion, taking down the tags would be reasonable? --John (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

@Tony, perhaps I am being a bit harsh, but the value of a manual of style is directly proportional to its clarity, stability, and universal acceptance. I'm not seeing it yet.--Tznkai (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually Tznkai is being tactful. There are relatively few places where MoS carries real weight and the difficulties in fixing it are so severe that it is easier to avoid the venues where it matters. Durova^Charge! 22:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

While this stance may represent a pragmatic one for particular users, I think that as long as we do have MoS pages they should adhere to the established norms of our DR process. This doesn't seem to be happening. --John (talk) 13:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's one solution that could reduce the scope of the problem. Wikipedia already accepts multiple citation styles and variant national spellings, mainly based upon whether an article is internally consistent. There's no inherent need to create a complete manual of style from the ground up. Except for the parts that are wiki-specific such as header instructions, we could mark most of the internal MoS historical and allow editors to use any mainstream style guide they want. Outside of FAC that's mostly what's happening anyway. Durova^Charge! 14:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindenting) Durova, that would be exactly what I'd like to do, but I was sucked into that crazy little world when some someone decided to edit war with me over some linking to some dates. (I left Wikipedia for a while because of that.) There are some people out there who see the MoS as an excuse to start fights with other editors instead of a means to resolve disputes. FWIW, I believe any efforts to enforce the MoS by means other than persuasion ought to be considered disruptive & accordingly shown the door. -- llywrch (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, one constructive step forward would be for someone to start compiling the parts of MoS that can't be duplicated via standard reference works. Perhaps by drafting in user space. Think you know MoS well enough to attempt it? You're certainly experienced enough on the wiki side. Durova^Charge! 06:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I probably could, but I don't have the time. (My weekend was filled with Real Life chores -- like most of my weekends.) But anyone with some common sense could extract it using a few of rules: (1) what can be verified to conform with the standard style guides; (2) those which educate editors on specific practices, like the sections concerning personal naming conventions; (3) those which were written to minimize conflicts, e.g. about American/British English, the AD/BC vs. CE/BCE preferences, etc. As for em/en dashes & the proper use of icons... I wouldn't object if those sections were editted thru a judicious application of WP:MfD; if there is no consensus, there is no standard for style, QED. -- llywrch (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

A dispute? At a Manual of Style page? Well, this is simply shocking. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This is all very interesting. Am I to take it that as a project we no longer have an effective manual of style and that the consensus among the admins who read this page is that it is ok for one user to hold a guideline page hostage by adding tags to it until he gets his way? --John (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't have an effective MoS, because it isn't stable. I am more ready to dive into Arbitration Enforcement full time than I am willing to step proverbial foot into the mess of MoS disputes. I do not think I am alone. The stakes are way to low, and the disruption far to high. No, it isn't particularly ok for the behavior thats going on to go on, but I honestly don't care enough to get involved. What damage is being done by this instance of stubbornness? Other than the outright silliness in using a tag meant for article space in project space. Block him, negotiate with him, start a thread on ANI, do whatever it is you want to fix it, I have no objection. I think the bigger problem is that our manual of style seems to have far more disputes than it is worth - the very value of a manual of style comes from its stability. I am not by the way suggesting that we enforce a stable version of the MoS, but that the people who edit the MoS had best get their collective act together if they expect the rest of us to use that document. Or, some very enterprising administrators can go forth and resolve the dispute, however they can.

Good luck to whoever does that, and tell me how I can help, but until someone shows me how this matters in the Big Picture, I'm not available.--Tznkai (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with this particular MOSICON is just that, an attempt to enforce what I see as a matter of subjective personal taste. My involvement is to improve it and make it more of a guide, not a poor substitution for policy. But I agree with most of the feedback here. The MOS isn't worth the disputes that surround it. The MOSICON is worse than most of the MOS because of advocates attempt to enforce what can never be objectively convincing with the recent expansion to include generic icons. And John isn't being very honest when he claims that he doesn't care either way or he would be disputing my points, not my methods of disputing. John is among the advocates to keep it as controversial as it is. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

With a respectful nod to Tznkai's opinion, the bitterness and triviality of the MoS disputes render the area a sinkhole. An ethnic or religious dispute on Wikipedia has real relevance because this is the world's most popular reference source. Consider the Greek nationalism ethnic disputes: the Greece article got over 400,000 page views in March.[3]; Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons) received exactly 1384 views during the same period.[4] One would think that a Wikipedian who has over 250 featured credits and studied writing in graduate school would be writing featured articles; I've written only two FAs. And a principal reason is because I'd rather work within a sensible featured process than get pelted with en-dashes and ellipses. I'll be uploading a restored photograph from D-Day shortly after finishing this post: not the beaches at Normandy but a synagogue in New York City that stayed open 24 hours that day for services and prayer. It's quite moving. On the whole, that's a more productive use of content volunteer time. If it were possible to trust the Chicago Manual of Style on minor points and get serious feedback about article structure and content at FAC, this site would have more featured articles. Durova^Charge! 00:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Since MOS pages seem to have special rules, can't someone go to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons), pretend that it's a normal article and try to resolve the dispute? Garion96 (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to make the entire MoS a 1RR zone. You revert war, you get blocked, end of story. Eventually people working on the MoS will learn to not treat the style guidelines as a battlefield or the blocks will accumulate until they become infef and we get rid of the people who aren't willing to change. A win-win situation. Perhaps a civility restriction as well, though that might only be necessary at MOSNUM. Mr.Z-man 20:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Splite table Toronto - Ontario

Resolved

 – Article renamed and linked from main page--Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC))

Anyone have any idea what this is? Note to creator not replied to. Exxolon (talk) 00:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

In the last Ontario provincial election, all voters were asked if Ontario should switch from a first past the post system to a mixed member proportional system (Wikipedia page here). This probably has something to do with that. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I've added a intro, moved it to Ontario electoral reform referendum, 2007 detailed results and linked it from the main article. Exxolon (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem, everything looks good. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:I already forgot

• I already forgot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - indef blocked in November 2007
• Television rules the nation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - started editing in December 2007, last edited in April 2009; self-admitted reincarnation/sockpuppet of "I already forgot"

Discovered while investigating the nonsense redirect that currently exists for User talk:I already forgot. 24.186.165.121 (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Just in case it's not clear, in this edit of IAF's talk page, TVRTN's edit summary is "blank my old talk page and redirect". Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 21:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but it's a bad cross namespace redirect. 24.186.165.121 (talk) 02:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Great job!!!

well i just wanna say u guys r doing a grt job!!this site is as useful as it gets!!!

i wanted to put a compliment but i couldn't find a place to put it,so i thought i'd put it here hope i'm nt violating anyhting!!! :P

saying again u guys r doing a great job!thumbs up!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr hiran (talk • contribs) 21:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. It's nice to hear compliments. There's always lots of work to be done. Feel free to become a volunteer and join the crowd! :) hmwithτ 05:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Fuzzy squirrel in wiki-land.png

Resolved

File:Fuzzy squirrel in wiki-land.png - Can someone please undelete this image locally and mark that it should not be moved to Commons, as it contains an image that is only PD in the US? Thanks. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 08:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 18:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Creating a redirect link for Dr. Ghazanfar Mehdi

Resolved

 – One now redirects to the other. hmwithτ 14:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Please can you permit a redirect from Ghazanfar Mehdi to Dr. Ghazanfar Mehdi to be published. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabibhassan (talk • contribs) 12:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

cant you do it yourself?  rdunnPLIB  12:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The page was actually moved to Ghazanfar Mehdi (per WP:MOS), and Dr. Ghazanfar Mehdi redirects to it. hmwithτ 14:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I did that. I could have sworn I posted here mentioning that, but evidently I only thought about doing it (exams on the brain atm). Gave the article a quick tidy, but still some key fundamentals remain a little iffy. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 15:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Mixed Excitation Linear Prediction

Resolved

Can someone knowledgeable check the recent edits by Special:Contributions/71.102.129.140? Can't tell if constructive or not. Exxolon (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like they were just cleaning up an article. Keegan^talk 03:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me too. --Salix (talk): 20:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Kind request to revert move of an article, (Macedonia related by ARBCOM injunction)

Resolved

 – pages moved back by Tiptoety

In 20th April 2009 Mactruth moved the Macedonian culture (Slavic) article, to Macedonian culture (ethnic group) here [5]. Mactruth did not undo the move in due time after he was informed[6] of the ARBCOM's temporary injunction on moving Macedonia related articles[7]

He stated consistency as the reason but the new title is also syntactically wrong, since Slavic is an adjective that was about the culture while "ethnic group" can be applied only to peoples. The resulting phrase "ethnic group culture" is not English proper. Mactruth has pushed in the past the kind of pseudohistory mentioned in the article about pseudohistory. That is "the pseudo-Macedonian theory, claiming that the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia are descendants of Ancient Macedonians and speak the same language". Mactruth uses various anti-Greek terms in his user page and other absurd claims "Greek language was extinct in 1630" and straightforward hate language like "the Greeks were more barbarian then the barbarians."

In the light of the above, removing the word "Slavic" from the title about that culture, might not have been in good faith. I am only hoping this move will be reverted just like the temporary injunction states[8]. I cannot move it since I am an involved party. Thanks in advance Shadowmorph (talk) 08:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The requested move is at Wikipedia:RM#4_May_2009 Shadowmorph (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The move clearly falls within the scope of this injuction, but I also cannot undo it, because I am an involved party. Anybody listening?!--Yannismarou (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I am discussing this with a few Arbitrators at the moment, but I think a better place for this would be at WP:AE. Tiptoety ^talk 19:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys, why all this bureaucracy? Can't somebody just go and do it? I mean, it's not as if it was a big deal or anything, and the parties to the arbitration are actually even in agreement on it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I just needed a second to review the specifics. As such, I have reverted the move per the injunction. Tiptoety ^talk 19:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Requesting neutral opinions regarding WP:WRONG and WP:PROTECT

Resolved

In response to a request for page protection at WP:RFPP, I protected WP:NOT. Of course, I protected the WP:WRONG version - and by wrong version, I mean the version that many editors, (including DreamGuy, Kww, Gavin.collins, and myself) think is wrong.

My question is, did I do the right thing? All opinions welcome! SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a policy page. If there's an edit war the default needs to be the longstanding version, not whatever somebody who comes along and who doesn't respect consensus decides to do. I think that should be the policy on article pages too, but it's epecially important on policy pages, otherwise you get edit warring and people getting away with distorted versions of policy while the page is locked. DreamGuy (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Its 2 sentences and its protected for 3 days; its not like the whole policy is in flux. The correct solution is to discuss and try to come to a quick resolution, not sit around and discuss whether the protection was good. But since we're already here, protecting then reverting to the version you think is better (except in cases of BLP or coppyvio issues), is much wronger than protecting the wrong version IMO. Mr.Z-man 17:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's what policy says too. It earned me a trout, though. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A trout undeserved, by my opinion. Of course, Wikipedia will likely collapse into a steaming pile of useless code during these three days where (gasp!) people will have to talk on the talkpage instead of simply writing over the top of each other. Endorse protect, don't CARE what version. Keeper | 76 17:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A trout undeserved in my opinion as well, despite me having started the thread at ANI. I can understand that SheffieldSteel probably would have encountered more resistance had he reverted to what he viewed as the better version. In this case, the right thing has happened: it was protected in the wrong state, it was discussed, and people agreed that it was protected in the wrong state and changed it. The only thing I would have done differently were I SheffieldSteel is that I would have opened this discussion immediately and flagged the opening of the discussion in my edit summary.—Kww(talk) 17:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Appologies to SheffieldSteel for my over-reacting. I suggest you review your membership of Category:Wikipedians open to trout slapping; like check-in staff at airports who wear Clip-ons, you might like to reconsider how you decorate your user page for the same reason :p --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

My comment here is redundant to my comments about this issue in the half dozen other parallel venues. :) I think there is a natural, unavoidable tension between WRONG and POLICY that can't and shouldn't be resolved through caveats and provisos. That space is rightly occupied by the judgment of the protecting admin. I can understand the frustration felt by people and the false sense of urgency that the incipient edit war instilled in us all, but you were within your rights to protect that page. Had you reverted it and protected you would have been castigated for violating PROTECT at the expense of supporting POLICY. Protonk (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

In defense of SheffieldSteel, I believe that by protecting the version he disagreed with, he did the right thing. The intent of page-protection is to end the bickering & edit-warring, not to gain an unfair advantage. And since the act did end both, & led to a consensus to endorse his favored version as the default version. How about instead of slapping SS with a trout, someone cook him one? Properly cooked in a skillet over an open flame with a fresh vegetable & a side dish, trout can make an enjoyable meal. -- llywrch (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Om nom nom nom. Thanks for the feedback everyone. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Test books and junk books

One of the options provided by Special:Book is to save a book to one's userspace. This feature appears to have been the subject of a lot of misuse: a quick look through Category:Wikipedia:Books shows that the vast majority of books being created are either tests or misunderstandings of the book system. (For instance, a lot of books include nothing but index pages like Main Page, Portal:Contents, and random project-space pages; contain only one article; or consist of attempts to write an article.) What I'm wondering is:

• Can any of these be speedily deleted from userspace? Which ones, and under what criteria?
• Can they be prodded? My understanding is that {{prod}} isn't allowed in userspace; however, as books are automatically created in userspace by default, is this an exception?
• If not, is it acceptable to remove Category:Wikipedia:Books from these books or replace it with another category in order to keep the contents of the category useful? Right now, the category is only really useful for finding examples of how books aren't supposed to be used.

I've constructed a list of obviously useless books (ones which contain no links to articles) at User:Zetawoof/BadBooks. Any thoughts? Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• I suspect the general CSD criteria apply. I don't think prod does. MfD for stuff that can't be speedied? Protonk (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

PROD will not physically work anywhere outside of article space. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Pity. Would CSD G2 (test page) be applicable to these sorts of pages, then? Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Technically, G2 doesn't apply to user space and I'm not seeing any other obvious match. That isn't to say no admin would speedy these pages - I just don't personally know what criteria would qualify. (I'm not an admin, so I don't really know though.) WP:MfD is the main way to get things deleted from user space.

I don't, however, see any problem with removing the Category:Wikipedia:Books category from things that obviously aren't "books" in the WP sense. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Prod works outside of article space it seems. It does give a big nasty warning, but it adds the page to prod categories. I don't know if it ever adds them to dated prod cats. Off to check. Protonk (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yup, dated prod can be triggered as well (guess that should make sense given the template is the same). Protonk (talk) 02:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't actually place the page into the relevant date category though, which means it will never actually appear on the "expiring day" and thus will never actually be deleted. (Plus the closing admin would surely not delete the page anyway, since it isn't eligible for PROD.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It does place it in that category. Since I removed the prod on User:Protonk/Tsand you can't see but you can check for yourself by either reverting on my userpage or just substituting a prod outside of article space for a short while. Protonk (talk) 03:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

We've been here before. Read Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 33#G13 Books. Uncle G (talk) 01:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks... it doesn't look like that discussion ended particularly conclusively, though. By way of experimentation, I've tagged a couple dozen obvious test books with {{db-test}}. So long as they all go through, I'll continue the process and stick anything questionable through a mass MfD once all the obvious cases are handled. Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'm noticing that a ton of the test books are attempts to write books from scratch, rather than to create a collection of articles. Any ideas for a tweak to MediaWiki:coll-intro _text to clarify this, and maybe to add a link to Wikibooks for the prospective authors? Zetawoof_(ζ) 03:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you reverted your db-test tagging of those books. G2 is quite clear about it not being applicable in userspace and I we don't need to set up those clearing the CSD queue up for failure. When I remarked above that the general criteria applied I should have been more specific. Protonk (talk) 03:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

They've already been deleted, mostly by Icestorm815. While the CSD description says it doesn't apply to pages in userspace, the initial decision to make G2 not apply to userspace pages appears to have been to ensure that user sandboxes were left alone. Without exception, every test book I've tagged for deletion was clearly the result of a new user experimenting with the Special:Book wizard. Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That's fair. When I get back from school I'll start a thread over at CSD on this. I am just incredibly wonkish when it comes to CSD decisions. Protonk (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ping me on my talk page when you do. I'd like to be involved. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

→ Discussion now at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Amending or clarifying general criteria for books. SoWhy 06:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

What should I have done here?

I'm putting my block here [9] up for review. And if correct, what template should I use? If you look at this edit history, [10] we have Wikistupidity (talk · contribs) editing (vandalising) and then Wikiconspiracy (talk · contribs) making the same edit. I'm not sure if I should have blocked the new account, blocked the old (I did give him/her a 3RR warning), or what. We also have Truth cola (talk · contribs) who may be the same editor. I'm off now, anyone can undo what I've done if I was wrong. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I blocked Wikistupidity, and looking at the history of that article, I semi-protected it for two days. Blueboy96 21:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

GREAT! You blocked Wiki-Stupidity, that's fantastic - could we throw a little salt on that as well? ... oh... wait, you're talking about a User name ... sigh ... oh well, it was a dream come true for a second there. — Ched :  ?  05:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Transient top & sidebar weirdness?

First, I am one of those oddballs who doesn't use the default MonoBook Skin -- I use Classic because (IMHO) it looks better. Anyway, twice today I've opened a page to find entries missing from the menus along the left side & at the top. The first time it was when I glanced at LessHeard vanU's talk page, which led to wonder what kind of Wikimedia wizardry had he performed there; after poking around, I refreshed his page & the weirdness vanished. I figured some vandal modified some of the base templates that are combined to create the Wikipedia pages, someone else reverted it, & I moved on. Then, just a few minutes ago I encountered this again -- & immediately had a look at the Recent Changes page, but failed to identify exactly which templates were modified. And I suspect that no one would let a vandal repeat that trick twice in a few hours. Is someone modifying these templates to fix some unreported problem? If so, I suggest they test all proposed changes against all of the standard skins to minimize user frustrations. -- llywrch (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been seeing some weird things as well in a variety of places, like my talk page, and my watch list

(diff) (hist) . . m Wikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia‎; 15:27 . . (-1,244) . . Drilnoth (talk | contribs | block) (etc)

would get reduced to something like

() () () (||) () ) []

is that what you are seeing as well? This probably belongs at WP:VPT, most of the clever folk watch there. –xeno ^talk 19:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. When I saw it on LHvU's Talk page, & noticed that the "Edit this page" tags had vanished (along with everything else except "Printable version" at the top, & almost everything along the side except "Donate to Wikipedia" & "Random article" along the side), I thought "Boy, he really wants to hear less van everyone else." -- llywrch (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Like File:Missing history.png? I've been seeing that quite a bit lately. - auburnpilot's sock 19:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's the rub. –xeno ^talk 19:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If there ever was "wikimedia wizardry" on my talkpage, I assure you it would not be of my doing - I would be the Rincewind of any wikimedia wizard order. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I got it too a couple of hours ago. My guess would be that those nasty developers have introduced a server bug somewhere. Looie496 (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI I just filed a bug report about this. Looie496 (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I've also been seeing missing entries in the side bar. For example, I just went to the Community portal and all I see in the side bar is the search box and the list of languages. If I hover my cursor over the areas where the other entries would normally be, I can click on them, but they aren't visible. I use Monobook. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, I've been getting this for a week or two. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Weirder & weirder. Let's all blame Microsoft. >:-D -- llywrch (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Usually a good scapegoat, but I'm using a Fox =) –xeno ^talk 12:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

As a programmer myself, I can tell you that this is 99% likely to be caused by some recent change to the Wikimedia site software. If you have additional information that you think might be helpful in pinning down the problem, you can add it to the bug report I pointed to above, but otherwise it's just a matter of waiting for the devs to figure it out and fix it. (I saw it on Firefox in Linux, so it doesn't seem to be client-related.) Looie496 (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well as a guy who has made a living from computers over the last 15 years, I can tell you that it is 99% more fun to blame Microsoft. (When it comes to Linux, which is my platform of choice, I just want to find the person responsible & do mean things to her/him -- no fun there.) On a more serious note, so far everyone's identified this as appearing on Firefox. Anyone seeing this on another browser, say IE or Opera? -- llywrch (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

User:I COME IN hope

Hi, all. I've seen this guy pleading for leniency via different sockpuppets. I'm all for AGF, but I don't want to overturn a block without first checking in over here and getting some feedback. If he's sincere, I think he'd make a good editor given his enthusiasm. Wouldn't be the first reformed vandal we've ever had. Any suggestions as to how to proceed? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

What I tried on simple before he got blocked for his actions on en: Unblock and mentor. I'm not around 24/7 though, so a second mentor will probably be needed. (By the way, the user is User:SchnitzelMannGreek, for those who didn't know.) Knight-Lord of the Infernal Penguins 02:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll give it a shot. I used to mentor problematic users back in my "Lucky 6.9" days. Diggin' your new username, btw.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I never knew that was you. What I did know then is that you'd be back :) Keegan^talk 04:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I would like to point out Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SchnitzelMannGreek. I am not very confident this will work out, but I guess we can try. Tiptoety ^talk 04:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Seeing how many times he has contacted me in good faith and with a desire to be unblocked so he can contribute (via email as well, now that it's working again we've shot a couple emails back and forth) and his well-intended edits on simple wikipedia (even if his edits weren't perfect, he just has to learn a bit); I am actually quite confident this will work out for the best, especially given his enthusiasm while editing. We'll just have to see, though I have high hopes and have wanted this for a while. (Please do note I was the one subject to the brunt of the abuse.) Squire of the the Infernal Knight-Lord of Penguins 15:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Missing License

Resolved

Hi, please fix the license with the today "In the news" Mainpage image File:Mikhail Saakashvili, Davos cropped.jpg. The license is {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}, see its original on Commons File:Mikhail Saakashvili, Davos.jpg. Thanks, --Martin H. (talk) 02:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

When it got brought over to wikipedia from commons they copy and pasted the licenses and our syntax is different then theirs. I tried to fix it with similar templates and licenses. Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 03:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

thx :) --Martin H. (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Biophys continuing harrassment

Biophys was warned at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive191#Ethics_of_sharing_an_account only in the last week after a set up on this very noticebard that accusations of people sharing accounts is harrassment. This is now continuing against User:Offliner at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Petri_Krohn. Making continual accusations against editors whom one is in conflict with over various articles is harrassment, and the filing of a sockpuppet report and the continuation of accusations of sharing of accounts and the like, is continuing this. Biophys has been warned many times, including at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes/Proposed_decision#Biophys, where he got off scot-free, because he promised not to do engage in such behaviour again. It is perfectly clear that he has continued such behaviour, even after getting off with nothing after his latest round of harrassment against myself. That he is now chosing to continue accusations against other users shows that this is egregious behaviour that has not stopped, and which for indications will never stop. Use of functions such as sockpuppet reports and AN, etc, does not give editors free reign to make accusations left, right and centre against editors with whom they are in content disputes with. He is well aware of Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions and it is now time that for admin intervention here against this behaviour. --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What "warning" are you talking about? I received no official warnings with regard to anything you are talking about. Filing an SPI investigation is not a harassment.Biophys (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry Russavia, but the only harassment I am seeing here is of Biophys and by you. Your post contains a series of misleading statements. Biophys was not warned (there was no consensus, although I'll agree that several editors were advised to discuss one another - primarily you and Biophys). Asking for sockpuppet investigation of a banned user is hardly a harassment (otherwise half the admins here would be guilty of it). Citing proposed arbcom decision which did not pass is hardly helpful. Biophys behavior in the last AN thread was civil and conciliatory, your behavior, however, seemed and still seems indeed to fall under Digwuren sanction (which you cite yourself...) on battlefield creation (if this thread is not aim at harassing Biophys and creating a battleground, I don't know what is). I suggest that to stop this wikidrama, we put both (to be fair and not split hairs who is more guilty) Russavia and Biophys under a parole that will prevent them from discussing one another, with the exception of formal DR procedures. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree to be placed under such parole, together with Russavia. That would save some time to WP administrators. No one wants to hear the constant bickering here.Biophys (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• The Checkuser case was accepted and clearly has merit at least investigating. Where's the beef? - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• This certainly seems unwarranted, with Russavia seeming suggesting that they begin stalking Biophys' contributions. I would support the suggestion by Piotrus before this gets ugly. Martintg (talk) 06:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, this has been already ugly for a few months. I would like to ask for some form of protection from this user (at least of the kind suggested by Piotrus). R. repeatedly reported me at the ANI for no reason, promised to invite others to fight my edits, and indeed, openly invited Offliner here, LokiiT here, Kuban Kazak here, DonaldDuck here, as well as some others who reverted my edits telling "I restored Russavia version". This should stop.Biophys (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest that a Request for comment might be in order? --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The Checkuser proved negative: [11]. In Russavia's case, despite the negative result Biophys continued to make baseless accusations and I'm afraid that this will also happen in my case. Note that in the report Biophys called me "basically an SPA"[12] and made other personal attacks as well. In October, 2008, Biophys had filed another report against me, which also proved negative: [13]. Biophys' continuous accusations have to stop. Admin action is needed to make sure that they will. Offliner (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that Biophys said: "might be a meatpuppet as well."[14] The only conclusion from this comment is, that the negative Checkuser result will not satisfy Biophys. It is probable that he will continue to make baseless accusations (just as he did in Russavia's case), unless the admins take action to put an end to this. Offliner (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This really isn't the place for this discussion. If any of you continue to have problems with each other then you need to seek some sort of Dispute resolution, not continue to post notices here where nothing is likely to happen. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

So giving an official warning to Biophys is completely beyond the capabilities of this board? Offliner (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• This is just to note that I removed all these comments prior to complaints by Offline here or anywhere. I also commented here and here.I hope this helps. Biophys (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Stats on RevisionDeleted

The RevisionDeleted function came into use at the end of January, and has been used by oversighters since that time while it's being tested and refined.

RevDel allows deletion to both Oversight and admin levels (the latter works but is not yet fully enabled for communal usage). It allows deletion/undeletion of log entries, as well as selective deletion/undeletion of posts.

Some details, and initial stats, are at WT:SIGHT#Usage of RevisionDeleted.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your analysis and explanation of this new tool. It was helpful =) –xeno ^talk 02:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Harassment and personal attacks by User:Majorly and User:Landon1980

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

Closed discussion as this is not the place for it. Please take your dispute to your own talk pages or follow the directions at WP:DR. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Majorly was warned on his talk page and reverted one of his attacks [15] with a snarky edit summary [16]. But continues attacks [17] evn after.

Landon making similar attacks [18]. Doesn't seem wiling to let go [19] and [20].

