Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive220

User Snowded

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/-Snowded

Hi, i made my report against user due to what i consider he regulary singles myself out using impolite or uncivil communications/long-term abuse.[1][2],deletion review[3],

I have attempted on many occasions (which you will see from the above links) to resolve this issue by talking to User Snowded to attempt to resolve issue in a civil manner but my attempts at this have failed. i have also asked snowded not to post messages on my user talk page on a number of occasions whilst trying to resolve this issue and he would not follow my request. My main concern is the general method in which he talks to people on WP in what i would say is a derogative manner when it comes to an issue of non agreement and use of edit summary's to make guised uncivil remarks [4] there have also been cases of Edit warring on the UAF article page although this is not my main concern and the conduct of the user is more important if this can be resolved

Johnsy88 (talk) 12:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Ouch, no. LTA is not for that purpose, I'd recommend sticking a {{db-author}} on the page immediately before you fall afoul of WP:BOOMERANG. If you have an issue with a specific user then please consider reporting to WP:AN/I or WP:WQA --Errant ^(chat!) 12:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

ah , i wasnt quite sure, i will move this then. thanks very much for your advice Johnsy88 (talk) 12:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

If Johnsy88 cares to list examples of this so called abuse I'll happily respond. For the moment s/he has (yet again) been edit warring and I suspect the 3rr report I just lodged triggered this reaction, as s/he already has a block history relating to right wing political issues. If a more experienced editor would give him/her some help we would probably all benefit. S/he seems to think that any disagreement with his/her edits is impolite or uncivil. --Snowded ^TALK 12:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I see that the OP has also posted a similar message on WP:WQA, as well as at WP:LTA. Such forum-shopping is discouraged. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(OTRS) File:Sibiu_pictures_main.jpg

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

---

Resolved

Images in question have been deleted from EN and Commons. Tabercil (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

OTRS: Please remove the file [[File:Sibiu_pictures_main.jpg]] as it is a verified copyright violation. Notice was sent OTRS (ticket# 2010121310018273) by the original author, who is a professional photographer and retains copyright. User:7castle already has a number of coipyright warnings, and I warned him/her that a ban may be appropriate if this activity doesn't cease. Asav (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Another complaint regarding the image File:Sibiu center 2007.jpg posted by the same user just arrived. Please remove it as well. Its been merged with the previous ticket no. Asav (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Both are deleted, but there are five similair images, also uploaded by 7castle, shown on Sibiu#Gallery. — Edokter • Talk • 21:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

We'll probably have to nuke all his uploads then, I guess. Unfortunately some are already at Commons. Could you ask your OTRS person to have a look through [5]? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Cheers. Asav (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

And I just pulled them from Commons. Tabercil (talk) 23:41, 14 December 2010 (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.

Requested edit

 Done - Please amend Add {{WikiProject Oklahoma}} to Talk:Oklahoma_Secretary_of_Human_Resources_and_Administration. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. (Now that I finally understood what the problem is...) Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

On linking to classified documents

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

Further discussion here now redundant. Please go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Use of classified documents. Rd232 ^talk 08:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Because of the recent disputes at articles such as Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative and United States diplomatic cables leak, and several related noticeboard threads, I have been spending some time reviewing policies and guidelines on whether classified documents (especially from the Wikileaks site) should be used as sources. This is not a new debate, and there have been discussions about this topic for years, in many different locations. Part of this is because some debates did not produce a clear consensus, part of it is because there has been some really impressive wikilawyering and forum-shopping going on, and part is because many people are unclear on policies and guidelines, so vehemently state things that just aren't true, which causes discussions to become muddled.

Examples of false statements

• "If a source is being linked to by reliable sources, then that must mean that it is reliable too."
  • Incorrect, and not at all in line with WP:RS.
• "Primary sources can be reliable sources"
  • Nope, this is not in line with WP:PRIMARY
• If a source has an editor, that means it has "editorial control", so it's a reliable source
  • No. Just because something has an editor, does not give it "reliable and peer-reviewed" status. Having an editor does not state anything about whether a site has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
• "Any documents produced by the United States Government are in the public domain"
  • Not true at all. Many government documents are still covered by copyright. See Copyright status of work by the U.S. government. Government documents that have been created by government workers in intent for release and publication are usually public domain, but classified documents are obviously not intended for publication
• "Once a classified document has been released, it's in the public domain."
  • Wrong. Classified documents are still classified documents, until/unless they have been de-classified.[6]
• "The information is already out there, it won't hurt anything or anyone for us to use it if everyone else is using it too."
  • Wrong. In fact, notices are going out to government workers and university students that viewing classified information could endanger their security clearances, and cause them to lose their jobs, or prevent them from acquiring certain other jobs in the future.[7][8][9][10] Further, if the U.S. government chooses to act, then by law, any computer which has inappropriately acquired classified information can be confiscated and destroyed.[11][12] Whether or not the government is actually going to do this in any cases is still unclear, but if they wanted to make a high profile bust, Wikipedia is an accessible and high profile target.
• "We're not providing the information, we are just linking to it. There's no harm in that."
  • Wrong. Per WP:ELNO, we are not to link to content that would be considered illegal in the state of Florida (since that's where most of the Wikipedia servers are). Leaked classified information is illegal.[13] Also per WP:ELNEVER, "Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors." Wikileaks has not received owner approval for distribution of the documents.
• "Everyone else is linking to the information, we can too."
  • Wrong. Not everyone is linking to it. Some sites such as The New York Times choose not to do so. Regarding an incident in July 2010: the New York Times stated, "The Times and the other news organizations agreed at the outset that we would not disclose — either in our articles or any of our online supplementary material — anything that was likely to put lives at risk or jeopardize military or antiterrorist operations. We have, for example, withheld any names of operatives in the field and informants cited in the reports. We have avoided anything that might compromise American or allied intelligence-gathering methods such as communications intercepts. We have not linked to the archives of raw material."[14]