Now they've started removing content from a userpage because of "plagarism" [21]. Probably violates 3RR adn edit warring. I think everyone has been quite patient with these two, but enough is enough. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Landon's comments definitely weren't personal attacks. As for Majorly, I believe the bastard comment could be a borderline personal attack, but this likely is not harassment. If it is, then Hammersoft has also been doing some harassing, especially to Xeno. As for the userpage, nobody has violated 3RR, and you were edit warring too, mislabeling Majorly and Landon's edits as vandalism. There was an edit dispute, but no vandalism. Timmeh! 23:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Majorly is a lot of things, but he's no vandal. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 23:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

DougsTech is using Sceptre's userspace without crediting him, and is therefore plagiarising it. The bastards comment was merely in response to Hammersoft calling me (collectively) one. So if people are going to punished for "personal attacks" then he should be. Really though, there's nothing to see here apart from ChildofMidnight stirring up trouble again. The page has been fully protected, and I hope people get the message that you need to use userspace according to the GFDL, and not just steal it. Majorly talk 23:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Harassment also on May 3 and April 20 [22] if anyone wants to look at the User's talk page history. These editors need to move on and find a new hobby. That is all. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of finding new hobbies, look at your buddy DougsTech. Majorly talk 23:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no harassment. Warning COM. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Agreed. That is not vandalism, that is merely a dispute over Dougstech transcluding Sceptres subpage onto his own. I do not entirely agree with Dougs' actions, and although it might have been nice to contact him first, Majorly is in the right in removing the "Plagarism" of Sceptres subpage. Until It Sleeps 23:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre has already removed it twice. Majorly talk 23:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

And, as I was not given credit, it's technically a copyright violation and DougsTech can be blocked as such. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It may technically be, but so is any transclusion of any template. The creators of an infobox template are not credited in the proper place (the history tab) of an article. --NE2 23:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Templates are more or less code. It'd be hard to allege someone is plagiarising code. However, my RCP FAQ is text. It's my own writing. I don't want people using that without crediting me under the auspices of the GFDL. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

He did credit you. Despite your lack of courtesy he used a template with your name in it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

That isn't crediting. Not at all. He's still a plagiarist. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

ChildOfMidnight

Seems to be on a personal attack and disruption spree, based upon this thread consisting of no real evidence of harassment (see WP:HA#NOT) and the disruptive addition of a warning template to my talk page after I warned him. Administrator assistance of the usual kind maybe warranted. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think a block for about 24 hours would be suitable. We can't let disruption like this go ignored. Majorly talk 00:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre out of control?

First he puts a level 4 vandalism warning on my page and now this? What's going on? Can't we discuss the issue of "plagarizing" and personal attacks without this level of nonsense? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You made a very serious attack. If you seriously think that these messages constitute an offense comparable to the shit Amorrow pulled, you seriously need to be locked up in a psych ward. When he starts having panic attacks, when he's suicidal, when he can't sleep at night because of the harassment he's receiving, then we'll listen to you. But until then, I have no sympathy for the likes of you. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

TROUT for all

*SPLAT*

All right, that's enough. Stop it, all three of you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No kidding, this is lame. RxS (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Backlog

Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention has a backlog. Got a minute or two? 04:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

- ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 04:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

MedCab Backlog

The Mediation Cabal has an extreme backlog of new cases at the moment, and a shortage of mediators to help out. We could use some help. All that's required is some spare time, a calm mind and helpful attituide. Your help would be appreciated :) Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 05:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yay! More copyright problems!

I'd hate to bring bad news, but I've found another one.

Dger (talk · contribs) List of all articles created.

Looking at a few more articles, at least Greenish Blue, Polygonia progne and Oreas Comma were copied too. By his user page, he's a PhD. It's not like he wasn't warned. There are no excuses whatsoever. MER-C 13:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm encouraged that this is a relative newcomer, which means this isn't going to be as extensive as some and that the contributor may either not understand the policy or not know how to verify permission. (I haven't closely evaluated the sources, but I did look at this one: [26]. Permission would have to come from the copyright owners of The Butterflies of Canada. I'll look through the contrib history, list what I see at WP:CP, and drop the standard "nothanks", which includes information on how to verify. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Given Ochre sea star, I am somewhat less encouraged. :/ The opening is extensively copied from a PDF. The body duplicates this. There's also this. So far, I have found infringement in every article containing original text from this contributor. We will also need to verify images. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Upshot of my viewing every contribution: 16 articles listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 May 6. I have only glanced at a few images, which are hosted on Commons (see [27]). Contributions on Wikipedia also include what looks like useful clean up of referencing. Can somebody who does more with images check those to see if they seem clear? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

←The contributor indicates at my talk page that all images are his own. He was evidently under the impression with some of these articles at least that they could be reproduced here because the website permits non-commercial reproduction. I've explained both that our licensing requires commercial reproduction as well and also noted the complicating factor that the website is displaying material with permission of the original copyright holders, and hence we would need verification that they may release the text. It doesn't, of course, explain the material that isn't from that website. But it's a plausible misunderstanding with regards to some of this text. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The images fall into three distinct groups:

• File:Bohemian Waxwing-female, Ottawa.jpg, File:Sooty Fox Sparrow.jpg etc - Images taken with a Canon PowerShot S[23] IS in Canada. These probably are original works.
• File:Garden Skink, Blue Mountains.jpg and others taken in Australia - no metadata
• File:Striped skink-missing tail.jpg and others taken in South Africa - taken by a KONICA MINOLTA DiMAGE Z10

I'd say the first lot are OK, but I question the others. MER-C 08:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment at Talk:Hak Ja Han

There is a Request for Comment at Talk:Hak_Ja_Han#RfC:_Sentence_about_marriage_to_Sun_Myung_Moon that is almost a month old. Would be most appreciated if a previously uninvolved administrator could close it and come to some sort of conclusion/resolution about it. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Block 83.188.233.80

Please block this user, since he is writing slander about me. He is just doing this to provoke me into being blocked myself. I have been wiki stalked by this vandal since 2004, and I need a break. He is only writing irrelevant things about my religious background, at the talk page for an article which is not about me./83.172.124.101 (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

A wacky time at CfD

I'm on my phone so I can't edit too much, but someone may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_30. William Buckley is sabotaging some discussions with calls of elitism. Also look at WT:CFD. His talk page also makes a good read. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 17:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Obama article question

But I was trying to have a discussion about the replacement of an invalid source used in the Barack Obama faq page and several people would close the discussion and absolutely refuse to explain themselves when I asked on their talk pages (and indeed deleted my attempts to engage them). Basically, the FAQ uses a document that says it is invalid if it is altered and the document is obviously altered since it has a huge black mark covering up a section of it.

I realize the basic history of the Barack Obama talk page is to essentially close down conversations, refuse discussion and then ban people when they try to reopen their discussions. Of course, I'm sure this will also be an exercise in futility as well. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No. This would not be the right place to claim that Obama's birth certificate has been doctored. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between a document and an image, okay? The image has been altered, and has a black box on it. That does not mean that the document has been altered. Secondly, stop accusing people of acting in bad faith, please. You've been warned before, and blocked, so you should know better. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Finally! Thanks for actually explaining your position and not throwing a straw man at me like Scjessey just did. I just think we should use a better document/image/whatever that hasn't been altered, but I couldn't seem to get to that because it'd get deleted. Anyway, I understand what you are saying and thanks again for explaining yourself. Edit conflict - I thanked you before you threatened me - oh well. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Warnings aren't threats. While we're on the subject, please also desist from attacking other editors, like you did on User Talk:Soxwon (since deleted). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a question for you sheffieldsteel, since you are a fair guy are you giving these guys warnings for attacking me by making straw man arguments/attacks against me? No? Hmm...TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Editor problems

Goodlocust is a problem editor, probably headed for a long term block or Obama topic ban if you look at his history and renewed disruption over on the Obama articles. We've been through this several times already with the editor. I've refrained from leaving cautions because last time I did that (shortly before his 1-month block) his reaction was weird and hostile. I think the guy genuinely believes a lot of that fringe stuff about Obama, and singlemindedly wants the articles to reflect that - and is paranoid about some kind of liberal conspiracy cabal here. I just don't see any reasonable likelihood that he can constribute constructively on the topic, given past blocks and attempts to warn, counsel, and discuss. Wikidemon (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've improved the Bararck Obama article through consensus and discussion (when it is allowed) only to come back and find it gone. I've never tried to insert anything fringe into the article but I have tried to insert facts that you people find unsavory. For example, the Barack Obama article used to talk about how he hired a lawyer to knock Alice Palmer and the other democrats off the ballot when he ran for state senator - that was his first venture into politics, it was well-sourced, and is now somehow missing. This is only one example. Most Barack Obama articles seem to get rid of these little details over time. Hell, in our latest discussion I showed a good source about how Barack Obama was not considered a professor by a real professor Richard Epstein who worked at the same university - I mean, before you guys were using a primary source that came out in response to a mini-scandal in order to portray Barack and the university in a better light. Seriously, standards seem to go out the window on this article.TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh and wikidemon, if I'm so unconstructive, then why did you change the Barack Obama article after our little discussion? You don't like me, that I fully understand, but saying I'm unconstructive right after you implement one of my proposed edits is just ridiculous. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a discussion about my own editing. This edit warring to re-propose fringe birther theories on the talk page[28] and this harranguing of other editors there[29] are very similar to the behavior that incurred the 1-month block. He's pretty much shut down one ongoing discussion already. My concern is that the editor has not learned from the block, and if he continues as he has on the Obama talk page we're headed for some serious, unnecessary time-wasting disruption there. Any administrator who cares to follow up can review the article and talk page history, and Thegoodlocust's contribution history. Wikidemon (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, you people are again attacking me with a straw man, even after Steel apparently understood - I wasn't talking about Barack Obama's birth, I was talking about the use of an invalid document on the FAQ page. You keep on trying to ostracize me as a fringe theorist so you can get me banned, but nothing I've actually said supports your assertion. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the editor is here on this notice board, and we have his attention. And he is saying that he does not want to cause disruption. I may be wrong, I hope I'm wrong... I don't want him banned, I would much rather everyone just get along. So if any admin. has a good prescription for keeping order, now would be a great time. Wikidemon (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting statement, considering you've taken actions in the past to get me banned. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, it's worth noting here that Thegoodlocust has been blocked several times for his Obama edits. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Mostly due, if memory serves, from me reopening/undeleting conservations that were hastily deleted - which is why I came here in the first place. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Mostly due to your insistence on dwelling on unproven conspiracy theories. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No, not really, unless of course you think Barack hiring a lawyer to knock fellow democrats off the ballot is a conspiracy theory and not historical fact. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Not the appropriate forum

Administrators are not mediators, and have nothing to do with content dispute. Neither does the Arbitration committee.

Please take this to a Request for comment or a Request for mediation. There is nothing else to look at here. Keegan^talk 03:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me - this was asked as a behavior / disruption matter, and answered as such. AN/I would be more appropriate than AN perhaps but it landed here. If administrators want to punt yet again just because it's an Obama article, that's fine but ignoring disruption when it starts won't make it go away. Wikidemon (talk) 09:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Wikidemon. When a user is being disruptive on the Talk page of an article which is on probation due to continued abuse, then it should come either to here or to ANI (ANI, preferably, but it was here now). This is not a content dispute, it's a discussion about a repeatedly-blocked user continuing to be disruptive on a page under probation. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, discussion reopened. Keegan^talk 03:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

TheGoodLocust has been topic banned for six months on Obama-related articles[30] so there might not be a whole lot more to say, unless anyone cares to opine on the wisdom of that. Wikidemon (talk) 04:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for Page creation and redirection.

I tried to create the page called Wild Wing but was instructed that "The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time." I would like to have the page "Wild Wing" created and be redirected to the page Wild Wing Restaurants page - [[31]] Please contact me if required. Thanks. Slopitch20 —Preceding undated comment added 19:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC).

That's weird... Doesn't appear to be create-protected...  Done –xeno ^talk 19:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality enforcement: a proposal

I've started a proposal to enforce neutral editing on Israel-Palestine articles, which could be extended to other intractable disputes if it works. Input would be much appreciated. See Wikipedia:Neutrality enforcement. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a good idea in theory, but I can see editors on both sides complaining that the "uninvolved editors" are unacceptably biased in the other direction. I also think that having yet another confidential mailing list (I assume this is going to be the case if discussions are to be "quiet"), is a recipe for even more unpleasant drama. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Impeachment of Functionaries

I'm not quite sure where to intimate this, so I'm flagging it here. If anyone can think where else it should go, feel free to add it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Libel and legal threats?

User:Pangur777 has been seemingly adding libelous content to Irish_Music_Rights_Organisation, and an IP has threatened to take legal action against him, specifically, User:86.47.213.226. [32], [33]. Until It Sleeps 22:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Editors have been notified of this thread. Until It Sleeps 23:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I've indefinitely (not infinite) blocked the IP for the blatant legal threat. The IP is clearly long-term assigned to that organisation, as a quick look at the contribs shows, but I invite feedback and suggestions for a potential timeframe. I've also indef blocked User:Pangur777, as his contribs show that he's here purely to push an agenda, and has made potentially libellous comments despite warnings. – Toon^(talk) 23:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I've unblocked the fellow using the IP, for how else is he going to be able to get his situation resolved if he can't edit? I think it's best to engage the chap first to see if we can't make things right, as opposed to just blocking him and hoping he goes away. We need to make sure that organisations (and people, for that matter) aren't being libelled, and we can't get to the source of the problem if the fellow can't communicate with us ocee^{Conas tá tú?} 12:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well he can communicate, and as advised in the template, "If you believe that a legal action is warranted, you may contact our information team at info-en@wikimedia.org and they may forward it to our legal counsel or a more appropriate venue." He can also communicate through his talk page. "We will now commence legal proceedings to ensure that this does not happen again" is a crystal clear legal threat - please explain to me how I've "misinterpreted" WP:NLT. Further, it's not like I've blocked him and ignored the problem; the editor in question is blocked, but we can't allow editors to go around threatening to sue us whenever an issue comes up.– Toon^(talk) 13:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

As a member of the OTRS team, I have to say that there always a lot of "tickets" (i.e. e-mails) to respond to, and the legal queue is only handled by a few individuals. It's quite possible that it might take a few days to get back to him if he were to email info-en (the e-mail would have to be processed into the legal queue too, I believe, which may take extra time, I'm not exactly sure how that works). Since this appears to be a situation that manifested itself on en.wiki (as opposed to Britannica filing an antitrust lawsuit against the WMF - just a silly example, btw, hehe), it just seems to be that it can be handled rather easily on en.wiki. If the fellow returns, we can ask him to identify himself as a member of the IMRO via e-mail, and once he checks out, we can either institute a topic-ban on the fellow adding the allegedly libellous content, protect the article to some degree, etc. Outright indefinitely blocking the fellow indefinitely for what appears to be nothing but a bit of aggravation is a little heavy-handed, especially when it appears that we can sort this out rather easily. Apologies if I've stepped on your administrative toes, so to speak, Toon; for me, if someone wants to revert anything I do, I'm completely fine with it if they just drop a little note explaining why. If you feel differently, I definitely understand, and again, apologies mate ocee^{Conas tá tú?} 14:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that it was heavy-handed, but then I may be in the minority in wanting to ensue that legalities such as these are kept off the wiki - I just don't believe it is conducive to any kind of working environment. I'm not worried about him being unblocked, but discussing it with me first would have been appreciated. :) – Toon^(talk) 16:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Toon. Policy is that we block and especially for clear legal threats. Ocee, you seem to be saying not that Toon misinterpreted NLT but that from a practical matter it would be better to speak to that person on-wiki rather than OTRS. That's not what the block log says. Regardless of Pangur's edits (they look more like spamming to me than anything), he's been blocked but could anyone be clearer than "We will now commence legal proceedings to ensure that this does not happen again"? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Nosy admins needed at nasal irrigation

Resolved

Both parties have agreed to an article ban. One has accepted mentorship. Proposal withdrawn. Durova^Charge! 23:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Two problems here: a probable COI astroturfing campaign on one side and an obscene IP address on the other.

Grockl (talk · contribs)

Grockl was the subject of a sockpuppet investigation, which concluded that Grockl is a POV pushing SPA and probable sockpuppeteer. POV pushing continues. In particular, Grockl continues making edits of a promotional nature to advance the idea that pulsating nasal irrigation is superior to other forms of nasal irrigation.[34][35][36][37] Associated IPs originated from the same metropolitan area where the pulsating irrigator inventor lives.

Grockl was uncivil to Hans Adler, the filer of the sock investigation.[38] Grockl also blanks negative information from user talk beginning with copyright violation notices,[39][40] then altering a post by another editor.[41] I took the advice of the deleted text in Hans Adler's post "e.g., by googling for Grockl and Sinupulse" and found several interesting things: at Oprah.com, recommending SinuPulse as the best product,[42] at CureZone forums praising SinuPulse[43] and also Digg.com where a single purpose user submitted two entries for SinuPulse[44] and apparently the username was recently changed from Grockl (second entry).[45]

Getting back to Grockl's Wikipedia talk page, shortly after altering Hans Adler's post Grockl blanks the notice about the sockpuppet investigtion,[46] blanks a level 2 personal attack warning,[47] blanks a civil caution from Hans Adler regarding the potential for astroturfing campaigns to backfire,[48] blanks a warning about conflict of interest,[49] blanks a vandalism warning,[50] blanks a speedy deletion notice,[51] and another (would an admin check the deleted content please?)[52] and blanks a request to create SPI reports at the SPI area rather than in article space.[53]

Previous noticeboard threads regarding the problem:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive191#Odd_IP_page_postings
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive531#Nasal_irrigation
• Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_31#Nasal_irrigation

WikiProject Medicine was notified two months ago, but that hasn't stopped the problem:

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_12#Nasal_irrigation

Some kind of remedy is necessary regarding Grockl, who has shown zero receptiveness to constructive feedback over several months and continues to push POV at the nasal irrigation article as recently as today.[54][55]

Anti-pulsatile nasal irrigation IP editor

A more blatant problem is the anti-Grockl editor who also inhabits the topic. A quick review demonstrates this as thoroughly outside the bounds of site norms.

• 67.170.1.167 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Personal attack against Grockl.[56]

• 71.227.174.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Homophobic personal attack against Grockl.[57]

• 98.201.142.128 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Homophobic personal attack against Grockl[58]

• 75.7.150.212 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Homophobic personal attack against Grockl.[59]

• 98.201.139.55 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Homophobic personal attack against Grockl.[60]

The IP editor's other posts are to nasal irrigation, its talk page, and related WP namespace pages to express the opposite POV of Grockl and to attack Grockl.

Proposed solution: a pox on both their houses

Normally I wouldn't propose a siteban on an editor who's been around for a year without a block or formal DR, but Grockl is as SPA as it gets. His only article contributions outside 75 posts to nasal irrigation are four posts to sinusitis and two posts to post-nasal drip.[61] Also proposing a siteban on the IP editor and an entry in the long term vandalism page with the moniker "Anti-pulsatile nasal irrigation IP editor". Durova^Charge! 16:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The IP editor is registering an account. Has been offered probation in conjunction with WP:ADOPT and a username change as an alternative. Durova^Charge! 19:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments

I agree, ban the whole lot of 'em. SPA for Grockl is obvious. As for the IPs, my interaction consists of reverting vandalism by 98.201.142.128 to Nasal irrigation and reverting vandalism/personal attack by the same IP to User talk:Grockl. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 16:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggesting a siteban for serial IP additions seems pretty pointless to me, since they are widely variant IPs from different regions of the US, and not even all from the same ISP; let's not waste our time in giving them any more attention than they deserve. It's just as likely that Grockl was on the receiving end of some sort of externally organized group spamming. Block the IPs as appropriate, but it's very unlikely they're the same editor. Grockl I'm more than happy to leave to the rest of the community. Risker (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

All of the IPs posted to Grockl's user talk, demonstrate identical POV, and post almost nowhere except where Grockl is active. Personal attacks from these IPs are virtually indistinguishable. So despite the WHOIS results, this is either one person with the technical ability to mask location or a multiple editors with a single voice situation. That said, there's a reasonable chance that with Grockl banned the IP vandal wouldn't have any reason to return. Durova^Charge! 16:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Durova, I'm still trying to figure out how an IP address can be obscene. While someone posting from an IP address can use obscene language, the IP address itself (which is a number) isn't. Even 69.69.69.69 isn't obscene. -- llywrch (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Llywrch, was that posted in jest? Please comment upon the actual administrative problem here, and minor grammatical issues elsewhere. It took a good deal of work looking into this and I fielded several interruptions while writing the draft. Had been double checking under the good faith assumption that reader priorities would be accurate evidence. Durova^Charge!

Yes, it was meant as a joke -- in part. But if you can't smile & move on (or just move on) when someone tries to lighten the all too often deathly-seriousness attitude people adopt when posting to WP:AN, then maybe you ought to do a quick self-check about possible WikiBurnout. And for the record, I did look at the evidence as much as I could before posting that (nasal irrigation is not a topic I care to know very much about), & AFAIC both parties are asking for a block. -- llywrch (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I am the serial IP vandal. Look, I realize now that my methods aren't going to get me anywhere, but Grockl's persistence to push his biased point of view got the best of me so I did whatever I could to stop him. I'm going to stop and get a real username (not this one) because I can assure you that using published medical research all of his edits can be elided. Thanks and apologies for the profuseness of my vandalism, especially towards Administrators. AbstractClimber (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and block this one ^ as an admitted sock. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 17:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Grokcl v. Grockl. I almost didn't catch the difference. Durova

^Charge! 17:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand that, and I will behave from now on, but don't you think that's just a weebit futile given how easily I can switch between varying IP addresses? :) I'm trying to be constructive here and your actions will just make it more difficult for you to recognize my communications.AbstractClimber (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I am glad this is finally getting the necessary attention – thanks a lot, Durova. I can confirm that as far as I am aware initially the problem was only Grockl advertising, then it was Grockl advertising and the IP trying to out Grockl, and then it was Grockl advertising and the IP vandalising several pages with claims of a highly personal nature about Grockl. I found out Grockl's real-life identity, so I know now that though the IP was wrong about Grockl's identity, he does have a conflict of interest through real-life affiliations. (If still relevant, I will email Durova or another interested and trustworthy admin with the details.)

It seems absolutely clear that Grockl is neither interested in building an encyclopedia, nor is he able to cooperate with others who don't follow his commands. Therefore I would support a site ban.

I would also say that the IP deserves a site ban. For an established user that would be too drastic, but in this case that would amount only to a topic ban, since before the recent escalation the IP's actions were generally within the normal bounds of editor behaviour, well-intentioned and quite unremarkable. If this user creates an account and starts editing dental hygiene or exploding whales, nobody will ever make the connection. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The last paragraph pretty well proves my point. Site-banning the IPs is irrelevant; they could have different editors on them tomorrow, and there are those who would bureaucratically say "your IP is banned so you can't edit". And if the person(s) behind the IP edits just makes a new account and edits within policy in other areas, nobody will notice. So what is the point of site-banning an IP? Risker (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the ban would be for the person. It would mean that if we get Grockl socks in the future, the IP user can be banned per the duck test. But it's not as important as banning Grockl. I should add that without the IP Grockl's spam would have been unnoticed for a very long time. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Of all the ways to draw attention to the astroturfing, though, one of the worst is repeated and gratuitous bias toward an entire set of people who endure too much discrimination already. Durova^Charge! 17:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

As I indicated on my talk page, I'm completely 100% prostrating myself here. I had no idea that one of the editors was LGBT until I visited their user page just now. I believe I've posted on their talk page before, and frankly I don't know how to apologize for that, but I will try. AbstractClimber (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Will defer to Allstarecho regarding that. His call. Durova^Charge! 18:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

See relevant discussion at User talk:Grokcl. Allstarecho is proposing probation with WP:ADOPT and a username change. Looks generous and reasonable. Durova^Charge! 19:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

As one final note, I feel that at this point in order to avoid drawing myself into question again, I am l00% completely recusing myself as an editor of the Nasal Irrigation page; however, I will continue to make many, many more posts on the discussion page to further validate my point. I don't care if pulsatile irrigation remains a listed alternative on the nasal irrigation page; what I do care about is that these studies, if of dubious origin (which I am happy to prove), have some sort of qualifier on the Nasal Irrigation page. I will do this in hopes that some will be reading and watching the discussion to edit the article accordingly. If Grockl gets out of hand, I will come seek help from you all (though I'm happy to see him banned regardless). I'm hoping to become a team player here without any doubt as to my intentions. AbstractClimber (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Weak support: The person behind the Grokcl copycat account should be given an extremely short leash. The account needs to be changed within the next 24 hours because it clearly violates WP:UNCONF. If the change is not done within 24 hours, it should be blocked. Should the account name be changed, the editor should be on a short leash during mentorship. The editor has already admitted to personal attacks, a clear violation of policy, so any further behavioral or editorial issues should be dealt with quickly. In short terms: one strike and this editor is out. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand. I am still waiting on the change of username to happen, but I believe I need an administrator to follow up. AbstractClimber (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Name change is complete and I've updated almost all signatures.AbstractClimber (talk) 04:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Solving the other half of this

Grockl (the real Grockl, as opposed to Grokcl) has not responded and remains under ban proposal. Please discuss. Durova^Charge! 21:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Support. Background: "Nasal irrigation" means flushing slime out of the nose with relatively large amounts of salt water. This is known to be an efficient treatment for sinusitis, and it is known to be more effective than saline nasal spray. "Pulsating nasal irrigation" is the high-tech variant (see commons:File:Pulsatingnasalirrigator.jpg), for which Grockl holds several patents.

For the almost 2 years since he created the account, Grockl's activities have been restricted to adding a section "Pulsating nasal irrigation" to Nasal irrigation. In this section he claims that "[s]everal published medical reports indicate pulsatile lavage which utilizes greater leverage and can effectively penetrate biofilm is more effective at cleansing and removing bacteria than [...] neti pots and squeeze bottles", or variants of this. This is a misrepresentation of the sources, none of which has ever compared his method with the standard method in a clinical study. When I caught him, he made a big deal out of my not being a medical expert, even though his own professional background is quite obviously in marketing (as the quoted passage shows).

In almost 2 years Grockl has never touched anything in Nasal irrigation outside "his" section. Here is a complete list of his article contributions outside Nasal irrigation: [62] [63]. For more details see the timeline I compiled for WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Grockl/Archive. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Support. Grockl is a single-purpose agenda account whose behavior suggests a conflict of interest. His reason for being on Wikipedia is to promote pulsatile irrigation. He has not behaved well on the only article he chooses to frequent. If consensus for a siteban is not found, I would propose an indefinite topic ban from all medical articles. EdJohnston (talk) 23:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutral until Grockl makes a statement regarding this matter as I believe he should be offered a chance to explain his position (WP:AGF and all). However, should Grockl make any edits to the Nasal irrigation article or talk page before he explains his position, I weak support a topic ban as a SPA. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I have admitted my bias with pulsatile irrigation which I believe you call a SPA. Many editors that contribute have a single POV especially those that can offer expertise in a particular area. Wikipedia policy states that a balance should be placed on respectful dialogue with SPA's in order to benefit from their expertise while maintaining the need for neutrality. Pulsatile irrigation is a relevant and effective method of nasal irrigation that should be mentioned within the article on nasal irrigation. How it is cited is less important. The bigoted hate filled anti gay postings and now an apparent fake account is incredulous. I am simply trying to get an established method of irrigation included in an article on nasal irrigation nothing more or less. A more neutral statement or compromise is acceptable as I have mentioned many times before. But there is no room for bigoted hate speech on wikipedia. I still don’t understand the wikipedia community, editors, and actions. When I look at the nasal irrigation article there are many anecdotal statements and isolated references to support certain claims throughout the article. There are many inaccuracies in the article as well. Expertise in a given area should be encouraged not discouraged. This goes back to the point that editors with a single POV should be part of the editorial process. You can have oversight to maintain a degree of neutrality. There should be no place whatsoever for homophobic hate filed speech that now peppers my talk page and the article itself. The wikipedia community should remove these statements from the history as they are both pornographic and highly bigoted. My edits to my talk page were an effort to clean it up and remove sections that lead to much of this speech. I have even requested my talk page be deleted as I find the comments on the page to promote homophobic hate speech something much more insidious than a single POV. The IP poster may now show contrition for some of his actions but bigotry unfortunately is not so easily cured as a sinus infection. I would even suggest you vanquish the entire page if it gets rid of those ugly comments. Unfortunately some of them show up in the article history as well.

The poster is now very contrite but states he and his friends were just having a little fun. Homophobic anti gay references are not funny and should not be so easily excused. Whats next anti-semetic and racist rants excused as just kidding. I think this type of public hate speech is a more serious issue than a single POV and certainly more important than the nasal irrigation article. I see where the poster has agreed to mentoring but what is truly required for this poster is a change in his heart. --Grockl (talk) 10:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The question here isn't about another user's edits. That user has been dealt with. We're here in this section now to discuss your own editing. Please read WP:SPA. And then try and explain to us how it doesn't apply to you? Also read WP:OWN and WP:COI. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 10:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand, I guess my position, as the primary target of the attacks, is hate speech and homphobic rants should not be taken lightly on any public forum at least not one that attempts to hold itself up to such high editorial standards. I dont think enough has been done given the aggressive nature of the personal attacks and remarks made.

To your point, in reading the definition you provided and as I have stated previoulsy, since I do focus on a single purpose I would consider myself a SPA. Wikipedia states " A single-purpose account (SPA) is a user account that edits either a single article, a group of related articles, or performs edits to a group of unrelated articles in the same manner on Wikipedia. The presence of such clearly defined SPAs has provoked a strong reaction among the Community. Some editors are concerned that contributions by SPAs have not aligned with Wikipedia's neutrality or advocacy standards, thus conflicting with what Wikipedia is not. Other editors raise counter-concerns pointing to the need of the Community to attract new and well-informed users knowledgeable in a particular subject, thus being able to cite relevant reliably sourced publications. Identifying and interacting with SPAs requires both civility and tact" I dont see where Wikipedia prohibits a single purpose account or warrants a ban.

I recognize the need for a balance between prvoiding valuable editorial content from a well informed user and any bias. I agree postings should be open for review by the community for appropriate inclusion in an article and to ensure neutrality. I have admitted to a bias and have on many occasions requested and even offered up a compromise to settle the dispute in an effort to add meaningful content while preseving a degree of neutrality to my posts and balance any bias I project. I have stated I will no longer post directly on this article but rather make suggestions on the discussion page in an effort to adhere to a higher standard. I simply would appreciate others to refrain from personal attacks, harassment, or outing which I understand is prohibited by Wikipedia and takes precedence. --Grockl (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

With regards to the nasal irrigation article I think Hans recent edits have been very helpful and have a measured balance and neutrality especially in the "methods" section. As stated, I will refrain from future posts on the subject of pulsatile irrigation but will instead make any suggestions on the discussion page for others to consider in an effort to avoid a similiar situation in the future.--Grockl (talk) 10:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Your being a single purpose account is not the main accusation against you; it is merely an argument why we should not be as lenient in your case as e.g. in the case of an editor who has written ten featured articles or made other significant contributions to the project. Fact is that you are here for one single, extremely restricted purpose that is far from important for this project, and that you are making more trouble than you are worth. This discussion is about banning you for your POV pushing in the article itself – you have addressed this by promising not to edit it any more. Another reason is your uncooperative behaviour on the article talk page, e.g. [64] This was your reaction to being proved wrong, and it was quickly followed by a highly suspicious edit from the same city that agreed with you unconditionally. Combine this with an insistence to misrepresent sources, and perhaps you can understand why some people feel that you are not a net positive factor in this collaborative project.

Try not to overplay the victim card. The IP is getting a chance because it appears the IP may want to contribute to building this encyclopedia and may just need help to approach it the right way. Your situation is completely different, and you should have been banned before the IP became obscene (not "pornographic", unless I missed something). --Hans Adler (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not a victim and dont want to come off that way but we all have our pet peeves mine is bigotry. I simply find it disgusting and the worst part of human nature. Pornography while interpreted differently by many including our US supreme court, from time to time, but is generally considered sexually explicit material which was clearly posted. Anyway I am truly sorry for any inconvenience.--Grockl (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Please address the subject at hand: you have repeatedly misrepresented sources and violated copyright, then over many months have rejected all efforts to bring your conduct within site policies and norms. If you have any intention to reform, please state so now. Durova^Charge! 17:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Durova, yes - you have my full commitment and my word that I will comply and respect all wikipedia terms and conditions. I have stated I will no longer contribute to the article other than the discussion area and only in full cooperation with all the editors and only in a positive, constructive, and fully collaborative manner. I sincerely apologize for my actions which have contributed to the situation and deemed inappropriate.--Grockl (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay then, withdrawing siteban proposal. Best wishes. Durova^Charge! 23:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much --Grockl (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. I am still a bit sceptical, but so far I have no reason to complain about the result. It's moot anyway, but I withdraw my !vote. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"Steinway & Sons' war!!"

Conversatioon consolidated at WP:ANI#Possible personal attacks over multiple pages, disruptive editing --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yonteng's edit warring on New Kadampa Tradition

Please could you check into User Yonteng's User talk:Yonteng disruptive editing on the article New Kadampa Tradition. He just started using Wikipedia today and is repeatedly adding a disputed tag at the top of the page, unilaterally and despite the "discussions" with other editors on the talk page (where in fact he is not discussing but instead insulting other users and revealing a strong bias against the New Kadampa Tradition). Thank you. (Truthbody (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC))

I see that he has also been reported here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Yonteng, and perhaps that is a better place for it. (Truthbody (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC))

Copyright violation backlog

Category:Wikipedia files that may violate copyright is getting a huge backlog; any help there would be much appreciated. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Compromised references to the International Herald Tribune

Our many links to this newspaper's website at IHT.com no longer seem to be working. See the VPM thread and please comment there if you can help. Thanks, Skomorokh 16:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for Neutral Admin to close RfC.

Hello, Realizing it's going to be a thankless task, could a neutral admin please close the RfC on PLOT? Per [65], no one has objected to a close at this point. The !votes and comments have been pretty consistent and dragging it out seems pointless. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Anyone? Hobit (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Block Review

I'm bringing a block I just made here for review. I've blocked User:LOTRrules3 for block evasion and probable sockpuppetry. It appears that User:LOTRrules is attempting to request an unblock, but this isn't really the way to do it. TNXMan 20:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. User needs to log into his main account and use the {{unblock}} template. He shouldn't be using socks to continue a dispute. –xeno ^talk 21:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

His talk page is fully protected. Protonk (talk) 05:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, it appears the user has posted a long unblock request on his talk page. I don't know much about the situation, but a brief review seems to indicate that the account has been indefinitely blocked and a discussion at ANI determined that it should remain that way. I only mention this as a by-the-by, if anyone wanted to take a look. TNXMan 11:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't at the time I made the comment. –xeno ^talk 13:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that an unblock might be appropriate here. This editor made useful contribs for a long time -- with some level of friction -- before going into a tailspin over the past three months. The talk page contains a promise to behave better; I think LOTRrules should get one more chance to carry it out. There are certainly users with much longer block logs who are still around. Looie496 (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

There was pretty clear consensus fairly recently at a length ANI discussion to block him. One should probably not unilaterally unblock him without a similar discussion. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't participate, but if I had, I wouldn't have supported an unblock until the most recent request, which seems to show a change in attitude. Of course it might be spurious, but LOTRrules has never made much of an attempt to hide his true feelings. In any case I definitely agree that nobody should unblock unilaterally. Looie496 (talk) 02:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This editor has now twice "failed to ensure that other people cannot access his account and just happen to post insults and vandalism on articles/editors that he had been in dispute with", and also brought up the spectre of anti Muslim sentiment being behind some of the actions taken against him. Rather than admit to his actions and promise to conduct himself appropriately in future, or to open a new account with a secure password and start afresh, he is now claiming that he is confused about the reasons for being blocked. I have no idea why the editor is so wedded to the idea of using the account, but there is no indication that he would not use it disruptively again if it were unblocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Picture of breasts

Resolved

 – Copyvios - voting to remove on Commons (here). Discussions on userspace policy should happen on the policy page.

Extended content

I don't do much work with images or user pages, so I'm bringing this here. One of the images from the gallery for our article on Breast is being used on three user or user talk pages [66]. I'm not particularly offended by the image, though I can see why others might be. Is this within the acceptable boundaries of user pages? AniMatetalk 16:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I think that there is a way to prevent such images being used on pages not on an "allow" list (basically, anatomy- and sex-related pages), but I'm not sure of the particulars. PS:- I took the liberty of inserting "not" into your comment above, since I think that's what you meant. Apologies if I'm mistaken. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I think you're referring to the bad image list, and yes I'm not offended by the images. I'm just wondering what standard procedure is in these kinds of circumstances. AniMatetalk 16:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I don't think we want to dredge this up again... –xeno talk 17:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Best bet is to quietly edit the user page(s) in question, and not tell anyone. You'll merely stir up a huge crowd of people bleating about censorship. Friday (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I was hesitant after the "Bush" picture, but this is a little more explicit. Also, at least two of the editors aren't exactly the quiet type. I'll just take this over to the bad image list and see what the regulars over there have to say. AniMatetalk 17:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC) If it were part of a user statement about breast cancer awareness, perfectly fine. This website also has a history of eliminating 'wanking galleries' at MFD. We have few enough female editors as it is; gratuitous use that doesn't help build the encyclopedia creates a hostile working environment. The other recent example was arguable as a political message. Here the use is purely gratuitous. DurovaCharge! 17:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I agree, Durova. I took it the bad image list, but as there has been no vandalism it likely won't be included. Any hints on what, if anything, should be done next? AniMatetalk 18:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Friday made a pretty good suggestion. –xeno talk 18:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Xe did. It's a fairly uncontroversial image (and appears to have been uploaded by the subject, I think), but ... meh. Black Kite 18:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I agree with Ms Durova - it's unecessary! Only going to attract the wrong sort of man (and I should know, I've had a few of those in my time) to Wikipedia. Besides which, the poor woman looks half starved more like an advert for famine relief than breast cancer. Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Could we change the title of this thread? I came here hoping for a fun time, and it feels like false advertising :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemon (talk • contribs) 18:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I've taken the liberty of enacting Friday's suggestion. –xeno talk 18:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Thanks. AniMatetalk 18:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Well, at least one user has reverted xeno's edit as vandalism. AniMatetalk 18:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC) CadenS (talk · contribs) has reverted as vandalism on two different pages [67] [68]. Dayewalker (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Final warned. Sceptre (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict) I'm not going to press the issue, can't be arsed to be honest. Some people want to bring the project into disrepute and there's a good number of people who feel they should be allowed to. –xeno talk 18:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I think I'm going to start a drinking game. Every time someone says that something will "bring the project into disrepute", take a shot. POV-pushing pedophiles bring the project into disrepute. Although still inappropriate in most cases, genitalia on a user page don't. Sceptre (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC) (ec) "Bringing the project into disrepute" is a red herring. The principal question is whether gratuitous displays such as this one drive away female editors. Oddly enough, yesterday I blogged about the dearth of women.[69] DurovaCharge! 19:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC) (ec)Fully quoting Perez Hilton's description of Miss California, which was an intregral part of the controversy surrounding the 2009 Miss USA pagent will bring the project into disrepute because Perez uses the word "bitch" and thus fully quoting Hilton is excessive because "Let's face it, Hilton is a hateful bigot out to promote an agenda but Wikipedia is not the place for the Prejean article to be used as his platform for that agenda. This is an encyclopedia and should be treated as such." [70]. But posting a picture of breasts on a user talk page won't? Fascinating angle that Canden is taking! TharsHammar Bits andPieces 19:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Comment: I don't think Caden has actually commented yet, TharsHammer. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Yet you saw fit to give him a final warning for restoring it? Getting some mixed signals here! –xeno talk 19:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC) You overlooked the "although still inappropriate in most cases" clause. There's a difference between "inappropriate" and "likely to bring the project into disrepute". I put that image on, say, A832 road, it's inappropriate, but the project won't be brought into disrepute. Sceptre (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC) fair enough, I see your point. –xeno talk 19:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Editors may wish to see the related discussion here. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Straw poll Let's get a gender breakdown of the contributors to this consensus. Just say what you are. You're on your honor here. DurovaCharge! 19:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC) What consensus? Exploding Boy (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Sign under 'male' or 'female' please. Unless you're very confused unusual. ;) DurovaCharge! 19:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I am confused. What consenss are you referring to when you say "Let's get a gender breakdown of the contributors to this consensus"? Exploding Boy (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC) "confused" is offensive to those who may not consider themselves "male" or "female". Bastique demandez 19:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Refactored per feedback. Better now? DurovaCharge! 19:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Males TharsHammar Bits andPieces 19:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Sceptre (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC) --AniMatetalk 19:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC) –xeno talk 19:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Xavexgoem (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC) –Juliancolton | Talk 20:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Females DurovaCharge! 19:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I'm physically male, but I like the colour mauve and I can't park a car in a space smaller than 20ft wide. Black Kite 19:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I'm watching this transpire, and I have but two points to make as a female who also likes breasts (enough to challenge Caden to a breast like-off): who would be skeeved by my putting images of luscious knockers on my user page? My experience with Caden makes me suspect he might be. More personally, to Caden, I suggest if you really want to show the ladies how you love them, try not objectifying them with such imagery. Take it from an insider. Chicks like it when you are into their entire personalities, not just their frontispieces. --Moni3 (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Wikipedians Synergy 19:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Fact tagged: Wikipedian is not a known gender. DurovaCharge! 19:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC) There is no reason to divide users because of this. I don't need a citation for common sense. Synergy 19:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Actually my reason for asking is because a month ago at this MFD I suspected I was the lone female in the discussion, and several participants were aggressively arguing that the image couldn't possibly be objectionable. DurovaCharge! 19:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC) The real issue here, is what to do when a user puts an image of a nude woman/man, their body parts, or a representation thereof, on their userpage or usertalk. Not some straw poll to determine gender. The fact that some users have already but themselves under the wrong header (jokingly of course) is clear that the poll is not useful. I'd rather see the issue resolved, than add nonsense to it. Synergy 19:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC) The poll is telling, though. That would be a good poll to take: "is the previous poll and its discussion telling?" Xavexgoem (talk) 19:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC) We also have to recognize that self-selected groups can skew consensus. Even though the breast fetish userbox got deleted, it was arguably a far closer call than it would have been if women had been 50% of the contributors to the discussion. DurovaCharge! 19:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC) And if our female contributors don't want to take part in the discussion...what then? Maybe they don't care so long as the breasts aren't theirs, we can't force them to participate. And what will the poll show? That more men have opinions on a woman's breasts, than women do? Hmm. I think this poll is a waste of time. Get back to the real issue; determining what to do. Synergy 20:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC) That sounds like a fine idea. Let's figure out what, if anything, needs to be done. AniMatetalk 20:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC) If they've left in disgust they've already registered their opinion. Anyway see below if you're over 18. The uploader's entire contributions arguably ought to be nuked as copyvio. DurovaCharge! 20:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC) ? Who has left in disgust, and why? Maybe because you are genderalizing (link) the topic? Reducing it to who is male and female? Synergy 20:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC) It's interesting how easily people lose sight of priorities on hot button topics. If this is a violation of copyright law then every other part of this discussion is moot. Would you like to help resolve the matter by giving a review of the concerns regarding the uploader's history? DurovaCharge! 20:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Yes, it is interesting how one loses sight of the obvious. Like this image being a matter for "commons" here. But it does not negate the fact that non copyvio images will still show up on usertalk and userpages. Thats up for discussion here and now. If you'd like to take part in this discussion, you may do so. If you want to debate the image, please go to commons. Synergy 20:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Yes, and as stated below I have of course recused from using the tools in this instance. You have an account on that project; please help resolve it. Thanks, DurovaCharge! 20:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Other Writegeist (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Comments I am not voting, but I'd like to remind everyone that Wikipedia editors' breakdown is 85% male, 15% female. The users' breakdown is presumably 50/50. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Actually it's 65/35 68/32 for readers. We have done studies. Bastique demandez 19:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC) "Women, with a share of 25% in all respondents, are more strongly represented among readers (32%) and less strongly represented among contributors (13%)." [71] TharsHammar Bits andPieces 19:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I should point out that every Wikipedian is really a clinically depressed transgender Canadian bisexual teenaged girl. Sceptre (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Hmm, I knew about the Canadian and clinically depressed part, but my mom is going to have a hard time dealing with the revelation that I am a transgendered teenaged girl. Resolute 21:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC) I think the question is impertinent and transfigures my human rights! I refuse to disclose. Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Do spirits actually have human rights? AniMatetalk 19:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I do think that Sceptre warning Caden of image vandalism was inappropriate. It's his user page and the image is a public domain image. He can't rightfully be warned for vandalizing his own user page. Granted the use of the image on a user page isn't encyclopedic, but a user page isn't an encyclopedia either. Should I remove the male images from User:Allstarecho/img? They show man tits. Oh golly! What if I include this particular woman/breasts image in my gallery? Will I be the victim of vandalism warnings because I included an artful female image? - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 19:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Oh they all look very nice, can I take one? Why is that one tied down? is it to prevent shoplifting? Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC) This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you add an inappropriate image, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. says "inappropriate", not "vandalise". Sceptre (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC) (e/c) Thus-far uninvolved non-admin comment: I think that there's a difference here between talk pages and user pages, in that if I wish to discuss something with an editor I have no choice but to view their talk page. By the same token, I'd regard your gallery as OK. 2/3 instances of the image in question were on talk pages, by the way. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 19:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC) (ec)But the edit summary says Only warning: Image-related vandalism.. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 19:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC) IMO the breasts photograph is beautiful, graceful and non-pornographic. It's hardly wanking material compared with other easily accessible images on the Internet. Displaying this image communicates the user's appreciation of the female form, which seems a pleasant enough piece of personal information to impart on a user page. I doubt there'd be all this angst if the image were a painting and not a photograph. E.g. Goya's La maja desnuda? The officious warning that was slapped on the user's page (if it refers only to this image) is inappropriate and unacceptable in a virtual world that isn't ruled by the Taliban. (Yet.) The warning should be removed. Writegeist (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Is anyone really buying the image is own work? Sxs012 uploads. We are to believe that [72] and [73] and [74] are all made by the same wikipedia user within 1 week of each other, and that a person edited the picture in question using Adobe Photoshop CS Windows on 17:13, 7 October 2006 yet the picture was only created 21/11/2007 according to the "license". If you believe this is work done by Sxs012 then I have a great bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you! TharsHammar Bits andPieces 19:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Hey, an actually useful point :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I would nominate for using that exact wording, along with all other contributions by that user, but my twinkle doesn't work on commons and I'm not sure how to afd on commons without it. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 19:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Wow what a shocker, it looks like all of the users who being censored for this specific image file are conservative, or more accurately perceived as conservative. Luckily, I'm not cynical enough to think there was any sort of political motivation here. I mean, what are the likely consequences of these actions? A person would probably revert the censorship/vandalism on their own talk pages and then end up getting banned - but really, wouldn't wikipedia be better if we get rid of all those white power foxkkk republiKKKans? I'm glad I'm not part of a community that would condone such bullying since it leads to certain incidents, breeds distrust and emotional harm.TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC) So I should Ifd at Commons with:A person edited the picture in question using ACD Systems Digital Imaging on 17:13, 7 October 2006 yet the picture was only created 21 November 2007 according to the "license". Further, ACD Systems Digital Imaging's Section 2.7 of its EULA ("Use Restrictions"), forbids the use of the software to use, display or distribute material that is pornographic, racist, vulgar, obscene, defamatory, libelous, abusive, promoting hatred, discriminating or displaying prejudice based on religion, ethnic heritage, race, sexual orientation or age, stating to do so with this software is "strictly prohibited". I mean, seriously, I'm against the censorship but it's obvious the image isn't actually owned or taken by the uploader. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 20:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I'm not directing this comment at any one user, but this is an admin noticeboard, and frankly the conversation regarding this issue has degenerated far beyond what is acceptable or constructive. Can we get back on track, please. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Off-topic reply: Bullying didn't cause Columbine; Doom and Marilyn Manson did . And, speaking as a liberal, you do have a point about conservatives being censored, and not just on Wikipedia. Liberality for All, indeed. On-topic: I think that you're wrong about this being censorship. To use a famous example: you have the right to free speech, but that doesn't apply to shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater. Sceptre (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Breasts, while hot, aren't anything close to "fire." It is a tasteful and beautiful photo - more people should see it. I see lots of things on people's userpages that I find offensive (e.g. hate speech), but I don't try to get that content removed. Of course, I'm a libertarian and believe in people's rights above things like political correctness. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Unless they're a "white power foxkkk republiKKKans", right? --Kbdank71 20:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC) That was sarcasm; I was refering to the comments of various editors I've seen on wikipedia and indeed things you may find from certain editors in this very thread. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC) someone get on over to commons ^A good point was made above. It's highly dubious these are free images. I'm not familiar with commons, so can't someone else do it? –xeno talk 20:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Actually the metadata is incomplete. It's missing the camera information, which can be a telltale sign of copyvio. DurovaCharge! 20:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC) And reviewing the uploader's Commons contribution history, adults only please, all three uploaded images are explicit and lacking metadata. The user has never responded to comments at user talk. DurovaCharge! 20:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC) See [Commons:Deletion requests/File:Breasts01.jpg]. Is this canvassing? - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 20:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I don't think so. It's simply a deletion request, we can't influence the deletion (unless we're admins at commons) so I'd say it's fine. And thanks for nominating it. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 20:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC) All three uploads by this editor have missing metadata. Probably they should all be nommed for deletion. DurovaCharge! 20:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Yea, and the spread-eagle could probably be deleted per commons project scope. –xeno talk 20:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC) If the images are copyvio, project scope is irrelevant. DurovaCharge! 20:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Section break: back on track There are two issues here: whether or not the photo is offensive, and whether placing it on a talk page is appropriate. WP:TALK tells us that: The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. [emphasis original] When writing on a talk page, certain approaches are counter-productive, while others facilitate good editing. The prime values of the talk page are communication, courtesy and consideration. A user talk page is a kind of user page. WP:UP tells us that Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal website. Examples of things not appropriate for user pages include "Other non-encyclopedic related material" and "other things pertaining to 'entertainment' rather than 'writing an encyclopedia'." Regarding images, we are told: There is broad consensus that you should not have any image on your userpage that would bring the project into disrepute (per Jimbo Wales), and you may be asked to remove such images. So. Is an image of human female breasts inherently offensive? I would argue that it isn't. On the other hand, user pages are public. One might argue that placing images of nude women on one's user talk page, which is likely to be accessed and used by female editors, is likely to cause discomfort to those editors, just as images of nude women placed in a public office might be offensive to female employees. WP:UP says: "You do have more latitude in user space than elsewhere, but don't be inconsiderate. We have some evidence that at least one female editor finds such images inconsiderate. In addition, there seems to be some uncertainty about the copyright status of the images: and official policy prohibits the use of non-free images. On balance, therefore, the users in question probably should have been asked to remove the images. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Whether or not the image is offensive depends entirely on the context - I have no objection to it on an article about breasts, but I do see it as being potentially offensive - and certainly inconsiderate - on a talk page. User pages? Maybe, maybe not. I do think the editors in question should have been asked to remove them (though you'll notice I was bravely silent when better editors than me were trying to diplomatically handle the situation). I also think the editors in question should have been considerate enough not to have the image on their talk pages to start with - I see no need for images on talk pages as a general rule (obvious exception for discussing images). I'll pass on the issue of copyright; that's a question for commons to address. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 20:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Disagree with the above poll, but identifying as male for full disclosure) I agree completely. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Check the section above, please. The uploader's entire contribution history is probably copyvio. DurovaCharge! 20:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Sure, maybe, but it's still a question for commons to address - right now we're saying "propable copyvio" - commons can make that call and nuke the images, all we (en.wiki) can do is comment. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 20:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Red, I'm a Commons administrator. Of course I'm also recusing from using the tools in this instance. It's easy enough to help resolve things there. Just register, read the relevant policy, and hit 'edit'. DurovaCharge! 20:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I think we're probably arguing the same thing here ;-) I'm registered on commons; my point is that, in our capacity as en.wiki editors we shouldn't be dealing with this here - it should fall to commons to deal with it (I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't deal with it, merely that it shouldn't be dealt with here. I support Allstarecho's nom for deletion - in their capacity as a commons editor. Hope that's clear! Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 20:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC) My opinion, is that these types of images should not be used on userpages, usertalk, and should be removed per WP:UP#NOT. And the section on images needs to be updated to reflect current practice. Synergy 20:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I agree flatly with user talk, which is a portal expected for use by any Wikipedian regardless of sex or even age. On a user page, I think it is more borderline, but I think probably also not a good idea. Fine, as User:This flag once was red, notes for breasts. But almost certainly a copyvio. (Already self-disclosed in the username. :)) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I prefer not to mention my gender, on the basis that it probably will only confuse the issue. Presumably everyone's opinion is equally valid, and no one should claim the right to speak for others based on gender or sexual identity. Similarly, I also think it is of secondary importance whether or not this particular image is a copyvio (I believe it is). If it is deleted, another image may take its place, leaving this discussion back where it started, perhaps. I feel that it is inappropriate to display such images on one's Talkpage, or on one's User page if one's signature links there. I do not think it is reasonable to make any editor view images that make them uncomfortable, simply in order to read or leave messages for another editor. I realise that we're not going to be able to formulate a hard-and-fast policy defining what is and is not acceptable, but if a significant number of editors agree that an image is inappropriate, then I think it is reasonable to remove the image in question, and not to restore it after its removal. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC) On hot button discussions Wikipedians often fail to prioritize appropriately. If this image is copyvio, all else is moot. It probably is copyvio; all the uploader's contributions probably are. See above. DurovaCharge! 20:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Because the image in this discussion is a copyvio, does not mean the rest of the conversation is moot. We still have the issue of what to do when a non copyvio image is used on user page/talk Durova. Synergy 20:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I think SheffieldSteel has this about as right as we can possibly get it. We'll handle these as they pop up. A hard and fast rule definitely won't work here as offensive is so subjective, though I would argue that if a reasonable editor complains the respectful thing to do would be to remove such images or text. Frankly, if images like these are so important to a user's identity that they must have them displayed, they can always create a subpage. AniMatetalk 21:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC) On hot button discussions Wikipedians sometimes prefer to wikilawyer than to come to substantive decisions. There seems to be some question above about "disrepute". These images are roughly the equivalent of The Sun's page 3 girls. Which papers are held in higher repute, those with or those without page 3 girls? (That's a rhetorical question.) Gratuitous nudity lowers the reputation of a publication. Like it or not, that's the way it is. - Nunh-huh 20:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC) On the other hand, there is much discussion between users on Talk page that would likely also bring us into "disrepute" and certainly some conversations that I would label as "inconsiderate" towards other users. Those things need to go wildly out of control before we usually step in there. Like Durova says, the conversation might not be fully moot, but it is also going nowhere without a specific case. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Unfortunate, as it would be good if the community demonstrated its maturity by deciding to conduct themselves according to office, rather than locker room, standards. - Nunh-huh 21:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

How to mark a page as Patrolled

Excuse me, does anyone here know how to mark a page as patrolled? Veraladeramanera (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

See Help:Patrolled edit - the link only exists if you follow an unpatrolled link from Special:NewPages (those with yellow background). Regards SoWhy 16:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Requesting deletion on other wikis?