Discussions

To try and make sense of the debates, help dispel the inaccuracies, and come up with an accurate consensus, I am here pulling together several links to where things have been discussed:

• (November 2007) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 3#leaked documents?
• (October 2009) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 45#Wikileaks
• (July 2010) Talk:Afghan War documents leak#Remove easy access to the papers from wikipedia
• (July 2010) Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard/Archive 3#Dispute as to linking to declassified material
• {July 2010) Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 78#publishing or linking to "classified" material
• (November/December 2010) Wikipedia:ELN#Propriety of linking to WikiLeaks 'released' documents
• (December 2010) User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 69#List of US vital sites
• (December 2010) Talk:United States diplomatic cables leak#List of vital sites
• (December 2010) WP:RSN#Is Business Insider reliable?
• (December 2010) WP:ANI#Creation of articles from leaked classified documents
• (December 2010) Talk:Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative#Unjustifiable opposition (and other threads at that talkpage)
• (December 2010) Talk:United States diplomatic cables leak#Primary Sources vs Secondary Sources
• (December 2010) s:Wikisource:Scriptorium#Wikileaks collection of cables

Consensus

After having reviewed all of the discussions, especially this one which seems to have the largest number of uninvolved voices, the consensus seems to be:

• Leaked classified documents are primary sources, not secondary sources
• Wikipedia articles can be written based on reliable secondary sources about any leaked documents, but should not be based on the leaked documents themselves
• If it's illegal to link to something, we should not link to it.
• There is some "case by case" that can be used. Not all documents on Wikileaks are classified. If a source at Wikileaks is not controversial, it can be used, with care, as a primary source per WP:PRIMARY
• Links to documents which appear to be classified information, should be removed.

I believe that having a clear consensus determination on this will help to resolve many of the disputes that are popping up. Do other administrators agree with my summary? --Elonka 23:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

To be clear, the consensus determination above is listed not because it is my (Elonka's) personal opinion, but instead in a good faith attempt to try and summarize the consensus of existing discussions. In fact, I don't even personally agree with all of the conclusions. In any case, I am interested now in the opinions of other uninvolved administrators, as to whether they agree with my determination of consensus, or whether they would suggest something different.

• Yes, your summary appears accurate. I would reiterate that we should not link to any stolen documents, because of the strong possibility that copyright (or some other law) could have been violated. The burden is on the editors adding links to show that the target is not a copyright violation, and not otherwise illegal. Jehochman ^Talk 00:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• This reads like a biased screed, not an unbiased summary. The worst of it is the examples of false statements bit, most of which are contestable. e.g.
  • "Primary sources can be reliable sources"
    • Nope, this is not in line with WP:PRIMARY

  To which I would reply with a quote taken directly from WP:PRIMARY: "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia."[15]

  or

  • "We're not providing the information, we are just linking to it. There's no harm in that."
    • Wrong. Per WP:ELNO, we are not to link to content that would be considered illegal in the state of Florida

  Actually, WP:ELNO simple says that "one should generally avoid" linking to such pages. The existence of a content guideline that says "one should generally avoid" linking to such pages does not go to the question of whether any harm is done by doing so in this particular case.

  More generally, all of these putatively false statements are statements made in support of making use of these leaked cables. In all these debates, hasn't a single person put forward a "false" statement in opposition to using the leaked cables? It's only one side whose false statements need to be debunked in the course of presenting a neutral summary of consensus? Seriously, this summary is so obviously, clumsily biased.

  Hesperian 00:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Hesperian, thank you for your comments. If you disagree with my determination, would you like to take a stab at defining a consensus instead? --Elonka 17:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• Looking at just WP:ANI#Creation of articles from leaked classified documents, the summary appears lacking. First, as Hesperian points out, the primary sourcing issue is not represented accurately; this is basic policy anyway. There is also a problem with the final two conclusions; there is no consensus on whether to blanket ban or handle things case by case. There is a consensus that the documents don't violate copyright, which you haven't mentioned, though it is also argued that in this case copyright isn't the primary legal concern. On the legality of that, the fact that leading newspapers are hosting many of the documents really ought to suggest it's OK to link to them! Perhaps the best compromise in the short term is to link only to cables hosted by those newspapers, and not to any documents hosted by Wikileaks. Rd232 ^talk 00:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. To try and provide some structure to this discussion, I have moved comments by administrators into this section. Or rather, copied, since the discussion has become a bit convoluted, so I didn't want to just snip comments out of other discussions. This may mean that a couple comments are now duplicated, between this section and the one below. I apologize for this confusion, and if anyone can think of a better way to handle things, please feel free. --Elonka 16:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• I object to a section for "administrators to comment". Permission flags are not normally relevant when it comes to determining consensus. - brenneman 16:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • There is precedent for this in other sections of the project, such as at WP:AE, where sections are made just for administrators to comment. My desire here is to get the opinions of uninvolved administrators on the determination of consensus. Any admin who wishes to do so, is welcome to review the other discussions on this page while they make up their mind. --Elonka 16:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Any non-admin is also welcome to review the other discussions and to comment on them here. DuncanHill (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a very poor precedent that you've proposed.