I have been as yet unable to find an answer to this question, but it requires some admin help, so: interwiki links from the pt wiki were inlined into an article here on en, and I believe that those other articles are nn, and there's a case to be made for COI and a few other things as well. So, I'd like to AfD them, but I don't know Portuguese, so I can't do it myself. Generally speaking, is there some way to find admins on here who are also on other wikis to help with language issues like this? MSJapan (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You can find users from pt-wiki willing to help at Wikipedia:Local Embassy#Português (for example Beria (talk · contribs) is an admin at pt-wiki and Husond (talk · contribs) and Kungfuadam (talk · contribs) are admins here). Regards SoWhy 16:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Bambifan101 socks descend again

Resolved

 – Rangeblocks enabled again. Black Kite 14:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The Bambifan socks are getting very active again and he has now lowered himself to blatant wikistalking, deliberately seeking out myself and a few other editors who have been active in dealing with him to call attention to himself and get noticed so he gets blocked.[75][76] (diffs just from today's current sock) I'm having to keep my userpage in a pretty much permanent state of semi-protection because of his actions, and I suspect User:Cactusjump‎ may join me soon. In one of his recent IP socks, he made a vicious personal attack on his talk page that has since been deleted. He also claimed he wants to "go on a killing spree"[77] He is also continuing his favorite trick of hitting with an IP and a named account back to back so often times only one gets reverted leaving the actual vandalism behind until someone checks the contribs of both (with some missed for days and weeks). Its been mentioned before, and done before, but I think it is really time to get some more range blocks in place. Even if it only slows him down, its still better than nothing.

From the last week or so:

• Madagascar Esape 2 Africa (talk · contribs) - today
• 70.146.241.63 (talk · contribs), Mooveeeingfox (talk · contribs), 65.0.182.144 (talk · contribs) - yesterday (7th)
• Dreampapertotalwatch (talk · contribs), 70.146.201.104 (talk · contribs) - 6th
• The Seventh Brother (talk · contribs), Legalnotes, powerbrokes (talk · contribs) - 5th, double named socks doing the regular ip/named combo trick
• Hopeuwinforever (talk · contribs) - 3rd
• 68.220.190.5 (talk · contribs) - Apr 30th

-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have re-enabled or extended all four rangeblocks for six months. This will undoubtedly cause a minor amount of collateral but we can always IPBX registered accounts caught in the ranges. Black Kite 14:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

He's hit again under a new IP. User:98.225.100.59 and reactived an old sock that had gone unblocked User:Okapi7. 00:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Lukas zpira

Was doing my usual stumbling around WP at 4 am and came across this name (Lukas zpira in the category living persons. Looking at the article, I can see why the notability warning is on there, but a quick google search comes up with 12k+ results. I think with clean-up, it will remain. Reason for this notice is because it looks like the page Lukas Zpira has been protected from creation (based on a copyvio in 2006 according to the note.) In order for this page to conform to naming standards (i.e. capitalization of names), any chance we can get that page unprotected and Lukas zpira moved to the appropriate location (with a redirect left at the old page of course)? Thanks!Gnowor^Talk2Me_{did wha?} 12:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why this was protected (with only one deleted version) but you might want to ask the protecting administrator, RHaworth (talk · contribs), directly to unprotect it. Regards SoWhy 12:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sod that; I've moved it. Clearly uncontroversial. Stifle (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not see any reason for controversy as well but I was wondering why a page was protected with only one deleted version. There might have been some reason behind that... SoWhy 16:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted as a copyvio and protected due to "persistent self-promotion". I think the page we have got over those problems. Stifle (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the word "controversial" from the lede, since there are no 3rd party sources for use of that term. In fact, there are no 3rd party sources at all, which is problematic for a BLP. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar offer

Resolved

 – Barnstar awarded. — Jake Wartenberg 00:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Free barnstar for whichever sysop closes WP:DRV#Red_cunt_hair! (Void in RI. No purchase necessary. No cash alternative. No edit warring.) Stifle (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Done, although it wasn't fun. I've closed the DRV as deletion endorsed. The AfD was within the discretionary range and I was not convinced by the arguments for a "no consensus" close. TNXMan 15:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Two identical articles?

Resolved

 – Someguy1221 redirected one to the other. hmwithτ 23:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the story with Naomi King and Naomi Rachel? Looks like identical pages to me. Should one be a redirect in such a case? Debresser (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I redirected to the newer one. Both were created by the same user in pretty close proximity, but no edits to Naomi Rachel were made after creating Naomi King. Presumably, the article's creator simply didn't know how to move a page, or couldn't because they were not autoconfirmed. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds plausible. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit war

There is an edit war going on in the 1990's article, You might want to take a look at it. thanks South Bay (talk) 00:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I see the IP has been blocked for 31 hours. It is apparently a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked account. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Agnapostate

Agnapostate (talk · contribs)

An IP has requested unprotection of the above user's TP. After a bit of perusing it as well as reading the block log, I am of the feeling that unprotecting that page would not be helpful at this time; however, he does not seem to think he's banned (indeed, his unprot request states he seeks to appeal an "indefinite block". I have two questions here:

1. Would it be prudent to unprotect the talk page, since he stated that he was unaware that private correspondence wasn't to be posted on WP and he has stated he will not do it again, and
2. Should we consider this user banned, and not blocked, since his block is currently running on 8 mo.?

I've no opinion on the latter, except that it affects the former. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 05:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point in doing this on the request of an IP, but if the user logs in and requests it, I would have no objections. Stifle (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Agnapostate cannot edit whatsoever because he's blocked and his userpage is fully-protected. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 04:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

That's right; the ban doesn't permit any editing. 71.103.106.177 (talk) 04:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Question

Resolved

 – Question answered. Oren0 (talk) 07:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I was wondering if a user could get away with being User:Administrator is that user was indeed an administrator. Same with User:Bureaucrat (obviously non-existant).--Launchballer (talk) 05:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Per WP:USERNAME:

Your username should not give the impression that your account has permissions which it does not have. Thus it should not contain the terms "administrator", "bureaucrat", "steward", "checkuser", "oversight" or similar terms like "admin", "sysop" or "moderator", or end with "bot", which is used to identify bot accounts.

This is a pretty hand-and-fast rule. Since people need to have accounts for some time before becoming admins, it's not possible unless there was a username change after adminship. The name User:Administrator would imply that the given person was the only administrator or that the person speaks for all admins, so I can't imagine that'd be a name change anyone would process. Oren0 (talk) 07:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Spam in a user subpage

Resolved

 – speedy deleted by Closedmouth. --ThaddeusB (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the proper venue for this, so I'm just posting it here.

New user User:CheepSk8 has posted a user subpage that is a spam advertisement for an arcade game website. User:CheepSk8/Books/Games.

Just bringing this to the community's attention so that someone can take the appropriate action. McJeff (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Tagged as spam.--CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Double check a page deletion, please

Resolved

 – page undeleted by Stephen! --ThaddeusB (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I deleted a page Shot heard round the world, as there was a lot of copied material from [78]. I removed all the copied material, and as there was hardly anything left, I deleted it. However, I then started having doubts. I wondered if it was that this site was a mirror site to Wikipedia, in which case the material on the article was not a copyright infringement, and my deletion was an error. Could someone please do a check for me, either on the article's validity or my sanity? Thank you! Stephen! ^Coming... 11:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

"The content provided on AbsoluteAstronomy.com is aggregated from a variety of content providers." I'd say mirror. --Stephen 11:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the content of this page has been disseminated on dozens of sites at least. Just a mirror among others. No doubt, the page has 612 revisions, has been heavily modified along the years, should be restored. Cenarium (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, I've restored the page and removed the CSD notice now. Stephen! ^Coming... 12:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion page to be made into a film?

I don't know if this needs any action, but at Talk:Triple Goddess we have an editor who has not only been making personal attacks but has now said " this entire discussion is quite possibly going to be featured in a documentary/student film." and I am wondering if his posts have simply been trolling to get an effect. Dougweller (talk) 05:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The filmmakers must be really desperate if they are seeking talk page discussions as content for their work. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: I don't think that 68.19.97.110 (talk · contribs) has yet crossed the line, but he/she's worth monitoring. Being "featured in a documentary/student film" may, ultimately, be a plus for Wikipedia. Deor (talk) 05:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. A GFDL film.... - Nunh-huh 06:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess it would have to be if they are using GFDL comments. I can't imagine how much fun they'll have including the entire GFDL in the credits roll, too. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: Please feel free to read Talk:Triple Goddess in order to place the above comments in the proper context. And FYI- You might need a substantial chunk of time to do so. Cheers. tcob44

Servers?

Resolved

 – Lag is all better now. — Jake Wartenberg 00:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone know what's up with the huge srver lag? Conversation at village pump. Thanks. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 22:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Outing

According to the latest edition of the Wikipedia Signpost, Wikimania 2010 will feature "creative outing plans." I demand that all en.wikipedia users unite to foil this blatant violation of WP:OUTING. Deor (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

At least they're being creative about it. I hate the same old boring WP:OUTINGs.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll

We had a poll. It came out strongly against Autoformatting. So why on earth haven't we removed the stupid Javascript that mangles linked dates, meaning that anyone who changed their preferences setting, thinking it only had to do with history pages of articles and the like, is going to get nasty, and sometimes ugly surprises.

Please get this undocumented surprise removed, or at least add a note about it to the preferences.

Seriously, it took a person five minutes to add the Javascript that started this whole misbegotten mess. It should take no longer to remove it, and restore proper function. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Chill out - there's still an arbitration case to deal with. All will be sorted in good time - there's no need to rush things for the sake of rushing them. There's also a lot of dates that need fixing up before autoformatting of dates in articles can be turned off. At the minute, we'll have a sea of broken links if it's turned off. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not, there is no consensus for removing auto formatting. A narrow majority is not consensus. I strongly urge anyone thinking otherwise to read WP:CON until they get it through their heads that making divisive decisions like this on a slim majority is a very bad idea. Better to consider compromise approaches which may actually attain a true consensus from the community. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

So, in other words, so that you can have date autoformatting in the *tiny minority* of articles that support it, I am unable to set my preerences so that the history tabs show my preferred date formatting without breaking things for myself when I see those articles? And woe betide anyone who likes 2009-05-08 in their history tabls! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ryan has said it all. The margin was not narrow, at 55 to 40%, with some neutrals. It comes after the same message was conveyed by the community in several previous RFCs. In addition, the removal of the obstructive syntax that turns dates blue will inevitably need to be addressed. Tony (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That's the definition of narrow Tony, and it definitely doesn't represent consensus. Please stop speaking for the community, your projections of your desire are the problem here. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

'Narrow or broad in the last RfC vote (Ryan's) is not all relevant, as that vote was not about dynamic dates but about the general concept of DA (at the insistence of Locke). DA by linking markup was deprecated three and a half months earlier. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That same RFC showed support for "some form" of auto formatting. As many of the issues with the current system can be fixed, it's more sensible to fix them rather than send out bots to make hundreds of thousands of edits to remove the markup (only to turn around and add it back when the bugs are fixed). —Locke Cole • t • c 02:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how anything is broken if the articles show dates in the format you desire. Can you explain? —Locke Cole • t • c 14:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The date preferences were originally meant to modify the appearance of dates in article histories. However, I am now unable to change this without changing dates in articles as well. At the moment, the original functionality is broken, unless you want articles modified as well - which might be fine if you want American or British dates, but if you wanted 2009-05-08 style, then you're going to face some very ugly articles.

In short, this unwanted and opposed feature prevents use of a desirable one. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be simpler to add a checkbox, "Format dates in articles as well"? —Locke Cole • t • c 02:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest about autoformatting, so I am speaking entirely as a disinterested party when I point out that it is established practice not to consider that a consensus exists for a proposal until at least two-thirds have voted for it, the more Wikipedians the better. If Jimmy Wales can't introduce Flagged Revisions with less than two-thirds approval, then we're stuck with autoformatting for the time being. Sorry. -- llywrch (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think that removing code that already is discouraged from use by all policies and guidelines on the subject requires such. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• If a widespread, full-participation vote of at least two-thirds is required to have a consensus, then there was no consensus in the first place for Wikipedia to have begun using DynamicDates, nor was there three years ago when Wikipedia started using the IEC prefixes like “kibibyte (KiB)” instead of the “kilobyte (KB)” everyone else on the planet uses when communicating to a general-interest audience. Since there was no consensus in the first place to begin using the IEC prefixes, it wouldn’t have taken a two-thirds supermajority vote to undo that myopic, ill-considered move and bring Wikipedia in line with the rest of the planet. The Wikipedians who wanted to adopt a futuristic proposal from the IEC on a “new, unambiguous” set of binary prefixes all certainly had good intentions: something along the lines of helping improve the world by leading by example©™®. But the lesson learned was that, like all other encyclopedias, Wikipedia follows the way the world really works in order to communicate to its readership with minimal confusion.

  As for turning on DynamicDates and making linking of dates be responsive to users’ preference settings, there was no “consensus” by the community in any shape, form, or fashion to turn that thing on in the first place. Like the IEC prefixes (kibibyte, mebibyte), it was thrust upon us by a small cabal (developers in this case) without community input. Well intentioned, perhaps, as it was intended to eliminate edit warring by editors who couldn’t act like grownups. But it was an unwise move as it ended up in creating outright junky looking text for our I.P. users. It is they (I.P. users are 99.99% of our readership) that we are really here for. Exceedingly few humans on this planet are 1) registered editors who 2) keep logged in after thirty days, and 3) set their date preferences to something other than “no preference.” It’s not about us. Since there was no wide consensus of Wikipedians to make the decision to start up DynamicDates (there was no consensus at all), it does not now enjoy the privilege of magically being grandfathered in where only a supermajority can undo it—that is the exact same argument one last “IEC prefix” hold-out is still making. A simple, clear majority is all that is required to give DynamicDates the boot. It is absurd to think that one or two developers acting on their own initiative can start something but a clear majority is powerless to undo it; that is an utterly bankrupt notion.

  The reason Wikipedia doesn’t define “consensus” purely in terms of shear vote tallies is that “consensus” comprises a variety of factors, including how widespread the participation is and how widely it was advertised, how logical and meritorious the arguments are, how consistent the logic is in one camp or the other, and how thoroughly the issue has been worked and how much voter fatigue there is. We’ve done the best we can do and have gone as far as we can go. One option that would be worse of all is declare that the “wining” side actually loses, and an unwise move by one or two individuals must always be grandfathered in unless it can be overridden with an overwhelming supermajority in a high-profile RfC. Such arguments make no sense and have zero credibility.

  Moreover, this latest ArbCom-sponsored RfC doesn’t supersede the previous RfCs; it supplements them, and RfC results like this one add more insight into what the community thinks. The teachings of all the RfCs makes it exceedingly clear that most Wikipedian’s want DynamicDates turned off and think that editors should look at the exact same article content that our I.P. users see. That is the will of the community. Whining by the losing side is just that: whining.

  Getting to Shoemaker's Holiday’s point and Ryan’s response: yeah, what Ryan said. Patience. Greg L (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Heh. I thought you were ignoring my comments -- as well as those of countless more -- Greg. -- llywrch (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

FFS, the problem with all the polls and RFCs is that they're hopelessly vague. The poll showed that a small majority opposes the "general idea of date autoformatting." If you want date autoformtting in its current state to be disabled, just have a poll that addresses the issue directly: Should MediaWiki's dynamic dates feature be disabled for the English Wikipedia. Have the poll, and if the result indicates that it should be disabled, file a bug. Mr.Z-man 23:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Too late. The last poll was most certainly not vague; it was very clear. It asked the question: “Does the Wikipedia community support the concept of date autoformatting?” We can trust the community to have an attention span sufficient to last ten words (in bold, no less). The answer: No. And a Bugzilla has been filed to turn autoformatting off. And, no, we don’t need to go back to the community (again) and ask “Now… are you really, really sure you want some developer to set the fnangle dangle binary screw-pooch invertotron nano-black hole parameter to ‘false’?” Like Ryan pointed about above, Wikipedia must first get its editorial house in order to fix dates that would look like utter crud when autoformatting (DynamicDates) is turned off.

  Ryan has been in the middle of all this from the beginning and understands all the technical issues, what has transpired, and what needs to transpire to move forward. He’s been given the responsibility of managing this circus, so let’s all not stand over his shoulder and give him all sorts of advise while he’s kneeling in the dirt actually doing the work of tightening the lug nuts. Greg L (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• A link to the bug would have sufficed, but thanks for the hostility. Mr.Z-man 01:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oops… ♬ sorry♩. I didn’t intend for hostility to come across. The green-text passage was intended as humorous, in fact. That’s one of the shortcomings of written prose: someone’s mood can be hard to discern. I was not angry when I wrote the above—I was just intent on plain-speak. Greg L (talk) 02:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Since you like plain speaking, in simple English according to policy, getting a majority in a poll means nothing. However, Wikipedia doesn't go quite as far as Meatball Wiki in claiming voting is evil.-- llywrch (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Lurch, you linked to "Polling is not a substitute for discussion" and called it "policy". However, it is not WP:POLICY but a WP:GUIDELINE. I'm sure it was an inadvertent mistake on your part.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, my username's not "Lurch", it's "Llywrch" -- but no one ever gets it right. First, it is the exact page I wanted -- which addresses just how much weight a poll has. (In a nutshell, they have some, but they're rarely decisive.) But you are correct GMW, it is a guideline. Which is ironic, since many of the people in this thread have confused the Manual of Style with policy. -- llywrch (talk) 05:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Saving good contributions from bad users

n.b. I don't want to go into specific cases here, I'm more interested in the bigger picture. If a user gets blocked and / or banned, for, say, civility issues, then sockpuppets to get around that ban, writing constructively for the encyclopaedia, is deletion of that content by an admin (after the charade is revealed) always unavoidable / automatic? Is it a point of principle to accept a little collateral damage in order to discourage sockpuppeting? Or can the content be userfied by an admin, reviewed by a "good" editor, and then put back into mainspace? I'm interested to find out what the guidelines are in this area, feel free to fire three letter links at me. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 08:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a question that should be posted to the Helpdesk; there are knowledgeable editors who are not necessarily admins (on this page you might find admins who are not necessarily knowledgeable) who can point you toward the policies and guidelines you are looking for. The short answer is that, yes, good information can be harvested from a banned users socks - but there needs to be accountability. The helpdesk will give you better details. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I just thought admins might be better placed to give de facto answers on the topic, as they're the ones actually doing the deleting and userfying. De jure might be the way to go though, so I'll direct knowledgeable admins to the help desk. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 13:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

They don't. WP:UCS is quite a nice tool to have at times. If there's a good contribution, we welcome them, but it doesn't mean they dont stay blocked, or that less productive edits aren't removed. --M^ask? 10:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible intent to hijack an administrator account

Resolved

 – Checkusers are already aware of this and are handling it accordingly --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 03:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The following was apparently sent to a Wikipedia administrator who is now inactive and who prefers to remain anonymous. It was passed to me through an intermediary who wishes to keep his own name and his account name out of this. I generally trust that intermediary, and believe this to be exactly what it appears to be.

Begin forwarded message.

From: Wp freedom fighter <wikifreedomfighter@googlemail.com>

To: [redacted]

Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 7:14:22 AM

Subject: Wikipedia e-mail

Dear [redacted],

We notice you haven't edited Wikipedia for some time. Perhaps you grew disillusioned with the project after seeing the corruption and bureaucracy at every level? If so, why not help us to help you. We are currently expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts, and as yours remains dormant perhaps you could consider donating it to us - to do so will take you only two minutes: change the password (if desired) and then reply to this email with your login details. We'll do the rest!

Thank you for your time and consideration, and naturally do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.

Kind Regards,

The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters

----

This e-mail was sent by user "Wp freedom fighter" on the English Wikipedia to user "[redacted]". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

The sender has not been given any information about your e-mail account and you are not required to reply to this e-mail. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>.

End forwarded message.

It seems likely to my correspondent (and to me) that someone wishes to hijack an account with administrative privileges to use in a manner counter to the interests of Wikipedia and/or the Wikimedia Foundation. This target turned them down, but there may be other such targets.

At the very least, if this can be taken at face value, User:Wp freedom fighter - an account that exists but has never edited - is up to no good, and we should probably investigate what IP addresses that account has used and who that account may have contacted by email.

Also, we should be on the lookout for any long-dormant account with administrator privileges that comes back to life and behaves maliciously. Quite possibly, we should proactively contact anyone with long-dormant administrator accounts, let them know this has been going on, and make it clear to them that they would be responsible for anything done by someone operating under their account. - Jmabel | Talk 03:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

That very last bit seems unnecessary. I'd like to think that administrators, even retired/semi-retired ones, have the good sense not to give out their passwords; no need to give them a templated warning not to. –xeno ^talk 03:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the report! The checkusers are aware of such e-mails being send and we're investigating it accordingly. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 03:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Same here, mailed from different account The C for WF (talk · contribs · logs). It's so blatantly phishing, it's cute. Help to fight the random abuse of power at higher level, by delegating your power to some random higher level, who promises not to abuse it. That's how freedom fighting works. Riiight. 84.129.153.111 (talk) 10:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Am I in the right place?

I'd like to alert administrators about two users (possibly one user with two accounts) who have continually been uploading blatant copyvio images, despite receiving dozens of warnings/notices regarding Wikipedia's policy on such images. Not sure if this is the place to report it or if there's a specific place for reporting repeat copyvio offenders...? —BMRR (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI would be best (for future references), but at this point it can't hurt to bring it up here. Icestorm815 • Talk 05:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Assuming the two are User talk:Electroide ‎and User talk:Arlonuelle, I didn't see a problem with Electroide's recent uploads, but I went through and cleaned up the copyvios and left a final warning for Arlonuelle. لennavecia 16:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! —BMRR (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Electroide. —BMRR (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Block review

I've blocked three accounts which obviously (and admittedly) belong to one user - NickelodeonFan95 (talk · contribs), RetroNickelodeonFan (talk · contribs) and RetroNickelodeonFan2 (talk · contribs). The fourth is Logoboy95forever (talk · contribs), which I haven't blocked, because the accounts themselves don't seem to have abused WP:SOCK. Now, it seems unlikely to me that any user could have a legitimate reason to operate four autoconfirmed accounts and therefore the chance that the user is building a sockfarm seemed pretty high. It's possible that I'm not AGF'ing here, but having left the user friendly message which was ignored, before they moved on to the fourth account, my good faith ran out. If anyone has any insight into what could be going on here, I'd appreciate it. – Toon^(talk) 13:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

As you say, they don't seem to have done any harm. Neither have you. So far, so good. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't think of any reason for 4 active accounts, but if they weren't being disruptive, why not start the discussion prior to giving them a block history? --Onorem♠Dil 13:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Toon left him/her a message about it [79]. S/he just created another account and removed Toons message [80]. John Sloan @ 14:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I did see that, but I still don't see the need for such quick blocks. Block logs don't go away. An obvious set of socks like this can be blocked quickly if they actually do become disruptive. --Onorem♠Dil 14:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Preventing the building of sock-farms is important, as what is obvious today may take some digging to unearth a year from now. Large numbers of alternate accounts strikes me as being prima facie evidence of bad faith. Looks like a good block to me.—Kww(talk) 14:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that the issue be ignored. I was simply throwing out the idea of discussion prior to blocking. --Onorem♠Dil 15:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I probably should have started this discussion prior to blocking, but I was watching the situation when there were two accounts, and then three, and now four. There comes a point when you have to ask how many accounts is it acceptable to operate? What is the limit? Five? Six? Seven? I decided, having raised the issue with the user in a friendly way, and having the user continue, that this should be stopped. I deliberately left one account unblocked, meaning that the user can continue to edit with a clean block log. – Toon^(talk) 14:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's not something I'll be losing any sleep over. I'm just a fan of discussions and warnings taking place prior to blocks. "Please explain or I'll block" instead of "I've blocked until you explain" when an editor isn't being actively disruptive. --Onorem♠Dil 15:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

From the contribution history, this could well be Rihannano1fan (talk · contribs)/ChrisIsBliss04DoctorWho (talk · contribs)/ChrisIsBliss04 (talk · contribs). Same way of operating: filling articles with a big pile of trivia, then creating a new account when asked not to do it again. 91.85.160.75 (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

RFAR/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

This arbitration case has been closed and the summary of the final decision is available at here.

For the Arbitration Committee, hmwithτ 17:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Feedback / sanity check sought

• Artistarena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User_talk:Artistarena#.5BUnblock_.7C_Posting_Official_Fan_Clubs_for_Bands.5D

This editor has been posting links to musicians' official fanclub websites on the relevant musicians' articles. To me, this seems like a violation of a couple of WP:ELNO points - the sites can't be viewed without a membership, and membership costs a fee. Myself and another editor have removed the links and warned the editor, but since we didn't get any sort of response, and some of our removals were reverted, I blocked this editor as being used only for commercial promotion. Now they're asking for an unblock (see link above), on the assumption that it's okay for them to post these links since they've got the rights to create and promote these fanclubs. Rather than just correct that formatting error, and wait for one admin to offer an opinion, I thought I'd ask for broader feedback here. There are two issues that may merit discussion, but that ought not to be confused:-

1. Whether this account is blockable as being used only for promotion (per Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption-only)
2. Whether these links should be allowed (specifically, whether WP:ELNO #4, #6, #11 apply).

Thanks in advance for any feedback. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Yes- "we are providing the means for those individuals interested to become involved in the intimate fan community which we offer"- for a fee. This is clearly promotional in my view.