1. The only areas where administrators are normally given any additional editing privileges is where there is a requirement of use of administrator's additional tools. Like closing deletion debates as "delete" for instance.
2. If I understand how you're claiming Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement relevant is the "Administrator imposing the sanction" section. But like deletion, it is that it has the requirement that enforcement actually take place.

If there are other precedents where administrators have defined editing privileges with respect to general debate, I am not aware of them.

brenneman 17:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Administrator tools might well be required based on this. For example, if an editor insists on adding a link to classified information, claiming that it is a valid primary source, do administrators have the authority to warn and block that editor for violating consensus? --Elonka 17:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Admin tools may be necessary once consensus has been determined - they are not necessary to actually determine consensus. You are attempting to make the determination of consensus an admin-only activity, which requires a major change in policy and practice. DuncanHill (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• I too object, it is anti-collaborative and makes a big deal out of adminship, something which admins claim it should not be. DuncanHill (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Administrator discussion sections should only be used for discussions on administrative actions. The interpretation of policies and guidelines is not an administrative action (although administrative actions may well be used to enforce the result).  Cs32en Talk to me  18:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I see people disagreeing with my summary of consensus, but I don't see anyone offering a better summary? If someone else would like to attempt to summarize the existing discussions, please feel free. --Elonka 14:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

An RfC has been suggested, it is clear from this thread that there isn't a consensus yet on all the points you want covered. DuncanHill (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments

"If it's illegal to link to something, we should not ink to it" is all very well, but you need to get the Foundation Counsel's opinion about whether or not linking to Wikileaks is illegal, not just throwing that statement into the mix. DuncanHill (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

There are two major problems here. If it's illegal to link to something, we should not link to it.; how do we determine what is illegal. I've chatted to some of our experts here at the office (usual internet disclaimer; take it with a grain of salt) and they claim there is no current issue of legality here. Basically, as with most things internet (i.e. copyright as the classic example) current law is astronomically unequipped to deal with this. I'd say we need definite "ruling" from some serious legal professional before making a judgement - but, for the moment, assume linking too is fair game (and won't get us into trouble, even if the documents prove to be illegally hosted by WL's). Second problem: Wikipedia articles can be written based on reliable secondary sources about any leaked documents, but should not be based on the leaked documents themselves; this is the main area we need to hammer out. Clearly notability is going to carry on secondary sources in a RS, but as already demonstrated in a few places it is under debate whether leaked cables count as a reliable primary source. i.e. can they be used to source the factual content of a cable (for example, a list of places within the list) or do we treat them as unreliable source material. The problem with the latter decision is that *any* mention, even in a RS, is ultimately flawed by our judgement over a lack of reliable publishing. And, so, any mention of cable content should really be expunged. Somewhere between these two extremes there is a compromise, I think. --Errant ^(chat!) 00:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing in US law that makes providing these links "illegal." Not that that is any wikipedia editor's call. But the first amendment is pretty clear on this stuff. They're out there. There is a wikipedia editorial issue here having to do with primary sources, but that's rather a different thing (if the wikipedia editor core was more competent, i'd be personally all for judicious linking. The problem is, by and large, it's not). But there is no legality issue for us to bother our pretty little heads with.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I did not start this thread to re-open the discussion. I started this thread because I have reviewed the existing discussions, and made a determination of what I believe is the resulting consensus of those discussions. I am now asking other administrators if they agree with my determination of consensus. --Elonka 00:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Elonka has done an excellent job of explaining the issues. As a college professor I was struck by the point that students may get into career trouble if they link to these documents. Wiki policy should not facilitate linking that can do serious damage to our users. Rjensen (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Throwing in the "illegality" clause is poisoning the well by prejudging Wikileaks links as illegal, even though we do not have any court judgement saying that. Also, why only want admin opinions? DuncanHill (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Given recent news, it's possible that a Wikipedia editor could get into career trouble by uploading a picture of himself at a gay pride parade. For that matter, if he comes from a Muslim country, he might get himself into a torture cell that way if he's ever deported back there. But we still allow such uploads. Wnt (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, your summary appears accurate. I would reiterate that we should not link to any stolen documents, because of the strong possibility that copyright (or some other law) could have been violated. The burden is on the editors adding links to show that the target is not a copyright violation, and not otherwise illegal. Jehochman ^Talk 00:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This reads like a biased screed, not an unbiased summary. The worst of it is the examples of false statements bit, most of which are contestable. e.g.

• "Primary sources can be reliable sources"
  • Nope, this is not in line with WP:PRIMARY

To which I would reply with a quote taken directly from WP:PRIMARY: "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia."[16]

or

• "We're not providing the information, we are just linking to it. There's no harm in that."
  • Wrong. Per WP:ELNO, we are not to link to content that would be considered illegal in the state of Florida

Actually, WP:ELNO simple says that "one should generally avoid" linking to such pages. The existence of a content guideline that says "one should generally avoid" linking to such pages does not go to the question of whether any harm is done by doing so in this particular case.

More generally, all of these putatively false statements are statements made in support of making use of these leaked cables. In all these debates, hasn't a single person put forward a "false" statement in opposition to using the leaked cables? It's only one side whose false statements need to be debunked in the course of presenting a neutral summary of consensus? Seriously, this summary is so obviously, clumsily biased.

Hesperian 00:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll second Herperian's point - I got as far as the primary source mistake, and decided it was difficult to trust much more... sorry Elonka. Privatemusings (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, sort of. Hesperian is only slightly right. See, when you leave all of the qualifying statements out of WP:PRIMARY, which itemize when and where primarys sources may be used, you make it look like they can be used anywhere at anytime to justify anything at Wikipedia. WP:PRIMARY makes it clear that primary sources are not to be used as the main source around which a Wikipedia article is built. --Jayron32 04:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

"Primary sources can be reliable sources" = True, according to WP:PRIMARY, notwithstanding Elonka blatantly false claim to the contrary.

"Primary sources can be used anywhere at anytime to justify anything." = False, but apparently a useful straw man to some.

Try to keep them separate, okay? Just because I refute Elonka's denial of the first, doesn't mean I endorse the second. Hesperian 04:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with that. However, in terms of the Critical Initiative list, which is really where this primary source issue is coming from, the primary source is no longer being used as the main source in the article. The article is completely held up by the secondary sources and the primary source is there as a representative source for the factual information. In this case, we are in agreement that the primary source should be in the article somewhere, whether it is used as a reference somewhere or as a general EL, correct? Since we do that for all Wikipedia articles, we link to the primary source. It's just that we build the article itself around secondary sources. Silverseren^C 04:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I never mentioned a specific article, if (as you claim) your article is based on secondary sources, then you may be OK. Or you may not. I have no idea. I am not here to review a single article. However, I don't think its wise to misrepresent or eviscerate long-standing Wikipedia policy. --Jayron32 04:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It's just that Elonka specifically references the two articles at the beginning of this discussion. What is your opinion on the discussion about the primary source containing classified information, so we shouldn't link to it whatsoever? I personally disagree, but what's your opinion? Silverseren^C 04:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's irrelevent and a red herring. Publicly availible seems to me to be all that's required; I can't imagine any proper, in-line-with-policy use of one of these classified documents where it would matter their source, as long as said source was publicly availible, and as long as the Wikipedia article's claims about what the primary sources says are backed up scrupulously by very reliable sources. If the New York Times says "Cable XYZ says blah blah blah" it would be appropriate for the Wikipedia article to cite the New York Times article, and link to the publicly availible version of XYZ. What is NOT appropriate is to link to Cable XYZ and say "Cable XYZ says blah blah blah" without a reliable secondary source also saying the exact same thing. If there were legal ramifications to this, we'd have a foundation statement on it. The foundation is well aware of this discussion we are having right now; it seems unlikely that they would allow Wikipedia to get the Foundation into spectularly deep shit if it was heading that way. Since I, and you, and no one else here is a lawyer or is legal counsel for the Foundation, any "illegality" issues are moot. The only issue is to appropriately use source information, and to not make any claims without scrupulous verification by secondary sources, and to not use primary sources where inappropriate. --Jayron32 04:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with you completely. Silverseren^C 04:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• Looking at just WP:ANI#Creation of articles from leaked classified documents, the summary appears lacking. First, as Hesperian points out, the primary sourcing issue is not represented accurately; this is basic policy anyway. There is also a problem with the final two conclusions; there is no consensus on whether to blanket ban or handle things case by case. There is a consensus that the documents don't violate copyright, which you haven't mentioned, though it is also argued that in this case copyright isn't the primary legal concern. On the legality of that, the fact that leading newspapers are hosting many of the documents really ought to suggest it's OK to link to them! Perhaps the best compromise in the short term is to link only to cables hosted by those newspapers, and not to any documents hosted by Wikileaks. Rd232 ^talk 00:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The text on top of this section does not seem to follow an impartial approach to reviewing discussions. One basic approach would be to highlight the most persuasive arguments of both sides, not the least persuasive ones. Furthermore, the text rather focuses on the arguments of one side, which the author of the text obviously deems unpersuasive or misleading. The text may therefore be a valid contribution to a debate, but not a valid attempt to summarize or review such a debate. Therefore, this discussion should be moved to the appropriate notice board.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• This summary is missing several key ideas. One is whether linking to leaked sources is illegal (which it implies but doesn't give any reason as to why). Another is whether these sources would be appropriate in external links sections, not just as references. It also fails to mention that there are appropriate times and ways we can cite primary references. This being said, the above hardly sounds like an unbiased summary of the discussions of the matter.. more like a personal response to the issue. ThemFromSpace 01:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• Yes it's a poor summary, reflecting more (it seems) the author's take on the matter than any kind of neutral appraisal.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• One thing that Elonka has failed to mention above, at least in terms of the Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative article, is that an article from Business Insider is being used in the article now. You can find that source here. It lists all of the places in the cable and this Business Insider source is being discussed at RSN. Note: The comment made by Fifelfoo just a moment ago at RSN should be disregarded, as he is highly involved in the issue (and against the inclusion). But the uninvolved other users, thus far, at RSN have approved the use of the source. And, since "classified" information is being used in secondary sources in their entiriety now, does this discussion really matter? Silverseren^C 02:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments on specific statements