2. No- we often link to sites requiring a login, and flag them with "registration required"; since it is a paid subscription here, they would appear to be promotional and breach WP:ELNO, as you say. Rodhullandemu 21:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick deletion review

I've deleted Ronald Reagan's Alzheimer's letter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as a copyright violation--the article consisted of a letter, in its entirety, that would be under copyright. I'm bringing it here for the sake of transparency, because, though I'm quite certain my interpretation is correct, I can imagine some controversy coming from this. I'd welcome comments on my action. Thanks. Chick Bowen 23:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Seems like a good call. Regardless of copyright status it would seem to be outside the project scope anyways. Protonk (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Problem in article The Ugly Duckling

There is a sentence which reads: "The Ugly Duckling" tells the story of a cygnet ostracized by his fellow barnyard fowl because of his perceived homeliness. (emphasis added in bold)

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/homely

The definition of 'homely' in Wiktionary gives multiple meanings, but I presume it is #3 that is being used here.

This is confusing for non-US readers, as it is hard to imagine why something would be ostracised for being 'homely' which probably has more positive connotations then negative.

I would like this to be corrected. Thanks.--Pipelinefine (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't an administrative issue. You could make the change yourself, if you like. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Templates for Deletion backlogged

Any nice administrator out there with nothing to do is invited to help out with Templates for deletion closings. There are currently open discussions stretching back to April 24, several of which simply need someone to pull the deletion trigger. Thanks in advance for your time. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't get what happened

Resolved

 – Tags removed by original user. Oren0 (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really THAT new here, or at least I read a bunch of these policies some nice person left on my talk page a while go. Anyway, so I wrote my fist article and I thought I did a good job, but someone put a speedy delete tag on it. When I tried to ask him on his talk page about it he just did this [81] deleted my message and ignored me. I don't know what I did wrong but tht seems kinda rude, no? If I was gonna try and get some page deleted I'd at least be willing to discuss it with them. The article has three independent sources so I dont even see why it should be deleted anyway. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Anyway Ima goin to bed so I'll come back and see if my articles is gone in the morning. :-/ Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 07:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The user has removed the tags he/she placed on the article, so no harm there. As for the removal of your question, the user has a big disclaimer on the top of his/her talk page that says to discuss such matters on the article's talk page. It's not the most civil thing in the world to remove a question from your user page without explanation, but there's nothing strictly wrong with it either. For future reference, it would help if you'd link to the article in question (here and on a user's talk page) so we all know what you're talking about. Oren0 (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This is called "shit and run", and many people do it to any new article that appears in recent changes that doesn't spring fully formed from the forehead of Zeus. It's definitely a violation of WP:CIVIL, and usually also WP:BITE. Jtrainor (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd guess that your statement itself would probably not be what WP:CIVIL is hoping for... – Toon^(talk) 16:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It depends though. The user doesn't say that they won't discuss the tag at all, only that they'd prefer to discuss it on the article talk page. The discussion is more visible there anyway. I'm not sure what harm there is in replying to the message on your user talk saying "I'll answer you on article talk" but that's a style issue I suppose. I do agree that it's a tad WP:BITEy but I don't believe it's outside accepted norms. Oren0 (talk)

Toon, do you deny that this happens frequently? Jtrainor (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if this action seemed rude, but the reason I removed the question was to continue the discussion on the talk page. This makes sense as people needing to follow the discussion can see it all in the one place, rather than going to a handful of user talk pages.

As for your article – a few times a day I have a quick look at new articles, and weed out what appears to be articles without enough notability to remain. At first glance, your article had only a few lines of text without references, and I tagged it for that reason. However, very soon after I saw it had expanded with good references and removed the speedy tag. Can I suggest adding the ‘under construction’ tag for new articles, or making mention that you are adding refs in the edit summary. I now do this, as I myself have had my article tagged or deleted as I was slow putting in references.
Welcome to WP, and I’m sure we’ll meet again.--Dmol (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

A note about CSD A7 and "notability". In order to avoid A7, an article doesn't have to demonstrate "notability" or have sources. It just has to have a credible assertion of "importance or significance". The article when it was tagged said supplied the raw materials for Argo corn starch and Mazola corn oil. This is an assertion of significance, therefore, it shouldn't have been tagged as an A7. If you keep this in mind when doing new page patrol and review WP:CSD, incidents like this can be avoided. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Or create your article in a user subpage where you can get into shape for the mainspace before moving it there. – ukexpat (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Stewart Island/Rakiura

Aervanath (talk · contribs) has twice moved Stewart Island/Rakiura to Stewart Island after a requested move which reached no consensus on the talk page. His rationale appears to be that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) dictates the move, but ignores even after it was pointed out that those conventions explicitly say the common name is to be used "except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication". In this case, the New Zealand naming conventions suggest the current name. Aervanath suggests the matter be brought here rather than attempting to find a consensus elsewhere.-gadfium 06:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• This looks like a content dispute, but I'll bite. Whatever the end name should be, Stewart Island/Rakiura is not something I hope our naming conventions would suggest. The name of the island is "Stewart Island" or "Rakiura". I have a strong suspicion that neither its official nor its common name is Stewart Island/Rakiura. Protonk (talk) 06:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

  The official name is indeed "Stewart Island/Rakiura". See the official database of place names. It may be a content dispute, but Aervanath has used admin tools to move the article and attempted to protect it to prevent it being moved back.

  Just re-read the ref, sorry. Protonk (talk) 06:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• I've moved the article back to the correct name according to the policy, which is Stewart Island/Rakiura - the official name of the island (neither "Stewart island" nor "Rakiura" is by itself the official name). The New Zealand naming conventions clearly indicate that this should be the name for the article - and similar names are used for the likes of Aoraki/Mount Cook. I don't want to get involved in a wheel war over this, but Aervanath appears to be picking and choosing individual phrases from policy while ignoring the rest of the sentences within the same policy, as noted above. He should also be aware that protecting an article while you're involved in a dispute on it is a no-no. Grutness...wha? 07:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Are you sure that move was done properly. I'm seeing the article redirecting to itself here. I don't think I'm drunk. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah - my fault. Fixed now. Got fooled by the server lag and double-clicked something I shouldn't have. Grutness...wha? 07:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Unresolved issue archived, presumably accidentally.

Hi admins,

I suspect my post was accidentally archived - it had not been commented nor acted upon.

Thanks,

Hunterd is back! 20:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done, next time don't place your report in a collapsed box - it's a great way to have it ignored and archived without comment ;> –xeno ^talk 20:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, figured as much. lol. Thanks for your help, mate. :) Hunterd is back! 14:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Pyraechmes

Hello. I have recently had some trouble with User:Pyraechmes who has gone on a "free for all" in regards to article which he believes that he is right in[82]. However, it seems to me that he has undertaken significant WP:OR in the form of newly created categories and the invention of terms such as "Vlach-Slavic dialect" and "Northern Macedonians" [83]. It appears that he has edited from an anonymous IP, in order to not break the WP:3RR [84], even continuing the conversation through the edit summary. The major disturbance has been at Polykastro where Pyraechmes has continued similar reverting Enough with that joke. Do not delete parts of the article, You don't have the right to delete parts of history of a place just because you don't like it, stop deleting facts, PMK1's vandalism. Deletes parts of article and changes names without sources etc. without giving reasonable explanation or the possibility of compromise and consensus. What can be done about this users who has shown no resolve to act reasonably or to act within the key Wikipedia principles? Thank you. PMK1 (talk) 06:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The same is the situation with Pyraechmes on the article Grecomans. Disruptive edits without reliable explaination and similar. Jingby (talk) 08:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Does any admin intend to adress this issue of disruptive editing and spamming takl pages? PMK1 (talk) 12:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like a content dispute; both sides are edit warring.I've protected the page, please go and start a discussion on the talk page. Also, be more careful when labelling edits as "vandalism", there's a big difference between content you disagree with and bad-faith edits. Both of you are trying to improve the article, you just disagree about what that constitutes. – Toon^(talk) 12:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Ion Antonescu and a Zionist conspiracy?

This page has come up previously regarding anti-semetic comments, but it seems that once again some rather troubling assertions are being made on it. Even if one ignores the attempts to argue an extreme structuralist view point for the Romanian aspect of the Holocaust (and indeed outright denial), in this section we have: What astounds me is the political blindness (temporary, I hope) of one of the world's most intelligent community, the Jewish one. Bullying contributors to the "talk" page ? Colapsing contributions when they are expressing contradictory views ? What on earth are you hoping to achieve by this ? After you stood yourself so much suffering and injustice you choose to be ignorant of the value of the factual truth ? That's your solution, replacing a german brand of nazism with a jewish one ? Leave the hatchet aside and talk by HMycroft. Perhaps more concerning than this is that this slightly bizzare rant received the full support of a milhist co-ordinator, who has in the past made some somewhat dubious statements of Jewish sources not being trusted on the subject.

Regardless, an admin may want to examine this and speak to those involved. Allegations that other users are engaged in a zionist conspiracy to mass insult a whole country are hardly productive at best. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

His name is also slightly disturbing, considering what he's posting. HMY Croft? Sound suspiciously like HimeyCroft (Himey being an offensive term for Jews). An SPA perhaps ?

— Kosh _{Naluboutes, Nalubotes} ^{Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris} 12:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Might be a bit of a stretch there, I read it as Mycroft Holmes, Sherlock's brother. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering that this issue is actually a much more broader ongoing debate in Romania, it is improbable that we would manage to conclude it here on wikipedia. What is most unacceptable for me is the fact that an article on such a controversial topic was completely written by a single person (see 1, 2 and 3), who strictly controls the article and automatically reverts any single addition of sources even on issues completely unrelated to the Holocaust (there are many examples of this throughout article's history). Even if its view at the subject would be corect, he shouldn't be allowed to practically own the article and censor any impugnment of the sources/opinions existent in the current form of the article. In my opinion most of the facts presented by User:HYM Croft could be valid and if supported by sources should be added to the article within a controversy section. Categorizing any sources which contest the facts presented at the moment in the article as revisionist/negativist seems just a good reason to promote your POV and censore other additions. Considering all this, I thought to be appropiate placing a neutrality tag at the top of the page for the period of talk page disputes, but it was quickly removed by the ones who control the article. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFPP backlog

There's a little bit of a backlog over at RFPP, just giving a heads up. --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 16:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That is much better then backlogs I have seen in the past. I'd not fret too much about it :) —— nixeagle^{email me} 16:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on hiding the "create a book" sidebar

Following concerns raised in the Usability Study, and the proliferation of books of questionable utility, there's an ongoing discussion at VPR about temporarily hiding the "create a book" interface from the sidebar, until the system can be redesigned to be more user- and site-friendly. All welcome to the discussion and straw poll. Happy‑melon 17:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Eyes on this, please

The article on Post Orgasmic Illness Syndrome has been nominated for deletion, and a new user who suffers from the condition has begun to post at the AfD. In view of the nature of the condition I think there's considerable potential for inadvertent biting if anyone makes an ill-judged comment, so it might be nice if there were some administrative eyes on the discussion.

I'm very conscious of WP:CANVASS but that's not my intention, and I hope you'll consider I haven't behaved inappropriately by linking this discussion here!—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Palace

Resolved

Could anyone please remove Le_Palace? I created that before I saw that Le Palace (Paris) already existed. thanks Lerichard (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. In the future, you can place a {{db-self}} on the article page to place it in the CSD queue. Syrthiss (talk) 12:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I recreated Le Palace as a redirect to Le Palace (Paris) as it is a likely search term. The Seeker 4 Talk 15:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

We could probably just move Le Palace (Paris) to Le Palace, unless there is some more common term that for some reason didn't have a page associated with it. Protonk (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I moved it over the redirect. Protonk (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Blacklisted subject - attempt to put in a redirect to a proper article in the French Wpedia.

I have created the French Wikipedia article: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ing%C3%A9nierie_Simultan%C3%A9e_Pr%C3%A9sent%C3%A9e_Aux_JEunes_du_Secondaire

with a Redirect link in the French Wikipedia from this page: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISPAJES to the French Wiki article.

And now I want to add a Redirect from the English Wikipedia to the French.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ISPAJES&action=submit

However, on the English Wikipedia, the accronym: "ISPAJES" has been blacklisted.

I request that it be not blacklisted so that the re-direct to the article in the French Wikipedia may be established.

Regards, Alan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanbrowne (talk • contribs) 15:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no provision for a cross-wiki redirect. If you create an article at that title, an interwiki link can be created, but cross-language links are not possible for redirects. Horologium (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Understood, however, my main problem is getting the subject ISPAJES taken off blacklist status. I can then re-direct by using a hyperlink instead of a topic name. - Alan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanbrowne (talk • contribs) 22:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

What we're saying is that there's no way to redirect to another language wiki. An article consisting of only an interwiki link (or external link) would be deleted anyways, so there would be no point in taking that acronym/phrase off of the blacklist. Killiondude (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe some explanation is due about why the word ISPAJES was blacklisted in the first place? 95.34.55.36 (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It shows a normal edit screen, and there are no recent changes to the title blacklist. The only things I can think of are either that you were logged out when trying to create the page, or that it contained an external link that was on the spam blacklist (if that happened it shows a message, and you should be able to use the back button in your browser, remove the link and try saving again). —Snigbrook 01:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how a redirect could be blacklisted, although if created it would probably have been speedily deleted soon after. —Snigbrook 01:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Note to administrators reviewing expired PRODs

Please check the history of the article before deletion to make sure that the article has in fact been prodded for 7 days. This article was prodded on the 7th of May with the date spoofed to make it look as if it had been tagged since the 30th. (diff) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Also a good idea to check if there's a previous contested prod (making it ineligible for a new prod). Quite a few prodders don't check first.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

How do you find a previous contested prod? Is it possible without loading every diff? —— nixeagle^{email me} 14:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I tend not to check for precisely this reason--if it's been deleted by prod before, that shows up in the deletion log. If it hasn't, then it's impossible to ascertain whether or not it's been prodded before without a detailed examination of the article history. Sounds like a good job for a bot to do... Jclemens (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No detailed examination is necessary, providing the page hasn't been massively edited. Just click "older 500" a few times, and search each page for "prod". Anyone prodding should be mentioning it in the edit summary. You can also check the talk page for {{Oldprodfull}}. 86.44.43.182 (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Eh, someone might use "proposed deletion", or "tagged for deletion", or "pord"[sic]... It's probably best for the noobs to spell out what you're doing anyway. --NE2 06:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't a bot be set up to automatically add "oldprodfull" to the talk page of contested prods? That way in the future, prods will be documented. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

IP block expired

Resolved

The one-year block of 210.18.232.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) just expired, and is already making vandal edits (and oddly reverting some of them). Please someone keep an eye out (I'm off). — Edokter • Talk • 01:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked, yet again. Nakon 02:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Editing while logged out

Resolved

 – Removal of IP address permitted by Wikipedia:Oversight policy. –xeno ^talk 20:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Since when is "I accidentally logged out" an acceptable reason for using oversight to censor information in page histories? Gurch (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear...  GARDEN  19:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be WP:RevDel rather than oversight. –xeno ^talk 19:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, first, that link (double) redirects to Wikipedia talk:Oversight. Second, how does that make it OK? Gurch (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the double redirect now. I don't believe it okay, for the record.  GARDEN  19:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

User notified.  GARDEN  19:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be honest, it looks like it was just use of Oversight for FT2's personal benefit. Yes, he'd revealed his IP; but people do that all the time. I've done it at least 10 times, and while I don't make my details public, if anyone's sufficiently interested, they can find them.

If I requested Oversight to remove all references of my IP, I'd be refused (I've been refused on having my first name revealed by other users, before) - but Oversighters obviously operate by different rules... sigh.

That said, I'm fairly confident that nothing productive will come of this. The action won't be undone, and a big drama-fest will ensue, so I recommend not making too much of it. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, RevDel is simply a "lite version" of selective deletion. –xeno ^talk 19:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but only people with oversight can use it, making it an oversight issue.  GARDEN  19:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That's only in the test phase though (AFAIK). –xeno ^talk 19:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You mean you're going to let administrators do this stuff as well? Oh effing great... Gurch (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It's been standard practice for some years now that accidentally editing while logged out is a valid reason for using HideRevision (Oversight).

To explain RevisionDelete (the new tool) -- it can be set to be either the equivalent of selective deletion (i.e. visible to admins only) or to the equivalent of oversight (i.e. visible to users with the Oversight permission only). When RevisionDelete is turned on for all users, revisions hidden with the visible-to-admins setting will be visible to admins; as yet, they are not.

I would suggest that it would have been better to ask someone else to remove the revisions, but I don't think there is anything substantively wrong with the actions taken beyond that. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 19:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh... as TreasuryTag has already explained, while it may well have been standard practise for years for oversighters to hide their own edits for whatever reasons (and conveniently without a log or any way of normal users knowing what they'd done), such a privilege is not extended to us mere mortals. Gurch (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not merely users with the oversight permission whose IPs are hidden. Absolutely not! I believe I personally have removed dozens of edits for precisely that reason, none of which were mine. There is a log, visible only to users with the oversight permission, for fairly obvious reasons. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 20:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, but how come mortal users get declined when they ask to get their logged-out IP removed? Or was this before RevDel?  GARDEN  19:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what the practice was for "years", but Thatcher wrote it into the policy in December [85]. Dragons flight (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

And I think Thatcher's edit was to reflect how that clause had generally been interpreted for quite some time. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 20:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why TreasuryTag's request was refused. If I had seen it, I would have done it. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 20:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I said "I'd prefer not to have my Christian name accessible... thanks!" and received a response of "That's not really covered," on January 24th (I doubt I'm allowed to say which Oversighter it was from). ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 21:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if you had just said "real name", they would've acquiesced? –xeno ^talk 21:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you be allowed to name the Oversighter? Mike R (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:EMAIL > "You should not post e-mail itself on the wiki without permission." It doesn't really matter to the community which Oversighter it was, anyway, and people with access to the mailing-list can go and check the history using the date I provided if they're interested. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 07:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I was told there was an encyclopedia around here somewhere. Was I mistaken? Synergy 22:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment

I've just caught up on this.

Removal of IPs for users who accidentally edited logged out is historically, and still today, uncontroversial. Requests to this effect turn up routinely from all kinds of editors on the oversight mailing list:

• one today responded to by Risker
• one on April 29 responded to by Dominic (Dmcdevit),
• one on April 22 where Kenneth Kua comments a logged out users IP was oversighted,
• one on April 15 responded to by Daniel Case,
• and so on, and so on.

Each of these is treated under oversight policy as "removal of non-public personal information". There is not one case ever, that I am aware of, where a user who posted accidentally logged-out, signed over it, and asked for oversight of the IP edit, was treated as anything except routine and straightforward.

To underscore the point, in Thatcher's proposed redraft for RevDeleted this very month, the matter is made explicit: "This includes hiding revisions made by editors who were accidentally logged out and thus inadvertently revealed their own IP addresses". (As well as being noted in the local oversight policy last year [86]). Lest anyone hold that this is new, novel, or unusual, the oversight log starts on May 28 2006; the first uses of oversight explicitly in relation to a user who edited logged out by mistake were July of that same year, about 300 log entries from the start.

Gurch - you should be aware this is a norm, and has been for a long, long time. You're also well aware that when a matter is blatent and non-controversial to the point "any reasonable user would agree it was a reasonable appropriate handling of a non-controversial matter", then the need to ask someone else is routinely considered bureaucratic. You can also imagine that privacy issues may be time sensitive - in fact that is a major factor in the staffing of the oversight list and team. Further, although you can't see it, I can confirm that editing logged out is extremely rare for me and highly non-habitual, and you can verify from the history log that although there is no requirement to do so, I have ensured that total disclosure [87] is there for other editors, and have redacted the privacy breaching data only and not any other part of the edits.

If you have any further complaint, the audit subcommittee is thataway /points/ and deals exactly with alleged misuse of checkuser and oversight. Rather than have any doubt as to whether this was a proper action, please place the matter in their hands.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds to me like the definitions of "personal information" used by checkuser and oversight got mixed up at some point. Gurch (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. The root principle is, non-public personal information is not to be disclosed on the wiki, and where practical to remove, may be removed. Checkuser states "do not publicly disclose non-public data obtained from the server logs, where reasonable avoidable, except in very narrow limits". Oversight states "where non-public information of an individual has been posted on the wiki, it may be removed from both public and admin view". There is no blurring or mix up at all. Each tool has an application of the same root principle, as applicable to that tool. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

On Commons, requests to remove IPs, first names, etc. happen fairly frequently, and are routinely granted, at least if I am the one asked. ++Lar: t/c 03:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted IPs for people who have accidentally edited while logged out. While not oversight, it is the same idea. It is pretty non-controversial. Prodego ^talk 03:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Files for deletion

Before I proceed to WP:DISPUTE or WP:RFC (I'm not sure which one this should go to, to be honest), I wanted to get some input. I'm raising this because of the outcome of Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 7#LawrenceFobesKing.jpg. Keeping your opinions to yourself about whether or not the image being in several articles is against Fair Use/Nonfree policy, I'd like you to give your thoughts on the actual Files For Deletion process itself. Is it simply to gain a consensus for deleting or keeping a file, nothing more, nothing less? Or is it also, along with coming to a consensus for deleting or keeping a file, the place where restrictions can also be put on file useage? After addressing the issue with the closing admin, and him not agreeing with my assessment but instead directing me to WP:DRV, I'm exploring alternatives. DRV, aka Deletion Review, is not the appropriate venue since the file wasn't deleted. Similarly, I feel Ffd is not the appropriate venue to decide where and when a file can be used. IMHO, Ffd is simply for either keeping or deleting a file per consensus. If I haven't explained this simple enough, please let me know because I don't want anyone being confused by what I'm trying to say here. Your opinions/thoughts/ideas would be appreciated - snarks and sarcasm will be met with a trout. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 07:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Since keeping or deleting a file uploaded with a FU claim will depend on how and why it is used, I can't see how a ffd debate can avoid the issue of usage. Having another process to do this would be unworkable and excessive.--Scott Mac (Doc) 08:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You may find WP:NFR useful for this. But be aware that DRV is a valid venue to challenge, on procedural grounds, the outcome of any deletion discussion, whatever that outcome might have been. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

IP prodding and then blanking/replacing a page citing legal concerns...

86.43.67.178 prodded Stuart Pearson (businessman) for deletion. Then 3 days later, 86.43.185.208, which happens to be in the same /16 range as the previous IP, blanked the article twice, then replaced the page twice, the second time citing legal concerns. Any administrator willing to look this over and see what's going on? Thanks. Until It Sleeps 12:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Reverted with prod in place and tagged as being unrferenced. Should it happen again, semi-protection until the prod expires would be a good idea. — Edokter • Talk • 12:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

User:TAeiluj and multiple IEEE articles?

I noticed that over the past few days (since May 11) TAeiluj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has created multiple articles about IEEE member councils. What I'm concerned about is all of these articles (at least of the ones I've checked) only list official IEEE website links as their sources. In general, we wouldn't allow a self-referenced article to exist but on the other hand the IEEE is a notable organization. Am I concerned over nothing? I didn't bring this up with the editor yet. Syrthiss (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

ListasBot 3

As another editor has expressed concern over ListasBot 3's approved functions (in short, whether or not talk pages of redirects should be replaced with a redirect to the new talk page), I've set up a discussion on how to proceed with this bot. Input would be appreciated. The discussion is at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3.

Thanks, Matt (talk) 02:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It's kinda hard not to see leading questions like this, spammed onto over a hundred WikiProject talk pages, as ballot-stuffing. Hesperian 02:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I probably could have phrased that better...but since the objecting editor indicated that WikiProjects were the ones that were primarily using the talk pages in question, I felt that I should give them some sort of notice. Matt (talk) 02:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

So you spam over a hundred talk pages? Just because a few people don't like your bot? WTF were you thinking?! Hesperian 02:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well let's see here...I posted a notice at WP:VPP when the bot was going through the approvals process, and no one responded to it. So let's say I'm sick of asking for consensus on something and having no one answer me. Matt (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't consider it ballot-stuffing. It did have the intended effect of finally catching the attention of those involved with these WikiProjects. Tothwolf (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Since Wikiprojects are the ones who might be impacted, notifying them is entirely appropriate. There is no central "Wikiprojects" noticeboard to use as an alternative. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright concerns, assistance requested

• Mschiffler (talk · contribs)

This contributor seems to have basically misunderstood our copyright policy, and I am sorely in need of assistance checking to see if there are other infringing articles in his contributions. I have a good bit more to do with copyright problems at the moment than I can handle. :) I've got several hours left of working on History of the Jews in Poland, and I'm not even finished with today's listings at WP:CP (soon!)

Backstory: Today's CP closures brought my attention to Clientelism, which this contributor seems to have pasted here in January 2008, from [88]. Unfortunately, when he was advised of the issue by CorenSearchBot at that time, he removed the tag with a revision that was by no means sufficient to escape infringement. As per usual, I took a quick glance at another article he started, Water supply and sanitation in Belgium (on May 3, 2009), to see if there was reason to believe this problem has continued. It has major chunks of text copied from [89]. Most of this is cited, but there's no formatting per WP:NFC and the pasting is substantial enough that it would violate copyright even if there were. I've blanked with {{copyvio}} the sections where I found problems from that source, as they were too extensive for me to quickly address. Additionally, I found several other sentences pasted from other sources—some cited, some not—which I have taken care of either by stripping them or clumsily attributing & quoting them (see [90]). I don't know if I found everything; I relied primarily on my favorite plagiarism checker, which is (unfortunately) not as precise as I'd like.

We need to do a thorough contribution check to see if there is other material that needs to be properly formatted or revised. I'll bring it up at WP:COPYCLEAN, but we are seriously shy of manpower and the more active contributors among what we have are still busy working on User:GrahamBould.

While I haven't looked deeply into this contributor's history yet, I see no initial reason to doubt from what I have seen that this is based on a good faith misunderstanding of copyright law and our copyright policy. I'm not asking for sanctions. I just desperately need help looking into this. Please? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If anybody comes across it, it looks like these people have actually nicked the content from Haitian Revolution (without attribution, I may add), by the dates and the article's evolution, so this particular addition isn't an issue. – Toon^(talk) 16:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

All those "state corporation commission" articles seem to be OK. They're all very short and factual. ("The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC) is a three-member board appointed by the Governor of Washington and confirmed by the Washington State Senate to six year terms.") Even if that's copied from somewhere, it's just a statement of facts and thus fair use. --John Nagle (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The Water supply and sanitation... articles could be problematic. The Water supply and sanitation in Ecuador article was originally heavily copied, I'm finding infringements throughout. – Toon^(talk) 17:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please review

Hi there, I've warned Milomedes (talk · contribs) for what is looking like disruptive and tendentious editing at Broda Otto Barnes. (diff). Since I have made a few edits to the article myself (although I've not been involved in the recent reversion of his edits), I thought in the interests of transparency I'd mention this here. If people think this warning is unwarranted and that I'm in a personal conflict with this editor, please feel free to revert this action. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

On 3 June 2009, I requested TimVickers to either provide evidence diffs and policy line citations to evidence his charges, or I expected a retraction.[91] He said he would address my request "with all due urgency". After a month passed he had not followed through, so his charges apparently have no urgency at all.