"Once a classified document has been released, it's in the public domain."
Wrong. Classified documents are still classified documents, until/unless they have been de-classified.[17]

• They are still classified, but anyone who has not agreed not to leak secrets can use the information in the documents. The documents themselves, however, as well as specific content that has, for example, commercial value, may not be used due to copyright or patent laws.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

"The information is already out there, it won't hurt anything or anyone for us to use it if everyone else is using it too."
Wrong. In fact, notices are going out to government workers and university students that viewing classified information could endanger their security clearances, and cause them to lose their jobs, or prevent them from acquiring certain other jobs in the future.[18][19][20][21] Further, if the U.S. government chooses to act, then by law, any computer which has inappropriately acquired classified information can be confiscated and destroyed.[22][23] Whether or not the government is actually going to do this in any cases is still unclear, but if they wanted to make a high profile bust, Wikipedia is an accessible and high profile target.

• I don't think that this applies to any computer, but only to information systems operated by people who have signed secrecy agreements.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Not true at all. Many government documents are still covered by copyright. See Copyright status of work by the U.S. government. Government documents that have been created by government workers in intent for release and publication are usually public domain, but classified documents are obviously not intended for publication

You italicized that, but where's it coming from? Title 17, Chapter 1, §101 says "A “work of the United States Government” is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties." §105 says "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise." Given that Title 17 is the only copyright protection in the US, common law copyright for unpublished work being dead, there's no reason to think publication matters.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Rebuttal

I created a rebuttal for Elonka's draft above at User:Wnt/Work1. I hope I've sufficiently addressed all of her points, but if not, please let me know and I'll try to plug up the gaps. :) Wnt (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to speak for Elonka, but my only concern is the concerns about WP:PRIMARY which are being misinterpreted from both sides here. Let me make myself clear. We need to be certain that the existance of the Wikileaks cables is not a license for Wikipedia editors to comb through those cables themselves, and construct the case for the existance of a subject of an article, such as some aspect of U.S. foreign policy, a shady organization, or even to add material to existing articles about the motivation, reasoning, or characterization of anything based solely on information availible in the cables. There seems to be a huge rush among Wikipedia editors to find something interesting in the cables and then get Wikipedia articles up about them. This is putting the cart before the horse. We are not journalists and it is not our job to provide interpretation or analysis of what the cables say in any way. Leave that up to the newspapers and magazines and scholars. After stuff is published, the cables themselves may be used to supplement the secondary sources in a very limited fashion, as I explained above, and indeed elsewhere, several times. What is not to be done is to use the cables in inappropriate manners. --Jayron32 05:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Wnt and I have any sort of confusion about that. The main issue was that we were using the primary source as a reference for a factual list from the source. We didn't use it for any sort of interpreation, just as a factual listing. Other users believe that that violates WP:PRIMARY regardless, which is how this whole mess started (and with the whole classified information thing filtering in there). Silverseren^C 05:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

My question for you is this: Does a secondary source confirm that the list is what you say it is? I suppose (maybe, I am not committing to this), if the New York Times says "Cable XYZ contains a list of people who fart on the job" and then you find Cable XYZ for such a list, it may be OK. However, if there is a lack of secondary source support for anything about the list AT ALL, I could see a reasonable objection to using it. In other words, do secondary sources also discuss, analyze, cite, or quote the list, or even note its existance, or is its presence here at Wikipedia the sole reference to the list outside of itself? --Jayron32 05:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You should really look at the article rather than trust my word on it. :) But, in short, yes. The list has been extensively discussed in secondary sources across the entire world. I've learned about major newspapers that i've never even heard of before, like CNA and La Stampa, through the course of referencing that article. It's essentially being discussed by the entire (media) world. Silverseren^C 05:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Being just one person, I do not represent a consensus, I think that I do not object to that one specific use of that primary source then. However, this discussion raises an important point that the general Wikipedia policies on this need to either be tightened up or clarified, or more carefully followed in some way. That this specific article, in this specific case, does not appear to meet the definition of the problems outlined in this discussion doesn't mean the problems don't exist at all or don't have the potential to exist. I think that is more of my perspective on this, rather than dealing with your one article, we need to deal with this as a site-wide issue, if for no other reason than this discussion exists at all. --Jayron32 05:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the use of WP:PRIMARY is fairly well understood by the community at large. It's just that, in this case, users are trying to change it so that it doesn't allow the use of primary sources that have classified information. That's really what all of this comes down to. It's not about it being a primary source, per se, so much as that the primary source is hosting classified information. The issues with Wikileaks on Wikipedia, per the other discussions that Elonka linked to at the very beginning of all of this, is about the classified nature of the material. It was never really about WP:PRIMARY being misunderstood so much as reunderstanding it so that it would be against the use of classified material in primary sources. And then you get the two factions on Wikipedia for each side of that. And there we go. Silverseren^C 05:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You know that policy does change by consensus, it also changes because of tests to it. In other words, before the whole Wikileaks bruhaha, the idea that classified documents should be handled differently was not addressed by the community perhaps because it was never an issue. That it shows a hole in the existing policy (the policy does not adequately address the issue directly) is why a discussion like this is needed; to establish a new norm with regards to the issue. Again, noting that I do not represent a consensus, my personal opinion is that the only criteria should be on the availibility of the document, not on the label slapped on the document by some random government. However, others think differently, and that the existing policy does not give any guidance either way means that we need to hash this out. --Jayron32 05:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but if we're going to go that route, shouldn't we be doing it at Village Pump:Policy? Silverseren^C 05:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably. --Jayron32 05:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It's amusing that everything is being done with this policy subject (ANI, AN, article talk pages, user talk pages) except for the thing that might actually clarify and clear it up, which would be Village Pump: Policy. It reminds me of what happened with the article I mentioned before. Originally, there were questions of notability for it and a number of things were done (Redirection which was then reverted by others, taking those users to ANI, discussions on article talk pages and user talk pages), except for the thing that would settle it once and for all, which would have been taking it to AfD. Silverseren^C 05:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it has been discussed at the Village Pump, in July 2010, but I see that I failed to link to it at the beginning of the thread. I have added the link now, and apologize for the omission. The issue remains though, that this matter has been discussed in multiple fora around the project: Dispute resolution noticeboards, administrator noticeboards, village pump, talkpages, etc. What hasn't been done though is for any administrator to take on the task of reviewing all the discussions and saying, "Okay, here's the consensus". That is what I was attempting to do by starting this thread. And I realize that there are thoughtful, reasonable administrators who might come down on either side of the question. But the goal here is to define the consensus, not to offer individual opinions on whether the use of the source is appropriate. So, looking just at the consensus determination, does it look reasonable? Or if not, would some other administrator like to offer a differing opinion of what the consensus is? --Elonka 16:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It's probably somewhat out of process to have admins make a decision on this. Dicussion has been wide ranging; and clearly it is not over. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The numerous objections to certain points in you summary suggest strongly that it does not reflect consensus. Also, why are you only asking for admin opinions? admins do not have a stranglehold on consensus. DuncanHill (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Administrators have experience in reviewing complex discussions, such as at AfD, and making a determination of consensus. It is also not uncommon to have "administrator-only" discussion sections, such as at WP:AE. --Elonka 16:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Er, it's a summary. Objections to that summary do not necessarily mean that the summary does not reflect consensus, just that individuals disagree. And there's no admin stranglehold, so I don't know why you're going on about this still. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I had hoped that referencing User:Wnt/Work1 would be enough, but it looks like I'd better briefly summarize a few points from it here to avoid more calls for policy changes that are not necessary and not desirable.

• The CFID cable in dispute was an official government document created by the Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies and Wikileaks has a good reputation for not making things up from scratch. It is not a questionable or self-published source, and probably isn't a primary source.

• I haven't seen any news sources claiming that classified documents are copyrighted. They are prepared by the government and each one has carries a date for declassification, indicating that they are created with the intent for general publication (if that matters)

• Workers can be threatened with losing security clearances or being discriminated against in gaining them for crazy reasons, e.g. if Wikipedia editors make comments describing homosexual experiences, or offer too much praise for Fidel Castro.

• State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley called the e-mail threatening university students the work of "an overly-zealous employee" and said that "we cannot control what is done through private Internet accounts."^[24]

• The ACLU says "The courts have made clear that the First Amendment protects independent third parties who publish classified information."^[25]

For these reasons I suggest that the proposal to limit these documents should die here. Elonka has complained about forum shopping, before expanding the present ANI thread to AN ... do we need to start another forum on this? We have a policy, WP:NOTCENSORED, and it seems to be working out just fine. Wnt (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Elonka. The consensus on this page is that your summary inadequately reflected the contents of the discussion on that page. Hope this helps. That's the question you asked, after all.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Propose this thread be moved elsewhere

The initial question "is there consensus on this summary?" appears to me to have been answered in the negative.* I believe that this is now well beyond what is appropriate for this board. Unless there are objections, I would like to find a better home for it. brenneman 08:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC) *For completeness: I do not see the summary as accurate.