Therefore, I have unilaterally dismissed TimVickers charges. [92]

I further maintain that his charges are provably false. I don't doubt that he believed them at the time, but rather that he used bad judgment in drawing such conclusions about my contributions, and did so under a partisan mindset so professionally seductive that he doesn't recognize it.

Following his inaction on providing evidence, he also has not provided a retraction. Lack of retraction exposes him, as I warned,[93] to a charge of frivolous accusation. If a fact, that would be a violation of WP:NPA#What is considered to be a personal attack? "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence."

What's going on here?

WP:DE#Distinguished from productive editing indirectly acknowledges that editors of significant minority viewpoints are targets of DE charges:

"Editors may reasonably present active public disputes or controversies which are documented by reliable sources."

Because of irrationally disappointed WP opponents who collectively attempted to stub-and-AfD delete the Broda Otto Barnes article against the strong evidence for notability and reliable sources,[94] the article does not yet explain a notable medical practice controversy, and a UK political controversy, founded on the late Dr. Barnes, MD, PhD,'s significant minority viewpoint.

TimVickers appears to be a member of a WP medical practice clique that lockstep supports, inclusively, partisan views of the commercial allopathic medical guild, and the many hospitals and university schools whose practice and teaching they indirectly control.

This WP clique opposes healing practices listed by any source as "alternative medicine" – a vague phrase that has at least three substantially differing definitions. Alternative medicine sources sometimes list old allopathic medical practices that still work well, including those suspected of being supplanted with new patent pharma to increase profits of the medical-industrial complex. Dr. Barnes' hypothyroidism diagnostic test, dating to JAMA of August 1942, often costs nothing.

As evidence of TimVickers medical practice clique mindset, his first edit to Broda Otto Barnes was "Instead, in modern medical practice,..."[emphasis added] [95]. He placed this edit phrase after an existing statement: "...it is used by some medical doctors and [[alternative medicine|alternative]] practitioners."

This clique instinctively opposed Barnes followers (and therefore the Barnes article) on the principle of allopathic medical practice discipline, plus knee-jerk opposition to "alternative medicine", even if they aren't certain of what that is. Their opposition strongly biased their editing of the article: first leading to abusive editing tactics, then admin power plays based on trade journalism false reporting and the bad judgment call which occasioned the top post. Milo 08:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

A few calm eyes needed on a small blowup or two

Resolved

 – Article unprotected by RegentsPark   Will Beback  talk  16:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I've become a bit concerned over the past 2-3 days about a closely related pair of developing BLP/BIO-ish issues, and really think some fresh eyes could do a bit of good here.

The one that is borderline alarming is the unprotection request for the Bristol Palin article, which is currently sysop-only protected as a redirect. The page was protected by Gwen Gale, an admin I have deep respect for and I'm confident that she feels confident that she's doing the right thing here. The problem is that a number of "legacy issues" seem to be playing a part here, and to my eyes it might be better to start fresh on this issue. The brief history:

1. The page was first protected on 2 September, 2008 after some minor efforts to create the article. This was a sensible preemptive move at the time, since she hadn't done anything notable but be the daughter of a notable person. However, there was not a lot of process involved (speedy/prod/afd/etc.), so there doesn't seem to be much of a consensus to rely upon.
2. Yesterday, a request for unprotection was submitted, citing "her current escapades". I've only looked into that a little bit, but it seems she's become something of a pundit and/or activist in the oft-resurrected "sex ed" debate in the US. The discussion then moved to [User_talk:Gwen_Gale#Bristol_Palin_unprotect_request_.28again.29 Gwen's talk], and the response has been along the lines of "well, she wouldn't have that notability outside of her mother's notability", which is true to some extent, but her (presumably/possibly) independent seems (to me) to at least push the issue into the gray area. Notability often stems from a single event, after all, and we do have an article about Joe the plumber, whose notability is similarly tenuous.
3. Gwen really feels that this would just be a spin-off article from Sarah Palin, and so has decided to rely upon "consensus to create" at the talk page of that article. I have two three misgivings about that:
   1. If it's only a spin-off article from Sarah Palin, then she's obviously not notable. If she is in fact notable in her own right, the discussion of whether an article about her should exist belongs on AfD, not on the Sarah Palin talk page.
   2. I've spent quite a few hours of screen time helping out with article probation, talk page peacemaking, etc. on the Sarah Palin article, and I can quite confidently say that the likelihood of any clear consensus on that talk page is rather a slim possibility. The dedicated editors there are quite entrenched, and are more than wiling to extend a debate for months on end.
   3. Just as a matter of principle, I don't think we should seek consensus to create an article. Imagine if we had to get consensus to create an article for every plant or insect!
4. This issue is now convoluted with a deletion discussion regarding the article about Bristol Palin's ex-boyfriend, which itself has become a heated debate, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levi Johnston (and below... that's the second issue). I really see that as an appeal to "well, if you do that, you should do this too!" kinda thing (and I know there's some clever WP:THISORTHAT acronym for that, but can't think of it at the moment).

So wow, this may be the longest post I've ever made on Wikipedia (and not done yet!). Can I share with you that a bird actually perched on my monitor a minute ago while I was thinking of how to word some of that? I'm on my porch just below the birdfeeder, so I guess it had to happen sometime!

The second issue is the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levi Johnston debate. I'm not completely sure, but I strongly suspect that the BLP policy isn't really being used as intended, since it's purpose is primarily to avoid libel and/or embarrassing living human beings. I'm just really not sure on that one, but it seems to me that there's a bit of confusion between BLP, BIO, and notability going on there.

Again, I might be completely wrong-headed and misunderstanding a number of things, but I really do think a few more eyes are needed here, because the Bristol Palin thing in particular seems to be bending processes that perhaps shouldn't be bent. Thanks. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 00:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Since the protection of Bristol Palin as a redirect amounts to the deletion of the article and protection against recreation, the action is ripe for review at deletion review if it is believed that an appropriate, WP:BLP-compliant article can now be written. Deletion review has the advantage of providing a more definitive resolution of the issue than a discussion on an article talk page. Erik9 (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's an interesting approach, but seems to be bending one rule in response to bending another. It's really the whole de facto aspect of things going on here that is causing me to wonder about it in the first place. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 01:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

See the thread at RPP. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't know where the "blowup or two" exists. Discussion is already continuing in several places. There has been no "blowup" and darn little incivility, so far as I've seen. Everyone seems quite calm. I see no un-calm participants. There is certainly discussion, but it is proceeding nicely. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delay... had a busy day. KC, tensions are building around this, including tensions between you, Gwen Gale, and Will Beback (which is a bit of a blowup). My request for more eyes was to prevent a drama eruption, rather than an attempt to create/feed one. Discussion is indeed going on in a few places, and is amazingly civil (for the most part) considering the at-loggerheads-ish-ness of the situation. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

  The situation between myself and Will has nothing to do with Bristol Palin, Johnny. You seem very confused about what the issues are. I am happy to say Will's decided to drop the issue, though, so that's all settled. But it had nothing to do with Bristol Palin in any way. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Issues like this one can surely be handled at WP:Deletion review. Since Gwen Gale indicates that she will respect any evidence that a new consensus has formed, it seems that all that's needed is a place to hold the discussion. SB_Johnny seems to be saying that Gwen is exceeding her mandate, but a decision at DRV (whether the voters decide to allow recreation or forbid it) would take Gwen out of the decision-making loop. This would surely eliminate whatever problem Johnny sees with the current situation. EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• As SB_Johnny has said, there's little chance that a consensus will form at Talk:Sarah Palin because the editors there are polarized. So Gwen Gale's position effectively gives a veto over article creation to a handful of editors. That is contrary to Wikipedia principles, as is longterm protection of an article about a public figure. The right approach to page protection is to protect in response to actual problems, not over worries about potential problems. There is clearly no consensus to retain page protection, and there is no recent history of vandalism or BLP violations that warrants indefinite protection. So I don't think that EdJohnston is assessing the situation correctly.   Will Beback  talk  22:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm concerned about. This is a unilateral action that's changing the playing field, and preventing normal processes from running their natural course. DRV and AFD have different rules, and outcomes can be affected by unwise decisions and/or gamesmanship. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't taken any action on this at all, other than to say I'm watching for consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, you've been arguing hard against it, which amounts to upholding the protection. If you're not particularly attached to it, just say so, that way another admin can unprotect without unduly worrying about squished toes ;-).

Like I said before, looking for consensus on Talk:Sarah Palin to create a spin-off relies on the assumption that it's only a spin-off, while the arguments elsewhere seem to imply that she's notable in her own right. This isn't the same as Early political career of Sarah Palin, Governorship of Sarah Palin, etc. which are more properly spinoffs, since this is a BLP of someone else. The protection was clearly appropriate in September '08, but it's gone well into the gray area now and so shouldn't be unilaterally protected as a maintenance issue without getting consensus first (via AfD, not via the SP talk page). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 09:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I never argued against unprotection. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• The AFD for Levi Johnston has been closed as "Keep". If he is notable then it's hard to argue that Bristol Palin is not notable. Unless I see a reason based on WP:PROTECT I'll go ahead and unprotect the article. See WP:RPP#Bristol Palin.   Will Beback  talk  03:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

IP user fails to respond to numerous warnings about the same issues.

74.173.190.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This IP editor is persistently making the same changes to articles, even after being reverted and warned. He/she changes numbers in the prose from the written to numeric form, despite what Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Numbers as figures or words says.

• Some examples: [96][97][98][99][100][101][102]

Even worse, and usually as part of the same edits, the editor also adds and re-adds the same uncited information: [103][104][105][106][107][108][109] Numerous warnings on the editor's talk page have been ignored, as has every edit summary. The editor's only response is to once again do what he's been asked not to. It's reached the point where I really feel justified in rolling back his edits without any summary but I think this editor needs a much firmer message than I can give him.

A quick look at pages I don't normally watch reveals that quite a lot of this editor's "contributions" are reverted because they're unproductive.[110][111][112][113][114] --AussieLegend (talk) 05:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I suspect this user is rather young. I agree that the behavior is disruptive. I've left him or her a note asking for collaboration and talking about how to do that. If the user persists after that, I think a block is probably unavoidable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The response to your message seems promising,[115] well, almost.[116][117] Baby steps. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I've left him a note about that, too. It would help if people would explain what's wrong with what he's doing to that article as well. Unfortunately the only comment has been in edit summary, which is often not even read by unfamiliar contributors. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Appeal against topic ban

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 the wrong venue. ArbCom has endorsed the topic ban. Appeals need to go to ArbCom. Durova^Charge! 15:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, the community-agreed topic ban, which was endorsed by the Arbitration Committee, is correctly appealed at this noticeboard. Only the additional provisions should be appealed to ArbCom. It does appear, however, that this discussion had run its course. Risker (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If that is so, then it appears to be a departure from past practice. Is there a precedent or statement in policy for that? Durova^Charge! 21:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The departure is in the fact that the community was able to resolve much of this dispute on its own; the Arbitration Committee simply endorsed (as in concurred with) the decision of the community. It is, I believe, a sign of the growth and increasing maturity of the community. Risker (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

And whose job is it to explain or justify it to me? Kittybrewster ☎ 21:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive536#Vintagekits, Kittybrewster, and BrownHairedGirl

Arbcom motion: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Alternative (2)

• Why am I topic banned (baronets and knights)?
• I posted notification of an ongoing problem to AN/I [118]
• Then I stepped well back.
• Obviously I appeal.
• I am baffled.
• I simply don't understand what I should have done differently.
• Kittybrewster ☎ 23:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As the last ANx discussion related to this (I linked above) ran over five days and grew to over 230k, I'd venture to say we should hand this off to the gentle guidance of ArbCom. That being said, is there anything you would do differently to help mitigate baronet-related content disputes from making their way over to ANI? –xeno ^talk 23:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Per others and especially AGK at 11:41, 14 May 2009 I've been convinced that the general editing ban needs to be discussed here, since it was the community that enacted it. The remedies made over-and-above by ArbCom, though, need to be appealed to ArbCom in the usual way, as pointed out by AGK. –xeno ^talk 14:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I think one suggestion would be to not list articles by those you oppose for AFD. Although the page is unclear, I have to agree to let it go to Arbcom. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Strike that. It's inappropriate and largely irrelevant given the comments at the end of the section. Arbcom is probably the best bet. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure this is truly an ArbCom matter. The motion simply stated:

The community enacted topic ban on Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse log · block user · block log) and Kittybrewster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse log · block user · block log) is recognized and confirmed.

While the motion recognized the topic ban and endorsed its validity, the ban was still issued by the community and as such is a community action. Tiptoety ^talk 23:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Tiptoety. The topic ban is a community sanction. For it to be overturned there would have to be a consensus from the community. Thus this post. KnightLago (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It may not be an ArbCom issue, but my main concern is that ArbCom seems to have "recognized and confirmed" the general topic ban, but also enacted additional constraints on top of them (unless I missed something in the 232kb). So we should be clear exactly which topic ban we are removing. Is it just the general editing ban, but the additional arbcom remedies remain? –xeno ^talk 00:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This appeal is strictly in regards to the community enacted topic ban. Anything beyond that would need to go to the Arbitration Committee. KnightLago (talk) 00:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Kittybrewster and Vintagekits are unable to work together, and the ban was agreed for a very good reason. Kittybrewster is unable to work in the areas of Arbuthnots and baronets because of an overwhelming and obvious conflict of interest. This has been discussed to death with God knows how much space here and on the RFArb page devoted to it. It has been community agreed, Kittybrewster is just going to have to abide by it, as is VK. Giano (talk) 07:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• That statement requires evidence. I was editing knights and baronets quite producively so long as vk was topic banned. What COi diff led to the topic ban? Kittybrewster ☎ 08:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• For the above read "I was doing whatever I wanted and treating wikipedia as an extension of my personal website for ages until someone actually took an interest and made a few queries! I dont like queries!"--Vintagekits (talk) 09:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits: best you stay out of this. Cease making comments like that, or this is just going to degenerate into a shouting match rather than an actual discussion. Ironholds (talk) 09:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please forgive me but with your record of analysis I am not going to take much that you say seriously. You say "stay out of this" - however, KB brings my name up in a post and you expect me to step back without making a defense? You backed the worng horse mate!--Vintagekits (talk) 09:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll rephrase my comment, then. Every time I see you on one of these threads you're taking some kind of childish delight in making biting, troll-worthy comments at everyone you disagree with. Argue, but argue civilly. If you can't argue civilly, stay out of it. I'm not backing any horse - my intial post (ec'd) was to point out Kittybrewster's POINTy AfD nom as a possibly reason why restricting him from contact with you should continue. Ironholds (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Seriously do you think I would ever take advice from someone like you? If KB keeps my name out of his mouth then I am only more than happy to avoid the guy like the plague. But if he continues to misrepresent my actions to serve his own ends then dont expect me to sit back and take it with my arms by my side! P.S. I would advise you about not making personal attacks such as referring to my posts as "childish" or "troll-worty" or you will find yourself with a starring role at ANI. P.P.S. Everyone knew from your first every post in this whole affair, illinformed I might add, what your POV is.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a POV. I've never interacted with Kittybrewster or you before this. My first involvement was when I tried to contact you on your talkpage and you treated me exactly as you are at the moment - like you're a petty, vindictive child. Bring me up at ANI, fine - hopefully it'll be the last thing you do before ArbCom finish the case and ban your sorry arse. Grow up, stop acting like a baby and come back when your balls drop. Ironholds (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

How very civil! --Vintagekits (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you understand the civility policy now? From how vindictive and spiteful your comments have been to all parties I assumed you treated it as something to be broken for fun. Bugger this for a game of soldiers, I've got more important stuff to do. Do your ANI thing if you want, I'm off for something to eat. Ironholds (talk) 09:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I mistook you for a sensitive soul because you took such offense to me saying "it this the level I have to deal with", but now it seems that you consider "Grow up, stop acting like a baby and come back when your balls drop" a civil comment - my mistake obviously! Enjoy your food my frined.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Kittybrewster, you are like a child told it can't have an ice-cream, you think if you keep whining and complaining, kicking and screaming you will get what you want. The community discussed this here ad nauseum , thousands and thousands of words - the answer was No! It remains NO! Now go and find something productive to do. I hope some Admin or Arb will now come along archive this section, and let the rest of us have some peace.Giano (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

To be fair someone is allowed to appeal per the rules.  rdunnPLIB  09:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(as an aside) I find it cruely ironic that someone who is perfect for baronet based articles has been blocked for another person's continuation of events that got them blocked before....  rdunnPLIB  09:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

HHmmmm, twenty posts in a week. One is this, another is where you pop up directly behind me in a ANI discussion and another was to support KB's nomination for a AFD that was speedy kept of a of a world champion boxer whom you said "didnt achieve much". If wasnt just being paranoid then would start to have my doubts about your identity.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Start a new thread, Vintage, if you want, but otherwise drop it. You sure don't want to make it easy to deal with you, do you? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think you will find me one of the most pleasant guys you could ever meet. I go out of my way for friends and family and I am always prepared to help anyone in need. All you have to do it lok at this guys list of contributions to smell and rat/fish (delete as applicable), but I take your point and I will leave it there.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If you are suggesting that I can be in both Scotland and Portsmouth at the same time you would be wrong (mebbe you could request a check user on both of us if you no beleive me.)  rdunnPLIB  09:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Why who is in Scotland and who is in Portsmouth?--Vintagekits (talk) 10:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

History appears to be repeating itself, is anyone going to call a halt to this charade, or shall I archive it? Giano (talk) 10:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The topic ban was passed by the community, and endorsed by the Committee; any appeal would therefore be heard by the community. Whilst the Committee motion endorsed the topic ban—and thereby made it enforceable at AE—it is primarily a community action, and any appeal would have to be directed to this noticeboard.

The Arbitrators' motion also passed additional restrictions; if Kittybrewster was looking to appeal those restrictions, then appeal would be heard the normal way—e-mail arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org, or the appeals subcommittee.

The comment KB opened this thread with seems to seek appeal only against the topic ban from the Baronets and Knights subject area; this appeal should therefore be heard by the administrator noticeboards. (Although I would note that any immediate appeals are unlikely to succeed as a matter of course, and that KB would be better served by taking steps to improve his conduct: from a preliminary review of the situation, I'd say that this topic ban is not flawed, and any appeal is thus probably going to fall on deaf ears.)

AGK 11:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help me to "improve my conduct" if I understood in what way it has been defective by reference to a diff. And if I were told what I should have done differently. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Kittybrewster, there must have been a billion words written on this noticeboard about this matter earlier in the week. If you still don't understand, then go and re-read them; no one else has the time or energy. The Arbcom has endorsed the matter. It is closed. Can someone now please archive this discussion? I won't do it myself, as KB will say I am involved. Giano (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

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

How to make my userpage colorful

Resolved

 – done Gurch (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Does someone know hot to make my userpage colorful? Thanks. Dark Rahn (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Help desk instead. This isn't the place. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Full Protection of WP:NOT

I recently protected WP:NOT to prevent portions of the WP:PLOT provision from being added, removed, or warred over. In doing this I noted on the talk page that the intent was to force compromise on this core policy. I also noted that I am inclined to extend the protection of that page should it appear that an edit war is likely to just reignite in 2 weeks.

Hobit asked me to review my decision on the basis that full protecting PLOT will prevent a compromise from being reached and that protection itself was overkill. I didn't want to reverse the protection based on his concerns but he asked me to bring my decision here for review and I have. I should be online for most of the evening (CST) so please do me the favor of posting a note on my talk page if you plan to reverse the protection. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'll simply note that we had one user make a good-faith change, another user change it back (and remove a bit in addition), and the first user write a fairly aggressive edit summary in response (but without actually changing anything). I think that's too little to call an edit war and doesn't demand long-term page protection in my opinion. Further, I think we were making pretty good progress (if slow) on this and I believe an open environment is the best thing to have here. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"(but without actually changing anything)"? He did a full revert back to the version he had changed it to without discussion. That's exactly an attempt to edit war to get one's way. And that was more than "aggressive" edit summary, it was a personal attack. 18:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

But an accurate one, given you had just removed a tag that had consensus to stay, while attacking me for going against some imaginary consensus wording when the poll came out with a majority against, in an attempt to find some common ground. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense again. DreamGuy (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree the protecting NOT will harm work towards compromise, the talk page is still there and there's enough admins involved that if there is true compromise, things can be fixed. Given the protection in the last several weeks, premature edit warring is reasonable. --MASEM (t) 23:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I love that last sentence, Masem. ;) Protonk (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Er, yeah :) I think I forgot the word "protection" in the second part there... --MASEM (t) 23:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Looks like you swapped "protection" and "edit warring" to some unintended humorous effect. :) Protonk (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The only ways to prevent edit warring there seems to be protecting the page or blocking Shoemaker's Holiday from editing (as he/she has for months now made changes without gaining consensus first when he/she knows, or should know from experience by now, that such an action would be reverted). One or the other, I don't care which. In the meantime, consensus can e hammered out where it SHOULD be: on the talk page. DreamGuy (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Any chance of an uninvolved admin looking over the situation? Hobit (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
• Done. Shoemaker's holiday seems to be in a minority, and edit-warring on policy is not the way to go. DreamGuy could have been less combative with his/her edit summary. The {{dubious}} tag is meant for articles, not policies, to alert readers that the validity of a sentence or point is under discussion. Anyone viewing a policy page can check the talk page about that. Protecting the page is necessary to prevent further edit warring. Go discuss it, ffs. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

A minority? There was a straw poll. 66 opposed any discussion at all of plot summaries in WP:NOT, 63 came out in support of some form of discussion. TRY MAJORITY. Furthermore, you are clearly not an uninvolved administrator: You've participated in the discussipon for weeeks Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that SH needs to be restricted from closing discussions. This problem is annoying to say the least. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

  • • I DID NOT CLOSE ANY DISCUSSIONS. Point to one I closed. Seriously, one. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I'd point out it was placed by Masem (above) as the preferred method over the standard way of tagging policy/guidelines that are in dispute. It wasn't the best solution, but it was the one that was reached. Hobit (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
• I'd guessed a while ago we'd end up with this version protected. [119] I like to think I'm not cynical, I've just learned how things work around here. Hobit (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Based on the recent changes to the page, Protonk made a reasonable judgment call and I don't like second guessing admins if they did something for a good reason.
  As for User:Shoemaker's Holiday, I wouldn't feel comfortable restricting him or punishing him, because I think he's acting in good faith. But a quick survey of the policy's history shows a habit of making bold changes, getting reverted, and then reverting back to his bold changes. A neutral admin may want to advise him about the WP:BRD cycle, which isn't a guideline, but it's a supplement to WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BOLD that he should be aware of.
  More troubling is User:DreamGuy. See this response to SH by DreamGuy that slams him kind of roughly. I know he has reason to be a little frustrated with SH, and it hasn't been a pattern of behavior by DreamGuy. But again, a neutral admin may want to remind him to assume good faith and use a more civil tone.
  Basically, issue a very gentle warning to both sides. If they're good editors, they won't have any trouble staying on track. Randomran (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

More troubling? Someone reverting back to the consensus version and pointing out that the same editor continuously edit wars without consensus is supposedly more troubling than a person who wants to gut policy and continuously edits a section without getting approval from a broad consensus when he knows it's not going to fly? Give me a break. And it's not like SH hasn't been told a zillion times about the BRD cycle, he just is ignoring it, and has for months. Anyone who has looked at the page history or participated in the discussion would see multiple examples of SH doing that by now. DreamGuy (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hell, SH got in a personal attack in the edit comment while reverting back to the version he changed to without discussion first. If the edit warring against consensus weren't bad enough, that should have gotten him blocked. DreamGuy (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Man, Hobit, if you want to tell me that I picked sides in protecting this policy, just say so. I can't prove to you that I just saw the back and forth and pushed the protect button without checking what tag is on PLOT or whether or not it was removed. Hell, I can't prove to you that I haven't navigated far enough down the page to check the status of PLOT. But you have my word that I didn't. I have enough integrity to refuse to use the tools to establish my preferred revision (and I'm not even sure what revision I prefer anymore) Protonk (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I just think if you'd protected WP:NOT when it had Shoemaker's original proposal, you'd have been hounded like the last person who did so until you undid the protection. Reflip until the "right" version is protected. I predicted we'd end up with a protected version just like that. Hobit (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not exactly being kissed square on the lips for protecting this revision, am i? Protonk (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Shame. We have no excuse for trouting you then :p --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

When policy pages are protected they should be protected on the longstanding consensus version. This is common sense. I don't buy the logic that a policy should be locked completely at random so policy gets stuck at whatever the last edit warrior thought to say. That's twice now the locked version has been a version pushed onto the policy without any consensus. That may be fine for mere articles (and even there those should be locked at the longstanding versions, just like no consensus results on AFDs default to Keep), but certainly not for a policy page. DreamGuy (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I am very upset at not being linked to an attack piece on me. This discussion grossly misrepresents the issues.

First off, I:

• Did not close any discussions
• Have a poll with a majority in support of not discussing plot summaries in WP:NOT at all.
• The dubious tag was discussed, and a majority came out in support of tagging it.

This thread is nothing more than a hit piece depending on tl;dr to blacken me. Evidently, if there is clearly no consensus for a policy, DreamGuy thinks that you should edit war to prevent any changes whatsoever attempting to work towards a consensus. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC) 18:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous. You have not in any way demonstrated that there is a consensus to remove the PLOT setion, you just keep insisting you have and then use the claim that nobody is satisfied with it to mean that you can make whatever changes you want, when you know that most people do not agree with what you want to do. The rule is simple, and has been explained to you over and over: if you want to change a policy page, you need consensus on what that change should be, not just edit warring to change it. Every time you make an edit without consensus, many different editors undo it depending upon which editor sees it first, so it's ridiculous for you to try to point the finger of blame at me. And it's not this thread that's blackening you, it's your actions. DreamGuy (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Most people do agree, see poll. If anything, my latest change was far too minor, since the poll had a majority in favour of removing it completely. I tred to find a compromise, you reverted to hard-line wording that has no consensus whatsoever, and removed the tag meant to inform people of the problems. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Full protexction of WP:NOT (break 1)

Above here, there's a thread, in which Stifle, who's highly active on the WT:NOT discussion, steps in as an "uninvolved administrator" and posts blatant lies about me.

Furthermore, I was not informed of any such discussion, letting various lies stand to blacken my name for several days, hence me commenting here, in a new section.