Considering that the thread has been open for less than 24 hours, I think it's a bit premature to say that it's been answered. --Elonka 16:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus that you've summarised accurately. If I may:

• States they agree with your summary: Rjensen, Jehochman
• Does not indicate clearly: DuncanHill (concerns about legality), Silverseren (does this discussion really matter?)
• Does not agree: Hesperian , Privatemusings, Jayron32, Rd232, Cs32e, ThemFromSpace, Bali ultimate, Wnt

It does not appear to me that this is not the appropriate place for this discussion to develop further. Perhaps if I understood what you wanted to accomplish by opening a thread here? I'm unclear which of the suggested reason under "Are you in the right place?" might apply?

brenneman 16:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The desire here is to get the opinions of uninvolved administrators on the determination of consensus. If there is disagreement on whether or not I have properly summarized consensus, then it would be helpful for other uninvolved administrators to review the discussions and state what they feel that the consensus is. Again, not to offer their personal opinion on "what should be done", but to summarize the consensus of the existing discussions. Sort of like if this was an AfD discussion that had ranged across multiple pages of the project, at some point someone has to read it all and say, "Okay, here's the consensus." --Elonka 16:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• What you are asking for is not the intended purpose of this board, as per the template at the top.
• What you're asking for is not relevant, as administrators have no special auspice on this issue to determine consensus.
• There are other venues that are appropriate for this discussion. Village Pump:Policy has been suggested.

By further decentralising what is already a widely spread question, you're contributing to the problem.

brenneman 16:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to centralize, not de-centralize. To my knowledge no one else has taken the time to provide links to all of the different locations where this discussion has taken place. By moving this discussion from AN to the Village Pump, it is just going to cause even more confusion, especially because my desire here is to get opinions from administrators, not from the general community. If this discussion moves to the Village Pump, it is likely just going to turn into another wide-ranging discussion with a lot of involved editors jumping in, and we'll be right back where we started, with lots of discussion and no determination of consensus. --Elonka 16:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Why do you not want opinions from the general community? Are we not worthy of passing comment on your suggestions? Do we smell offensively? Are our thoughts and opinions beneath your contempt? DuncanHill (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The community has already been commenting, in multiple venues. The issue now is to review the comments by the community, judge the strength of the arguments, and make a determination of consensus. --Elonka 17:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is determined by the community, not imposed by admins. DuncanHill (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is indeed determined by the community, and the administrators judge that consensus, write up consensus determinations, and enforce. The purpose of this thread was to collect all of the links to discussions in one place, and attempt to summarize the consensus. If you disagree with the summary, you are welcome to suggest a different one. But what we need here is not individual opinions of what should be done, but a summary of the community consensus. If you would like to suggest something different than what I have offered, I am very interested in hearing it. --Elonka 17:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Your summary does not reflect consensus and contains several errors of fact as mentioned by others here. DuncanHill (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Object to Elonka reformatting this thread

Elonka has reformatted this live debate, and is also apparently trying to exclude non-admins from the discussion. I find both of these disruptive. Particularly, her creation of an "admin comments" section and moving comments into it makes it much harder for editors to follow the flow of the discussion. DuncanHill (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not move comments, I only copied a few. --Elonka 16:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It is still disruptive, confusing the flow of the debate. DuncanHill (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

And diffs like this are not acceptable. Do not remove objections to your behaviour in that way. DuncanHill (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree, Elonka's edit there is very poor indeed. Off2riorob (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Whatever else has been determined, Elonka has demonstrated she isn't in any kind of objective position in this arena, and should withdraw from all attempts at using tools or determining "consensus" from on high. Not to rehash that conversation here, but the whole notion of coming up with a consensus that the leaked diplomatic cables must never/may always be used is just daft.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

To my knowledge, I have never used tools in this topic area, have not edited in this topic area, nor have I officially closed any discussions with determinations of consensus. My start of the thread here was an attempt to summarize consensus in some very complex discussions, and ask if other administrators agreed that it was reasonable. This does not affect my status as an objective, uninvolved administrator. --Elonka 18:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Your presentation of that conversation was so skewed and inaccurate that it demonstrated a high level of bias (or, alternatively, a distinct lack of competence). Either way, Don't go trying to impose your views in this area by playing some admin "superuser" trump card. That won't work at this point.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

See WP:UNINVOLVED: "Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about communal norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'." --Elonka 19:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I should point out that Elonka's very first edit on this topic was to tell people at the article that any primary sources should be removed and that people who try to re-add them can be blocked, which set off an edit war when OhConfucius took her at her word. She followed this shortly afterward with an "admin note" that got her trouted. And here we are again. She seriously needs to get the point that administrators aren't supposed to be making policy on their own. Wnt (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I should add that I just actually read Elonka Dunin, which mentions that "Dunin visited Langley to give a presentation to analysts about steganography and al-Qaida"^[26] (during which she had the opportunity to take rubbings of Kryptos) (I doubt you need a degree in cryptography to figure out what this has to do with her being "one of the founders of the International Game Developers Association's Online Games group") I'm not very familiar with applying WP:COI, but I have to question whether she has the freedom to change her mind about this issue based on my arguments. Wnt (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• Now we have duplicates of people's comments in this "admin" section, which are then repeated in the general comments section. What the heck is going on here? And I notice that responses that non-admins made to the admin responses were removed when the admin responses were copied over to their own section, but then exist in the general comments section. Silverseren^C 05:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

It was good of Elonka to identify the problem (disjointed discussion scattered across various pages), but the attempt to determine a consensus hasn't really worked out, not least because on some key issues there isn't really a current consensus. In this context, we should simply start an WP:RFC somewhere (Wikipedia/Requests for Comment/use of classified documents?), and list it on WP:CENT. Many of the substantive points made here can then be collected from here and other locations and all discussed together. Rd232 ^talk 18:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

That might indeed be a good way to proceed. It's definitely worth a try! Would you like to go ahead and start it? --Elonka 18:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggested an RfC, you rejected it - now an admin suggests it you leap at the idea! DuncanHill (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather someone else did it; I'm a bit tired and the sooner it's kicked off the better. That said (i) probably better if it's not you who starts it (ii) probably would help to establish some terms of reference first. Perhaps simply "Under what, if any, circumstances can leaked classified documents be used as (a) source and (b) external links?". Rd232 ^talk 19:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe a comprehensive RFC on this would be useful but we should be very careful to be explicit as to what consitutes a classified document. I am confident that a layman's understanding of classified is significantly different, and probably inaccurate when actual law and regulation are applied. Indeed, even within the U.S. government, there are varying interpretations between agencies of different classification and dissemination restriction schemes. Move out of the realm of U.S. secrecy laws into other nation's laws and international agreements on secrecy, and I suspect the problem gets even more complicated. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

We have a current consensus on the issue, called WP:NOTCENSORED. As I cited above the ACLU assures that existing case law protects third parties who republish classified information.^[27] I should note that on close examination of the anti-Wikileaks case, much of it hinges on whether Wikileaks actively solicited the original disclosure of classified documents - in other words, arguing his complicity with the leaker rather than the illegality of publication.^[28] Clearly this is not the case for Wikipedia or anyone else who had all these secrets dumped in our laps as a present whether we wanted them or not. Wnt (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we do not have current consensus on the issue, as the current guidance, whether at WP:NOTCENSORED or WP:PRIMARY or anywhere else does not adequately deal with the issue of classified documents as a specific matter to be considered. Even if the guidelines were changed to say "Wikipedia places no special prohibition on linking to leaked classified documents" OR it were changed to say "Please do not link to leaked classified documents", the fact remains that without community guidance, we are in a black hole WRT determining consensus here. --Jayron32 22:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

That depends, Jayron, on if Wikipedia operates on the assumption that whatever is not clearly forbidden is allowed. If that assumption is correct, then unless there is a consensus to exclude classified documents/government secrets -- or, more importantly, the Foundation states the source cannot be used -- they can be used. However, there is the issue whether that content is appropriate to be included in an encyclopedia -- which is a concern I hope everyone who wants to use this material from WikiLeaks considers & has a persuasive argument before incorporating it into Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

If a truly new kind of content comes into existence - say, someone devised a standard panel of olfactory stimulants to match human olfactory receptors, so that a 200-byte code could cause a computer accessory to emit any known smell - then by NOTCENSORED we could use it freely. It would be up to the user to buy an accessory or run software that allows him to lock out the scatole if that's what he wants. But in this case the situation is more clear-cut: classified material has existed for years. We have articles on the Pentagon Papers, on nuclear weapon design, most recently on the Afghan War Diaries ... this specific decision has already been made. Wnt (talk) 05:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Wnt brings up an importance point. In the previous articles made on Wikileaks releases, such as the Afghan War Diaries and the Iraq War Documents, the primary source to Wikileaks is included in both of them. And i'm sure this debate was had at some point prior in terms of those two articles, and yet the continuance of those links in the articles seems to imply that the ultimate decision was to keep them. Silverseren^C 05:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've drafted an RFC at Wikipedia/Requests for Comment/use of classified documents. We may want to tweak the intro before adding {{rfctag|policy}} and listing on WP:CENT. Or if we don't really want to bother with an RFC, we don't have to. Rd232 ^talk 15:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, Rd232. I went ahead and added a list of locations where discussions have been ongoing. If anyone else knows of any that I missed, please feel free to add them. I'd recommend taking a day or so to work on the RfC intro, and then if it looks stable, open it up? --Elonka 15:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

There is More Classified than Unclassified

Maybe this Harvard Univ. source could be used to provide some context for making any decisions related to classified documents. "as many as a trillion pages are classified (200 Libraries of Congress)."

Peter Galison, a historian and Director[29] in the Science Dept. at Harvard University, research shows that the U.S. Government produces more classified information than unclassified information.[30].

"..about five times as many pages are being added to the classified universe than are being brought to the storehouses of human learning, including all the books and journals on any subject in any language collected in the largest repositories on the planet."

• Peter Galison is the Mallinckrodt Professor of the History of Science and

Physics at Harvard University. His main work explores the interaction among the principal subcultures of physics: How Experiments End (1987), Image and Logic (1997), and Einstein’s Clocks, Poincare´’s Maps (2003). Several projects explore crosscurrents between science and other fields, including his coedited volumes The Architecture of Science (1999), Picturing Science, Producing Art (1998), and Scientific Authorship (2003). In 1997, he was named a John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Fellow, and in 1999 he received the Max Planck Prize. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion here now redundant. Please go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Use of classified documents. Rd232 ^talk 08:58, 15 December 2010 (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.

Please rename

 Done - Please rename File:Jaffa Oranges.jpg as per the request on the file page. It's been there for a while and we need to use the blocked image in an article. Thanks in advance! -- Orionist ★ talk 10:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Done - it's now at File:