I would ask that people here review the actual discussion at WT:NOT, beginning with the straw poll at the top, which had a majority against any discussion of plot summaries on WP:NOT whatsoever'. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone interested can read and see that SH has a long history of misrepresenting what other people say. The so called majority was only in response to a highly misleading vote for/against, with many people not knowing what the question even was asking. He's just opposed to people discussing the issue unless he can control the options presented and can declare himself the winner despite having no consensus to do anything. No consensus means do nothing until consensus can be created, not do what the person who clearly does not have consensus wants to do because he's wikilawyering nonstop. DreamGuy (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Lovely. So, if a majority votes against something, there's clear consensus to keep the original wording, without even any changes. Your I didn't hear that powers are strong. This whole thread is basically an attempt to try and get ayone who disagrees with you blocked from editing the policy, so that Wikipedia can continue to claim that policy you like with a majority aggainst it is still a "widely-accepted standard". Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Since when did vote counts resolve anything on Wikipedia? Here I thought consensus was the way things went around here. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Since when is "consensus" defined as "Most people oppose"? I am attempting to work towards consensus, but DreamGuy is causing massive disruption to any discussion, by simply repeatedly insisting that no change hould be made, no matter how many people dislike what's there currently. See Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Moving_forward. Dreamguy has consistently attempted to stifle all discussion, told anyone on the opposingside they should shut up, and launched accusations of extreme bad faith:

“ Not nearly enough newbies have been scared off, it seems. Useful newbies wanting to edit an encyclopedia wouldn't be scared off by having to follow encyclopedia-style content rules. The ones who get upset and leave probably never should have edited here in the first place and will be much happier on a blog or Urban Dictionary or someplace more their speed. This is an encyclopedia, not some preschool art class where everyone gets a gold star just for showing up and eating paste. DreamGuy (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC) ”

“ If you guys are so opposed to how things are done here, why don't you go to a website that allows you to do those things instead of trying to convert what's supposed to be an encyclopedia into whatever you happen to want to do? Pet advice? Elsewhere. Plot summaries? Elsewhere. Lists of random trivia? Elsewhere. There's wikibooks and wikia.com and a zillion other places where your every whim can be realized. Please respect what Wikipedia was created to do. DreamGuy (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC) ”

“ I need to repeat for the aggressive group of people hoping to wikilawyer their way into getting what they want without the consensus to do so: if you don't have consensus to remove something, as you clearly do not, you cannot remove it by claiming there is no consensus to keep. That's exactly opposite of how everything works here. PLOT has always been in this policy, has always been supported, and a coordinated campaign by a small but vocal group of people who don't want to play by the rules don't get to change the rules with an argument of "we don't have the support to change it but we win anyway". I've not seen such a calculated attempt to turn Wikipedia policy on its head in a long time. DreamGuy (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC) ”

I trust my point is sufficient. Pretty much every single statement by DreamGuy on the talk page for WP:NOT is just a loud attack on anyone who disagrees with him, and the statements from weeks apart are completely interchangable to each other. People actually trying to compromise don't bang the same drum permanently, with never the slightest change to their tune. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT a democracy (break 2)

I've been having to pull the fish out way too much this week

We're not, and never have been, a strict democracy. Anyone who believes so and edit wars on a policy page on that basis is out on a very very thin limb.

There are obviously deeply felt opinions on both sides in this. Please take those back to the talk page and work harder on consensus. If the situation right now, due to the edit war, is to inflamed to WP:AGF then please take a few days holiday and come back and readdress the issue later.

Blowing up here at AN is not an acceptable response to this, either. You're mostly admins - stop poking each other. You know better than this. Treat each other with respect. This is not optional. Knock it off. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy has been making the same exact comments and attacks in every post he's made to WT:NOT in at least the last two weeks. It's impossible to work with someone who refuse to even listen to the slightest call for compromise. Can we sttop encouraging him to continue his attacks on every attempt at compromise or actually doing something about it? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Ugh

The reason I protected the page rather than block or warn or take specific action towards editors is that I didn't want the discussion to devolve into what people think about SH or what people think about DG. That is unrelated to the issue at hand: that there are serious concerns over consensus for PLOT and that some compromise needs to be hatched in order to resolve those concerns. The page was protected so that discussion could be focused on the the content rather than acrimony over who reverted whom last. If anyone thinks that the behavior of editors at PLOT is a particular problem, please seek dispute resolution or open a thread at AN/I. Don't continue disputes over editor conduct in this thread, please. Protonk (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia doesn't operate by polling, so whether someone has a poll in his favour or not is irrelevant. On the few occasions that polls have been used to determine anything, it's taken at least two-thirds in favour of a change to put it through. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It's an ongoing policy issue, one that's been discussed to death at WP:FICT and WP:NOT, plus the "episode guide" arbitration. The fundamental problem is that, about two years ago, Wikipedia started getting serious about sourcing. Slowly, the screws have been tightened on un-sourced material. Today, one writes a Wikipedia article like you'd write for a refereed journal, with citations on everything. The people who just want to write casually about their favorite books, TV shows, movies, and comic books are being driven nuts by this. Hence the conflict. It's only incidentally a user behavior problem. There are fundamental disagreements about what should be in Wikipedia. We need a clear policy in the fiction area, discussed in one place. How should that be done? --John Nagle (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, most arguments against WP:NOT stem from completely different reasons. I, for instance, generally work to get fiction to FA. However, including plot summaries in WP:NOT gives a strong impression they are not appropriate or strongly discouraged, when they are, in fact, basic information about a work. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The point that many here are missing about policy pages is that their exact wording doesn't matter. Policy pages are meant to describe what the community believes what a given policy is -- not expound it. And since policy is ultimately based on common sense, if a given draft of a policy page contradicts common sense, then WP:IAR allows everyone to ignore that draft. And that desire to find the right nuance of phrasing or balance between competing interests ... well, we are going to argue over the matter whether it is on a policy page or in the application of policy. In short, Protonk did no harm by locking the page on the "wrong page" because the actual words used don't matter, it is the spirit of the policy. -- llywrch (talk) 05:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

New very useful template feature: Anyone able to make a script to make this more practical to implement?

{{PD-US-1923-abroad}} can now accept a parameter giving the year the work moves into copyright-free status in its home country, and will then put up a template asking for it to be moved to commons.

Can someone help me work out a script or bot-assisted tool to let us make all such images include this year? It'll make maintenance of such images far easier. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You might find a more knowledgeable crowd at Wikipedia:Bot requests. --auburnpilot talk 23:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Unilateral move

Resolved

 – Redirect fixed, editor blocked. MastCell ^Talk 18:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The article Levi Johnston, currently amidst a rather spirted AFD discussion [120], has been unilaterally moved to Impregnation of Sarah Palin's daugher. There was no discussion of this move on the talk page. I would like it reverted so this proposed move can be discussed and some sort of consensus reached. But when i try to do so it says i can't (perhaps because i'm doing something wrong, but i got a message saying only admin could return it to its former location). Any assistance appreciated.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Grundle2600 for 24 hours for the grossly inappropriate move; if another admin feels the need to increase the block length, feel free to do so. It appears that the mess created by the move is being untangled by other editors, so I'll leave them to it. Horologium (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wow. Is there some history here? I was just really looking for help in moving the thing back. I think the move was wrong and pointy, but wouldn't have thought he should be blocked for this on its own.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

(After E/C below)It was grossly inappropriate, and the user in question has a history of disruptive edits to articles on other political figures. He figures prominently in the Barack Obama arbitration, and was added recently after some of his more disruptive edits. Horologium (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

We were trying to move the page back, but it says that Admin assistance is needed to move the page. Both myself and bali ran into the same problem and are unable to move the page back. It says "The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move. Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text." TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 17:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I've moved it back. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!Bali ultimate (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

chilling effect?

Resolved

 – Editor unblocked, urged to review procedures at WP:RM for moves that may be controversial. –xeno ^talk 20:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I must say I'm a little concerned at the block, and also the stated block reason ("Vandalism"). There is no rule that stipulates bold moves must be discussed and the editor gave a common reason for the move (BLP1E) - a similar rename was suggested at AFD [121]. However, the editor's history wrt to political articles is noted. –xeno ^talk 18:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I used the most appropriate block template available (there's no block template for pointy page moves), and I *did* add a specific reason, although it didn't display in the template for some reason. Horologium (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This might be more of a question for arbitration, but what if we assume the editor to be operating in good faith and trying to be helpful and follow the rules, but is just having some trouble mastering the art of judging what is encyclopedic and appropriate. Most of their edits, even the disruptive ones, are consistent with that. If that's the case, wouldn't some guidance and a courteous warning be more effective than a block? Or in addition to a block? Wikidemon (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about the block log. –xeno ^talk 19:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with xeno and Wikidemon, though I confess to not knowing anything about the blockee. To move a page once may be bold; to persistently move pages against consensus may be blockworthy. But with a better explanation than 'vandalism'. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a very bad block. He's been blocked once for edit warring on Obama articles, and he has allegedly been inserting poor information on Barack Obama, and that somehow justifies a 24 hour block simply for performing a bold move on a 'politics' article, once, to a title which is advised by the BLP1E policy to cover the event not the person. Doesn't add up for me. And even though the blocking admin is fully aware that 'vandalism' is not an appropriate explanation for the block, he still hasn't added a decent explanation, or rectified his block log. MickMacNee (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• I've unblocked. While the editor does have a history in this area, the bold page move was in deference to BLP1E and the block was without warning. Also "Vandalism" was a mischaracterization. –xeno ^talk 20:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to comment on a "resolved" thread but to make a request / observation here, Grundle2600 seems to listen to calm, steady advice from neutral uninvolved parties. Blocks are to avoid disruption, so next time a "please don't do that again" would probably do the trick. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry for the lack of response; I actually had something else which took precedence. As to some of the specifics, there is no way to amend a block log entry short of adding *another* entry, which I dislike doing because it only serves to make the block log longer—not something I like to do. I agree that I should have used a custom message for the block log. The justification for the move is a bit flimsy; one person sarcastically suggested the target (much as I sarcastically suggested changing the blocking policy to specifically ever blocking a user whose blocks are never upheld; anyone who had actually changed the policy as per my suggestion would have been pilloried for such a pointy action), and the BLP1E justification from this particular editor is a bit hard to buy considering 1)his desire to retain the article on Johnston [122] and 2) his statement about Johnston and his article at the RFD on the Johnston redirect in March (first comment second comment). Saying that he basically wanted to keep something in Wikipedia on Johnston for the lulz doesn't seem to me to be an appropriate attitude to take when dealing with a BLP of someone who (at that time) was not a willing participant in the hoopla surrounding his ex-girlfriend's mother-in-law. Horologium (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

---

And xeno has unblocked, apparently without discussion with Horologium. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you call the above? –xeno ^talk 02:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

A hit and run comment. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw that there was little-to-no consensus for the block, that the blocking administrator had not addressed the concerns raised (you'll note I did wait two hours), and had apparently gone offline. Unblocking in this case is SOP. best regards, –xeno ^talk 14:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan

There is an editwarring over this article. User:Brandmeister merged it with Islam in Azerbaijan without closing the discussion, while an administrative decision is welcomed. Gazifikator (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the aim of this article is presenting Azerbaijan as a something like a Taliban ruled place, a stronghold of international terrorism. Gazifikator even goes as far as to removing the info about the number of practicing Muslims in the country, which is 7%. [123] One can only wonder why he does this. Grandmaster 12:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I explained it at talk [124], read at first! Practicing Muslims are not the same Radical Islamists, the last ones are lesser and are of different category. This article has only one aim - to describe the Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan. It is neutral and sourced by many specialized RS's, otherwise please report. Gazifikator (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No one says that they are. It is an important info to demonstrate the role of religion in the country. Grandmaster 14:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

There was a discussion for it [125]. Here we are discussing the merger not the moved irrelevant sentence. Gazifikator (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind if the issue continues to achieve more explicit consensus which Gazifikator probably wants. brandспойт 12:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

SoxBot V

Could one of you kind admins. (yea, we have a few of those .. lol) take a look at SoxBot V? The admin highlighter seems to be going goofy here this morning. User:Ais523/adminrights.js >> User:Ais523/adminrights-admins.js >> User:SoxBot V/adminrights-admins.js. The bottom line is it's emptied the admin list a couple times here today. Not that the "highlighter" is that big a deal, I know we're all just editors here, but just a heads up on a script that I like - and it's being a nimrod at the moment. note: X! is on a wiki-break, or I'd just poke him on it. Thanks guys and gals. ;) — Ched :  ?  14:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I've undone the most recent edit, if it acts up anymore I'll block the bot until X! returns. –xeno ^talk 14:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Xeno, I appreciate it. ;) — Ched :  ?  14:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Need wider community input

Related discussion:

• Bot owners' noticeboard
• CfD 2009-05-04
• TfD 2009-05-04
• DRV 2009-05-14
• Bugzilla # 927
• Bugzilla # 14323
• TfD 2005-08-19
• CfD 2006-03-08

I noticed that Template:R from other capitalisation's TfD was closed without seeking wider community input. For a template that affects so many pages (around 263,120), I believe that an RfC, a post at the Village Pump, or something should be done in order to get more people aware of what is happening. We all know that TfD and CfD have very low traffic to their respective pages. Granted that this discussion had more users involved than the average subject in those discussion pages, I just feel like the more people involved the better. So I'm asking that this discussion be unclosed, or reopened or something. Additionally, at this very moment a bot is running that is removing the template from all the redirect pages and putting Category:Unprintworthy redirects on them. Perhaps this bot could be stopped, at least for a bit? Killiondude (talk) 03:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Erik9 to pause this task while we mull this over. –xeno ^talk 03:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

If there is an absolute necessity to remove the category, all 28 templates should simply be modified as redirects to the unprintworthy template instead of editing 260k+ pages. That will still allow bots to still detect the redirect type. This still doesn't solve the issue of editors removing redirects and replacing them with piped links though, which is what this template helps mitigate, see [126] Tothwolf (talk) 03:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

For that fact, this type of change [127] isn't what was discussed at all, I assumed the bot was adding {{R unprintworthy}}, not the category directly... Tothwolf (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

At very minimum, it is a huge waste of resources to edit every affected page rather than just redirect the template. --ThaddeusB (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

(break)

I have a number of concerns with this issue, none of which have yet been addressed. As I previously pointed out at the TfD, [128] CfD and TfD both do not get enough coverage from the wider community for this issue to be addressed properly in either of those venues.

The template itself is very much in active use as of this very moment, see Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Redirects from other capitalisations

I find it troubling Erik9 began an immediate removal of the template with Erik9bot less than an hour after he closed the TfD as a delete. It's clear he did not fully read the entire discussion or research this issue before starting this task. There were lots of 'per nom' and WP:IDL "votes" but still little in the way of discussion of a working alternative to this template and category. Because this is an unusual case and because Erik9bot has only recently been granted approval for TfD work I still can't fault Erik9 too much.

Many other things should have taken place before even attempting such a deletion, and while the actual discussion leaned more towards redirection, none of these address the issues that this template and category were created to address.

There are 1000s of editors actively adding this template, by hand, using functionality in AutoWikiBrowser and Friendly, and probably other tools as well.

There are multiple bots [129] that currently add this template to redirects, and the officially approved bot, BOTijo is still hard at work.

This template and category are used for at least two tasks...

1. The template informs editors that this redirect should not be replaced with a piped link [130] and
2. The template and category are used by projects such as Version 1.0 Editorial Team and the Book tool when generating offline readable content.

This template (and others) have gone though previous TfD discussions [131] and as pointed out by Michael Z.: "These help clarify the purpose of redirects, and keep editors from mistakenly deleting or changing them. Unfortunately during some MediaWiki upgrade they stopped displaying on the redirect page. Is it possible to make them show up again?"

I also want to state for the record that while I do not think it was appropriate to send the category used by this template to CfD instead of taking it to the Village pump and seeking wider input via a RFC, I do not have a grudge against MZMcBride for his nomination of the category at CfD. This is something he has accused me of today off-wiki.

--Tothwolf (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The TfD seemed straightforward enough, and there was little support for keeping the template. (In fact, only one voter used the word 'Keep' in their statement, though other options were proposed). It was hard to understand what function the template actually provides. If that decision stands, then it still does not seem necessary to edit all 262,000 redirects to change or remove the existing template. Causing the template to redirect to something else would be less work. A temporary halt to all bots (both those that add the template and those that remove it) might be logical. I was one of those who suggested that the task of the bot that ADDS the template be de-authorized, and then others proposed a TfD of the template as the right way to handle the situation. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, The TfD certainly doesn't look like a very organized or informed discussion and I don't really see any valid concerns listed in the TfD while calling for deletion either. If I had to guess as to why more of the "comments" weren't "keep" it might be that most people leaving comments recognized that TfD was not the proper place for this discussion and were attempting to discuss actual issues that had been raised instead of playing a game of "delete" vs "keep".
Clearly many of those calling for delete, the nominator included, did not understand the template's purpose and did not research it before casting their "vote". This is pretty explicit in the comments there so I see no reason to duplicate and quote those here.
The only potentially valid argument I've seen raised is that the bot auto-adding the template to new redirects may prevent page moves. This argument seems to have been countered by the fact that the approved bot does not immediately add the template to new redirects.
I've already pointed out some what the template and category are used for above, but here is the text that normally had been shown on the redirect page itself:

"This is a redirect from a title with another method of capitalisation. It leads to the title in accordance with the Wikipedia naming conventions for capitalisation, and can help writing, searching, and international language issues."

"Pages linking to any of these redirects may be updated to link directly to the target page. However, do not replace these redirected links with a piped link unless the page is updated for another reason."

"For more information, see Category:Redirects from other capitalisations."

Now, for some reason this text (and the text on the other {{R from ...}} templates) no longer shows on the redirect pages. Without looking at the MediaWiki code itself, to me this seems to be more of a bug in MediaWiki. This text used to show up when following the redirect=no (Redirected from ...) links. It seems to me it would make more sense to figure out why exactly the text isn't showing up on redirect pages now and deal with that instead of calling for the deletion of templates that clearly serve multiple purposes.
When there are comments such as "I've always wondered what the hell this was for. I guess it's probably as useless as I thought it was." during a TfD it's pretty obvious those editors don't understand what the template's purpose and function is, yet at the same time they are still calling for deletion, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
--Tothwolf (talk) 05:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I too am deeply disappointed that apparently, TfD has become TfV, and that these voted results are then executed without any apparent consideration for the technical concerns that were raised in the discussion. I am still not convinced either way as to delete or keep, because I still have not seen a good and verified presentation of the facts of the usage of this template, both on en.wp as well as by many of it's surrounding tools. And replacing it, instead of redirecting it, is a waste of resources that I just cannot support even if I were convinced this template should be deleted. Replacing {{if}} with {{#if}} is something to throw resources at, but this just seems rather pointless to me. We are told not to worry about performance, but in my opinion, that is only for as far as it affects the encyclopedia we are building. If a redirect can serve the same purpose for these 260000 pages that most users won't ever see, then that is a case where we certainly should take resources into account. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm also concerned about the actual closing. That result was pulled out of his ... (hat). Nobody suggested replacing with the CATEGORY, only a simpler redirect to the TEMPLATE {{R unprintworthy}}. But I'm the keep — and gave a detailed enumerated discussion. Should this be taken to WP:DRV?
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing prevents this from being taken to WP:DRV. But perhaps it would help if someone familiar with the classification of redirects could explain how the classification is supposed to work and what it's currently being used for. A place to hold such a discussion might be Wikipedia talk:Redirect, or even Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) if you want a more conspicuous place. A problem that came up in the TfD was that a category with 262,000 entries to prevent the occasional creation of piped links seems like cracking a walnut with an earthmoving vehicle. If anyone thinks the key to the problem is that {{R from other capitalisation}} no longer causes any special text to show up on the user-visible redirect page, then consider holding the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Leave a link here as to where you want to continue the debate. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably the best place to get an overview of the classification system is the chart on the redirect guideline page. For {{R from other capitalisation}} specifically, see the "Other capitalisations" section. Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages contains a mostly complete chart of all the redirect information templates.
The information text no longer showing up doesn't just affect {{R from other capitalisation}}, this affects all of the redirect information templates.
--Tothwolf (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I support Tothwolf statements. Emijrp (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Though the number of editors supporting the deletion of the template was certainly important, my closure was not based solely on "vote counting". Editors supporting the deletion of the template argued that

1. The continued addition of the template to redirects served to obstruct legitimate pagemoves to the redirects edited, since non-administrators cannot move articles over redirects having more than one revision. It was observed that such moves could be accomplished through WP:RM; however, convenience in conducting pagemoves is regarded as a sufficiently important consideration to permit ordinary editors to perform moves in most cases, instead of limiting the move function to administrators. It was argued that a template should not be utilized as a back-door mechanism to restrict pagemoves to WP:RM.
2. The addition of the template to redirects, and consequent obstruction of pagemoves, provided negligible benefits in terms of navigational value.
3. Only by actual deletion of the template could its further addition to redirects be prevented. Merely redirecting Template:R from other capitalisation to Template:R unprintworthy would allow the subsequent usage of the former template. To prevent the creation of > 260,000 red-links, the deletion of the template absolutely requires that edits be made to the redirects in which it is transcluded.

Furthermore, since Template:R unprintworthy's sole function is to add Category:Unprintworthy redirects to redirects, preceded by an explanation of the category's purpose which essentially duplicates the description provided at the category page itself, I concluded that it would be more efficient to add Category:Unprintworthy redirects directly to the redirects, rather than create > 260,000 transclusions of Template:R unprintworthy (which currently appears on less than 3,000 redirects).

Nonetheless, if it is the belief of the community that Template:R unprintworthy adds significant value to the redirects transcluding it, I can add the template, instead of Category:Unprintworthy redirects, to redirects when replacing Template:R from other capitalisation, if there is a consensus for the bot task to continue.

If there is a consensus for some disposition of the TFD discussion other than the straight deletion and replacement of the template, I can have my bot revert the 320 edits it has already made to effectuate the TFD closure.

In view of the large number of redirects to be edited, I have suspended any further bot actions to accomplish the TFD closure until this matter is resolved. Erik9 (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Erik's comment sheds some light, but I still don't see the immediate benefit of removing all the old templates from the redirects. (My comment assumes that the obsoleting of the template is upheld after further review). The only valid concern I see is that people who didn't get the message to stop using this template will keep adding it manually, even though it's been redirected. If bots are the main users of this template, can't we just stop the bots from adding this template to new redirects? As new redirects are created without being templated, the percentage that carry the template would drop gradually, without causing any extra work for anyone. EdJohnston (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Having had a look at the actual MediaWiki code now, it's clear the view() code in Article.php for the current version of MediaWiki is not rendering text on pages that are considered to be redirects. The markup is parsed but the rendering routines are not called when following the redirect=no (Redirected from ...) links. This doesn't look like a bug, but more of a design oversight or perhaps just a software regression.
Looking at this code and the edit preview rendering code, it doesn't look like it would be that difficult to restore this functionality, which would allow all of the redirection message templates to function properly again. I think this would be particularly useful for templates such as {{R from merge}} and {{R with possibilities}}.
Restoring this functionality would also help solve the issue of redirecting talk pages of moved articles where they have project banners for WikiProjects that make use of the redirect class or contain discussion related to the redirected page that editors wish to preserve. There is an ongoing discussion about this issue for ListasBot at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. This would also solve the {{editprotected}} issue raised in the ListasBot discussion.
--Tothwolf (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Interesting. Is there a bugzilla number?
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I have not opened a new bugzilla report, but I've continued to dig through past reports and found report # 927 which mentions this issue.
--Tothwolf (talk) 05:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I just found report # 14323 that covers this exact issue. Happy-melon has even come up with a patch. The edit preview code would also need to be modified though.
--Tothwolf (talk) 06:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd commented on bug 927 some 3 years ago, and have now joined bug 14323
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw that. Hard to believe it has been broken all these years. It certainly explains why no one seemed to know what the {{R ...}} templates really did. Hopefully with all the extra attention it will be fixed this time. Tothwolf (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• While awaiting the fix, I've given notice at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 14#Template:R from other capitalisation.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I remembered two other things the {{R ...}} templates were originally designed to do. They also kept redirect pages off of Special:ShortPages and Special:UncategorizedPages. Tothwolf (talk) 22:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Currently, both SpecialShortpages.php and SpecialUncategorizedpages.php use "... WHERE ... AND page_is_redirect=0"
      --William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't think those checks existed back when all the {{R ...}} type templates were originally created. Tothwolf (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

What is troll food?

Hi. I'm not sure if this is the best place to post this, but I'm not sure where else to go. I tried WP:VP/M, but didn't get much reply there.

What does it mean, to feed a troll? I've noticed that experienced Wikipedians disagree, and we don't seem to have much guidance in the project namespace or at meta:. WP:DFTT is a soft redirect to a page at meta, and if we look there, we're referred to WP:DENY, but that page was about getting rid of our huge shrines to specific vandals. Trolling situations seem to me to be quite different from that.

Trolls want to provoke a response, and maybe a fight, right? Is giving them the response and the fight they want a good idea? My own approach is to kill them with boredom, which I find to work, but I've been savagely attacked by other established editors for doing it. (This leads to a curious paradox where I say, "see it worked, he went away" and receive the reply, "it didn't work; he just got bored w/ your nonsense and went away".)

The contrary position seems to hold that anything other than "revert, block, ignore" constitutes feeding. This position seems to assume that we can successfully identify trolls, and I'm a little concerned about false positives.

Is there an empirical or objective way to decide this question, or is it even a question worth asking? Opinions? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think they just wanna waste people's time for LULZ, which is basically a huge pain. So I think troll food is basically feeding their egos and falling into their traps. They wanna be talked about here so they can brag to their loser troll friends about it. Personally, I think its all just a substitution for the sex none of them are getting but that's just me. :-) Anywai, just ignore them. If you don't they'll figure out some way to harass you. There's some pretty nasty people out there, sociopaths and stuff. :-(Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 06:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not asking for advice for myself, really. I'm quite comfortable handling so-called trolls. However, I think it would be smart for us to somehow document this question, in a way that we do not currently. We pretend to have a policy about this, but we haven't actually got one. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• File:Troll with shortcomings 2.jpg suggests that your theory may be correct. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL. :-p Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite: Are you trying to provoke a response here? Is that not a curious paradox itself? Isn't the objective definition "someone who is satisfied by demonstrations in acknowledgement of their effort to contribute," or just "someone who is looking for attention to their contributions, period"? Either way, isn't that just the same as everyone here? Putting myself at the risk of becoming the proud nail, what about false negatives? Steveozone (talk) 07:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, what's the harm in a false negative? If someone asks a trolling question, and I answer it without becoming upset, what harm is done? The harm from a false positive seems very clear to me; not so much the false negative. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Billy goats, isn't it? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Billy the Kid, goat sockpuppet. Not dangerous to trolls until she gets bigger.

Funny you should ask. Usually the best way to handle trolls is to ignore them altogether. Occasionally (for the very brave) it's possible to troll them back. Despite the green rubbery exterior, most trolls are exceptionally thin skinned. Ideally one sets them to work trolling each other. Then their energies and anger dissipate harmlessly. This is very good for the rest of the Internet's denizens, and even amusing to watch. Remember: there's a little troll in all of us. Cheers, _Hamlet, Prince of Trollmark^{bugs and goblins} 14:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

My preferred response to a question, if I think it might be a troll, is polite and informative. If another editor then posts "OMG WTF DFTT", I don't think it's me that's giving the troll the attention they crave. I realise this is pretty much what GTBacchus said above, but hey. Maybe we need a three wise monkeys approach: see no trolls, hear no trolls... SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

See no trolls, hear no trolls, are no trolls. That kinda sounds quacky... Xclamation point 14:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you recommend as better? I certainly don't conclude from "see no trolls, hear no trolls" that there are no trolls. I think the insight there is that identifying them as trolls is actually pointless — harmful even.

Veiled allusions to a page as pernicious as WP:SPADE aren't really helpful, because I honestly have no idea what you're claiming, and what I'm trying to get out of this thread is clear communication. Can you put your advice into clear, concrete terms? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Or is that three wise ostriches? Better to (when necessary) deflect attention from the troll and correct the trolling. Comment on the edit, not the editor.LeadSongDog come howl 15:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

See, this is what I'm asking about. That was cryptic. Why can't we state our advice for dealing with trolls aloud and clearly? What do you mean by "deflect attention from the troll and correct the trolling?" How does one "correct" trolling, and what has that got to do with, "Comment on the edit, not the editor?" I know people for whom those are contradictory statements. That's the kind of ambiguous language that people will interpret in diametrically opposite ways, leading to unnecessary conflict.

What does "when necessary" mean? What if there's no edit, but rather a question on a talk page, "Why doesn't this article explain about [ethnicity] being dishonest and stupid?" Do you block that person, and call them a racist? Do you answer their question? ("Please see race and intelligence for information on that question. If you have a specific edit that you propose making in this article, what is it?")

I know what I do, but we don't seem to provide any guidance in the form of guidelines or policies. A consequence of this is that some areas are inevitably dominated by people who are "doing it wrong" - whatever that means - and I think that results in harm to the project. This is all just food for thought, I guess, because I'm not seeing any particular thing to do about it. I'm interested in what others think. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly why I prefer "troublemaker", & try to avoid using the word "troll". If someone is editting/posting in a disruptive or bad faith manner, I guess in that respect she/he is a troll -- but they'd also be a troublemaker. You've established a reputation for having a level head, GT, & you have the experience: you're more than likely to know when a user is just a floundering newbie, & when a user are trying to be disruptive. Just act accordingly. -- llywrch (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Llywrch, I'm not asking for advice. Like you say, I know how to act. I'm asking why we seem reluctant to advise others, who might not be so sure of how to handle "troublemakers". I'm very likely to write an essay, that might grow into a guideline, but it won't be to advise myself.

This thread is here to sound out whether my ideas are compatible with those of other admins watching here. I know that my ideas are extremely incompatible with those of some editors, but none of them has seen fit to comment here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Would love to advise and assist, but it seems I am being ignored. _Hamlet, Prince of Trollmark^{bugs and goblins} 21:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I read your comment above, but it wasn't entirely clear to me how that's applicable. Can you point to an example of what you're talking about? Do you think it would be good advice, if we suggest to editors that a good response to trolling is to troll them back? You say the best strategy is to ignore them altogether. What if this isn't possible, because other editors engage them anyway, and won't be dissuaded? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Sometimes one simply has to wait for others to come to the realization independently that a certain person is a troll. Of course it's also possible that one's own estimate is mistaken, and occasionally one has the pleasant surprise of developing a good working relationship with an individual who had initially seemed like a troll. For the purpose of an essay about dealing with trolls, four good points to hit would be as follows:

1. Ignore them when possible.
2. Give a quiet heads up to other people who aren't ignoring a troll.
3. If the heads up gets disregarded, then back off and wait for events to play themselves out.
4. If you have to interact with a troll, be polite.

Climbing the Reischtag to warn people about a troll is a bad idea: it makes you look silly and generates sympathy for the troll. Rather than labeling the person with the t-word, calmly describe the objectionable behaviors. Attempting to troll a troll is high risk behavior, and not really appropriate for essay advice. _Hamlet, Prince of Trollmark^{bugs and goblins} 00:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

There's some sense to that. I especially agree that climbing the Reichstag and making noise about the trolling is a bad idea. However... I have a hard time with any advice that depends on making a determination as to whether someone is trolling. I feel that the best approach is identical whether you think they're trolling or not, and that trying to decide whether they are is therefore a distraction. Since I wouldn't ignore someone asking a sincere question, why should I ignore someone pretending to ask the same sincere question? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not you apply the t-word, pretty much anytime one interacts with a difficult personality the best approach is to be polite and keep the person at arm's length. Don't engage emotionally. The difference will tell: if the individual actually is a troll, they'll either leave out of boredom or become enraged at their failure to provoke an emotional reaction. If the individual isn't actually a troll, normal responses will follow. The best thing about using good manners to separate trolls from non-trolls is that you'll never need to apologize to the latter for having suspected them. Of course you aren't obligated to interact with difficult people either. Walking away politely is just as good (and often better). _Hamlet, Prince of Trollmark^{bugs and goblins} 15:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, all of that I agree with. Courtesy and professionalism do protect against the harm due to false positives. I have yet to see what the harm is of a false negative. I guess I'm seeing all of this in the light of a specific recent episode that really made me think. The best advice, to my mind, is to never ask oneself the question, "is this a troll?" However, I can't realistically expect people to refrain from that. The idea is to have advice that works regardless of whether any determination has been made as to, "is it a troll?" -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thinking "is this a troll?" is rarely harmful. Thinking "this is a troll" quite often is. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

So, if answering the question in the affirmative is harmful, what's the good in asking the question? It indicates misplaced priorities, and a wrong approach to dispute resolution. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Asking oneself a question introduces uncertainty, invites careful consideration of possibilities, and hopefully leads to a pragmatic approach to further communication. Conversely, answering that question definitively introduces certainty and invites a dogmatic approach that may not turn out to be correct. The ideal answer to a post that may or may not be a troll is one that will not, in retrospect, seem to have been inappropriate, whether or not it was a troll.SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, ok. That's fair. There are circumstances where many or most editors are likely to suspect trolling. Having that suspicion is perfectly natural and proper. An appropriate way of dealing with that suspicion is to carefully speak in a way that will be appropriate either way. That's good advice. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Country infobox maps

I'd like to point out a recent trend by some editors to include countries' territorial claims on infobox maps on country articles, which spark edit wars and destroys NPOV consensus on these articles. Such cases are the Argentina and People's Republic of China articles. Sihjop (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge of Food play and Wet_and_messy_fetishism

These articles were suggested to be merged in April of 2008. Since then there has been only one contribution to the discussion[132] about the merge, my own. I would like to know if it is OK for me to remove the merger label on foodplay and wet and messy fetishism as nobody seems to be pursuing the merge anymore. Bigpindahouse (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. A year with no action and one comment is a community apathy "no" by default ... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:FPOC

Probably not quite the place, but as this is a well-frequented board filled with Wikipedia regulars, I'll try anyway:

Featured portal candidates could really use some more reviewers. If anyone would be interested, I'm sure all of us would appreciate your reviews and comments.

Thanks,

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: Linked to the wrong page like an idiot. Fixed now. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Fasach Nua continual unexplained image removals

Okay, User:Fasach Nua, contribs, seems to spend a lot of their time deleting images from articles. Okay, I ask, maybe there's a reason. However Fasach Nua never leaves an edit summary despite being asked to on many occassions. They have been warned on many occassions, even before he blanked his talk page, about such editing patterns yet they persist in it. It may be that they have a reason for deleting images and editing the way they do, but never enter into dialogue about it even when prompted by other editors. When other editors revert his deletions, he simply responds to them with edits such as this one, where they tell the reverting editor that they have added images and given no indication as to why. And then after such responses continues with talk as [such]. They refuse to enter into dialogue and continue to ignore warnings and polite requests. Can someone else take a look and let me know what they think. I've given them several warnings up to a blocking point for future edits, but want to run it past others first. Canterbury Tail talk 11:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Without looking at these particular images, if they're fair use images without a valid fair use rationale, FN is entirely correct in removing them. – iridescent 11:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Canterbury Tail, my advice in these situations is to prompt the other editor to open a discussion at files for deletion. PhilKnight (talk) 11:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Some of the images they remove seem to be fair use, but that's not an area I'm an expert in. The main area I'm having issue with is the complete lack of communication on the issue with other editors that seems to be leading to edit wars as a result. I'll leave another talk on their page about taking the images to Files for deletion rather than just removing them straight from articles with no comment. Canterbury Tail talk 11:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that just prompting this editor to discuss is going to be fruitful. In this "discussion" all User:Fasach Nua seems interested in doing is quoting policy in response to anything said. Discussion with this editor seems to be very one sided and sometime the side is very small.[133] --AussieLegend (talk) 12:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is my concern. They may be operating within the policies of NFCC, but their edits are leading to disruptive editing due to lack of communication and explanation. Becomes a difficult one, the editor is technically correct, but is going about it in the wrong manner. Canterbury Tail talk 12:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, while a handful of the images that FN is removing from articles do not completely meet the non-free image policy (they lack rationales), FN is stripping fully-rationaled images as well, strictly on the weight of WP:NFCC#8. (See for example Sliders and The Simpsons) FN also is very critical of any such images for television related Featured Articles and pretty much just simply restates "NFCC #8" as a reason to fail. This is not helpful advice nor helps work towards a compromise or a chance of improvement for these articles, particularly due to the nuances of the "significance" criteria. --MASEM (t) 12:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

So what would be the best way to deal with this? I'm trying to open a conversation with the user, but they are not forthcoming. I feel their edits are very disruptive. Canterbury Tail talk 12:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Canterbury: Is there any history of conflict between you and this editor? That might explain his unwillingness to respond to your queries.

On a general note, I'd observe that a failure to communicate with one's fellow editors is quite a serious issue, and our community has made it quite clear that, particularly in the case of administrator actions, sysops should take care to explain their actions in full. (Compare, desysopping of CSCWEM; Betacommand arbitration case, #Communication principle; and Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator conduct.)

AGK 13:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I've had no contact with this user prior to these incidents. I don't honestly believe that blocks are required, just some dialogue. Canterbury Tail talk 17:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Although I haven't had the pleasure of interacting with Fasach Nua personally, I have witnessed his/her behavior (specifically at WP:FA), and it generally has nothing to do with prior interactions. Fasach Nua is simply the newest editor to 'fight the cause!' and attempt to eliminate all fair use images. As these editors tend to be non-responsive (see Durin, Betacommand), they generally cause more trouble than they eliminate. The only thing new in this situation is the editor playing the role. --auburnpilot talk 14:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well to be fair to betacommand he did not attempt to remove all fair use, but yeah. Unless the editor is willing to improve his communications and at least use edit summaries when doing those edits we might need to look into a short block to get the point across to him/her that we are a community of editors. —— nixeagle^{email me} 14:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thread title tweaked for accuracy. –xeno ^talk 15:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I've opened separate discussions at WP:FFD for the 5 images being edit warred over. I honestly don't believe a block is necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I have encountered Fasach's edit-warring before, and I find his lack of communication (very similar to that of Betacommand) frustrating, and it is always possible that this is deliberate. The statement here from Arb needs to be pointed out to Fasach, and if he declines to go along with it, then he needs to be blocked for a short time. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The real issue here - as mentioned earlier - lies not in the images themselves, but in Fasach's conduct. It is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to get FN to discuss the actions. Images are deleted with cryptic comments, or (more recently) no explanation whatsoever. Attempts to get explanations are ignored, or returned with attempts to put the blame on the other party. Simply put, this is an experienced editor who is acting in a manner that we would never tolerate in general editing; why we should allow this disruptive behaviour just because it involves images is beyond me. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI, this user has been the subject of 2 RFC's. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Fasach_Nua and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Fasach_Nua_2. I haven't read through them all, but looks like one was on image deletion and on a different allegation of edit warring.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Done

I've went ahead and gave a nice message to them on their talk page. See User_talk:Fasach_Nua#Responses. I explained to them how the behavior they are doing is just as disruptive as failing to explain a revert in an editwar. Hopefully that gets the message across. If this continues feel free to bring it up on WP:ANI, but give the guy a chance. The next step is to warn that continued disruption will lead to a block and if that does not work, follow it up with a short (24 hour) block. Of course blocking and warning of a potential block should not be needed, but it is my advice to other admins should they run into similar situations with similar editors. —— nixeagle^{email me} 16:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving (yet another) note for FN. Thing is, FN has already had many chances to adjust the behaviour. (I left a similar note a week ago, which was ignored. Other admins have left numerous warnings as well.) The RfCs reveal a pattern of disruptive and non-communicative behaviour that mirrors what we are seeing here. Good faith only goes so far before it becomes apparent that there is no interest in working to address the community's concerns. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said, if this does not cut it, block warnings and short blocks are in order. But do give him a chance :). —— nixeagle^{email me} 17:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I, personally, have found User:Fasach Nua to be extremely polite and helpful in matters relating to photographic copyright etc. She has helped me towards gaining two FA bronze stars with her expertise in this area and, on reading this thread, I feel that she is being treated pretty harshly.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 17:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there any chance you could try to convince FN to change the behaviour that is causing the problem? --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

FN has not been helpful or responsive on images in my experience. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nancy Drew/archive1 for FN's comment on image use in the now-FA Nancy Drew; FN's statements were untrue regarding my non-existent "admissions" and inaccurate regarding both the article and the FURs. A request for further clarification on User talk:Fasach Nua was deleted without response. Ricardiana (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I might add that a quick look at FN's talk page history shows a pattern of deleting requests for clarification without other response. Ricardiana (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Still no response

Fasach_Nua has been on and talked briefly with other users since the posts to their page, but no reponses made. In fact they even added a good faith template to the current Street newspaper FA stating there were too many copyrighted images in the article, at which point there where two, one of which had proper permissions, and the other was reasonably being used to illustrate the professional nature of The Big Issue, details which would have been gone over by the FAC anyway. I know they're acting in good faith, and one edit to the FA isn't a deal at all, but they're still not responding which is what concerns me. Canterbury Tail talk 11:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

As above, FN simply ignores or deletes requests for discussion or clarification. This is a widespread pattern of behavior. Ricardiana (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

He has responses to nearly every talk page message left to him since my message to him. He did not respond to my message, but the message I left does not need a response aside from improving behavior. The other message he did not respond to was User_talk:Fasach_Nua#FAR, but looking at it I'm not really sure if I would have responded either. (I don't know what response would need to be given), and regardless it does not seem to be an inquiry about image tagging.

From what I see he is making a good faith attempt to improve. I think you guys should relax a bit on him and if you have trouble post a message to his talk page first before noting it here on AN. If he regresses in the future, I'll be glad to re-examine things and consider leaving harsher messages, but now is not that time. —— nixeagle^{email me} 04:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

myself user:76.66.202.139

Can someone resolve my current level? see user talk:76.66.202.139.

I tried to archive a talk page, and got a vandal-2 for my efforts. Then I got a vandal-3 for beautifying.

Am I really sitting at level-3?

76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no "current level". Admins don't issue blocks based on prior warnings without looking at when any why any prior warnings were issued. In the case of regular established editors, regular templated warnings would not be looked at in isolation anyway unless they were accompanied by a sudden dramatic change of editing behavior. If someone issued you a templated warning that they have admitted was unecessary given your good faith intentions (as seems to have happened) then just accept the apology they offered, delete the warning and forget about it, there is no permanent warning level status that you are now on. Mfield (Oi!) 06:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there's a "current level" as far as Huggle is concerned. Now that he has 3 warnings, every edit he makes makes his edits jump to the top of every Huggler's recent changes feed. Lots of false positives happen that way. Now any edit he makes (until he removes the warnings) runs the risk of being reverted (by Hugglers who may not know its not vandalism, but see the little colored square next to the edit). Anon: You could remove those warning (which you are allowed to do per WP:UP#CMT) if you'd like. What's disturbing is that he tried to communicate, on his talk page, to a Huggler and another user that his actions were in good faith, and neither of the users removed the warning they were discussing. Killiondude (talk) 07:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That is a major flaw in the use of Huggle that I wasn't aware of, having never used it. I'll have to read up on it, but it effectively means that Huggle users are incapable of assuming good faith, how long does it take before it ignores old warnings on an IP and resets its current level. Mfield (Oi!) 18:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Its only a major flaw when people give improper warnings and don't properly review edits. If people act correctly, its an effective way to triage a large amount of edits so that the ones most likely to be vandalism are checked first. Its not a problem with the software, but a problem with the users. Mr.Z-man 18:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't revert him because of his "level" but because I saw an IP formatting others users edits and then adding text in an AfD discussion, at first glance I thought it was routine vandalism. He contacted me and I apologize for the mistake. It seems that the IP is making good faith edits, some of them are maintenance edits, like archiving talk pages (its appears as blanking to ClueBot) so my suggestion is to Anon is to open an account. For my part, I will remove my warning, again I apologize for any inconvenience. --J^mundo 19:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I feel less inclined to register than ever. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The flaw appears to be that Huggle will autoescalate to level-3. If it were only escalate to level-2, and require that the Huggle user manually escalate to level-3, some of the trouble would disappear. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No, its only a "flaw" if people revert edits that they shouldn't. 99% of the time (or 100% of the time if they're being careful) it would be the correct action, so people would just click the confirmation robotically anyway. But in any case, this is confusing misuse of the software with a bug. Mr.Z-man 04:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice that when pointed out that the reversion is in error, that it would be undone by the reverter... (I couldn't redo the edit, in the case of archival, since I think I'd have transgressed 3RR) 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandal socks on adminstats page

The administrative statistics page at User:JamesR/AdminStats, "now running on a script by MZMcBride and bjweeks" (header) and updated regularly by AdminStatsBot (history), includes lines for several non-admin users in the "Totals" section which currently lists 1880 users (most recent diff). Among them, since 08:19, 27 March 2009 UTC (diff), are at least four vandal sockpuppets: ؞, ﾗ, Zemaiteska, and Woooooooooop.

I don't know what else may be wrong with the stats page (are there other such pages?) but this needs attention from some admins who are knowledgeable about bots. — Athaenara ✉ 02:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

If I move a page that is semi-protected, it produces a log entry like:

02:53, 16 May 2009 Bart133 (talk | contribs) moved protection settings from "My Kazakhstan (anthem)" to "Meniñ Qazaqstanım (anthem)" ‎ (My Kazakhstan (anthem) moved to Meniñ Qazaqstanım (anthem): Anthem of Armenia, as an example, is at Mer Hayrenik, not Our Fatherland - replace English translation with transliteration)

in the protection log (example). This is to leave a trail to the original protection reason (protections used to be either left behind or ended when moving). The bots then scrape the protection log and count the entries by user without regard to which action occurred. MER-C 02:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I don't know if I can help you, but also: User:C-3PO. It looks like everyone with a logged admin action is on the list... but how are people getting logged admin actions without being admins? (perhaps page moves over redirects delete the redirect, and that is then logged? I don't know how that works). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It is people moving pages that are set to [edit=autoconfirmed]. This produces a log entry that looks like this. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Do we really want page move vandals on adminstats pages? If not, how to keep them off? — Athaenara ✉ 03:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh... its not hard, but its something that the folks that wrote the script have to do, assuming they are inclined to do so :). All they would have to do is do a quick check in the database and confirm that the user is/was an admin. You can check the promotion logs for this information if you wanted to also include past admins in the list, or check user groups if you wanted only current admins. —— nixeagle^{email me} 04:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The user in the top spot with over 800,000 deletions gave up admin rights several weeks ago (short version, long version). Are there any other functioning adminstats pages from which to choose? — Athaenara ✉ 05:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe try WP:LOGS. Tiptoety ^talk 05:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It's very nearly identical and has the same faults. — Athaenara ✉ 05:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Second Attempted Outing

I have reported User:Yonteng 4 times since last week for multiple 3RRs, attempted outing, and incivility.

This user is currently requesting an unblock (which was just approved), and in the process just attempted a second outing of me on their talk page. Emptymountains (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

First, diffs please. I'm not in the mood to hunt through his edits to figure out what you're talking about. Second, he wasn't unblocked. He had a 48-hour block from which the IP-block got stuck and he was released. Third, I suggest speaking to User:William M. Connolley as nothing in his block log nor talk page indicate outing concerns. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The diffs were oversighted. I'm trying to contact an oversighter to review this request as of now. Icestorm815 • Talk 20:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, damn, the oversighter should have blocked him then. I hate it when this happens. It's a mess to work with. A weird catch-22 situation. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I talked to FT2 and he can't seem to find any oversighted edits. It may have just been a glitch with wikipedia or my computer. I'm sending a message to the functionaries to address Emptymountains concerns of privacy (listed below). Icestorm815 • Talk 21:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Empty Mountains outs himself on his talk page, giving his 'real name there. i did not out him See New Kadampa Discussion page PLEASEYonteng (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

My physical location has never been listed on my talk page.

1st attempted outing: [134]

2nd attempted outing: [135]

3rd attempted outing: [136]

User unblocked: [137]

Thank you for your time. Emptymountains (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, only the name of your organisation and the town are given to prove you are non-NPOV and there is CoI-you are 'gaming the system' with this report. In the end, truth is the most important thing here-When people see this you are afraid they will see your CoI so you report me-dodgy!Yonteng (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yonteng also posted a link that lists a phone number. Emptymountains (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Enough of this. Yonteng, I've warned you on your user page. One more game of conspiracy theory and you're done here. I really don't care for this anymore. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• I've cleaned up the whole mess. Please don't just leave the outing info there to lapse, or to repost it in other pages when you report - edit it out on sight and inform us via email for further assistance. It is not fun to trawl through thousands of edits to remove all these edits. - Mailer Diablo 15:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

User page edit requests

Resolved

 – Let sleeping cats lie.

Durova^Charge! 18:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat was apparently renamed User:White Cat, as can be seen on the User Talk page history[138], but the page is blank instead of redirecting. Can this be fixed so that all the user’s old signatures are not redlinks?( Note that User:WhiteCat without a space is someone else.) --WikidSmaht (talk) 03:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

God, this feels so familiar. See Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Cool_Cat (there's a DRV out there too) and let it go. Seriously, just let it go. Someone please close? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait a second. Why are you editing as User:2Wikid and redirecting both your user and talk page to User:WikidSmaht? They don't seem like related accounts and I'm sure redirecting talk pages is completely frowned up. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I've asked User:WikidSmaht to shed some light on this, whether it is an alternative account or an impersonator. Fram (talk) 09:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a renamed account: User_talk:2Wikid#Username_change. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No, that's an older change (he was WikidCool before). 2Wikid is his alt account, just like other people would say [username] 2. I asked him about it a couple of years ago. Link here [139] hbdragon88 (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet of Panairjdde

It seems that two years ago Panairjdde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · rfcu · ssp · SPI · cuwiki) was banned as per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Archive9#Community ban of User:Panairjdde. This seems to have involved several sockpuppet cases, listed at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Panairjdde, but none of them appear to name ExistEarly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who was blocked about the same time as a sockpuppet. Earlier I can across Existearly1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) making this edit. It wasn't until later that I saw this and then following on came across ExistEarly. Posting this here for review. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 23:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any connection between the edits of ExistEarly1 and that of Parnairjdde (but then I didn't see any between ExistEarly and Parnairjdde, and assumed that a CU made the connection via ip addresses during an investigation). Since the original ExistEarly was blocked as a sock I would not thought a puppetmaster would invite such quick suspicion by reusing the name, while it would be quite possible that a third party wanted to use the name and altered it when they found it had already been allocated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I no longer think they are a sockpuppet and have unblocked them. The IP's used are, as Steel (talk · contribs), the blocking admin of ExistEarly, pointed out on different continents. Parnairjdde did use sockpuppets that were obvious but in this case I think that you are correct it's just a coincidence rather than a return. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yardleyman

I came across this edit by Yardleyman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The user's account is less than a month old, but this apparently did not stop him from posting an AFD with his fourth edit (his first edit was a vandalistic redirect which has been deleted). I'm finding his knowledge of the workings of Wikipedia extremely suspect and privately requested a checkuser from Dmcdevit who I have asked to post some of his findings that he finds relevant to the "case" at hand. In my current situation, I do not believe I can block him at all, even though I cannot find any beneficial edits the user has made to Wikipedia. I am requesting more indepth input on this user's actions.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

My check confirms that Yardleyman, Silk Knot, and Rick22225 are the same person. It seems some amount of AfD vote-stacking has gone on. Dominic·t 08:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked all 3 accounts. They all seem to be used for almost nothing but trolling and deletion-related disruption. There was an earlier SPI case that mentions at least 1 other account, is that related? Mr.Z-man 15:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

VS Sampath's page link

Please link the Sampath to | Election Commision of India —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Appalayya (talk • contribs) 12:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. For future reference, you can ask questions about how to use Wikipedia at either the help desk or the new contributor's help desk. TNXMan 15:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

DiDA

Could an admin please review the article? Some of the "criticism" sections (1, 2, 3, 4) look suspicious... --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 18:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Full of weasel words, POV-pushing, that's been challenged for months (February 2009 and September 2008). Wholesale removal. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Complex situation

There's a complex situation on the CoI noticeboard and it could benefit from some experienced eyeballs, see: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Longevity myths, Longevity claims, etc.. The editor who came to the board is frustrated and needs advice. Drawn Some (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

BAG nomination for Nakon

Per the required "spamming" of venues, I would like to bring attention to my nomination for the Bot Approval Group, which may be found at Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Nakon. Thanks, Nakon 01:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Administrator review

Not sure if this has been advertised before, but we need help getting it off the ground. Thanks! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with sockpuppet edits on a closed RfC

A few days ago User:Tundrabuggy was exposed as a sockpuppet of a banned editor and was banned in turn. There is a discussion currently taking place at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Elonka#Deletion of sockpuppet edits about whether the contributions of a banned sockpuppet should be allowed to stand on a closed RfC to which the sockpuppet contributed extensively. Input from uninvolved administrators would be welcomed. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

 Note:
The discussion has now been closed and archived.
AGK 11:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Qqtacpn

User:Qqtacpn seems to be quite the problematic user. In the course of two AFDs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Manuel Joseph Martín López de Prado Rodríguez Díaz de Armesto y Varela, X Baron of Lemavia and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Lemavia), this user has blatantly attacked others and made false accusations of vandalism when being called out on the hoax articles they have made, with such nonsense as "Discrimination based on being a new contributor." and "Fine, if this is how flawed Wikipedia is, please go ahead and remove these articles. They belong to the paper encyclopedias available in the Library of Congress." This user clearly is not here to contribute in good faith, and has already been level 4 warned for repeatedly blanking articles. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 11:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There was already a thread at WP:ANI on this user here. He has now made legal threats. [140] Mathsci (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

That I did not know. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 12:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? I'm the one who has been insulted. Completely unfair (Qqtacpn (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC))

That still doesn't mean you can make legal threats. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 12:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Qqtacpn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just been indef blocked by J Milburn for making the legal threat. Mathsci (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone wanna delete all his articles? He just tagged them all for speedy deletion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 12:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, the user has requested an unblock, explaining that he did not know he couldn't withdraw his contributions. TNXMan 13:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)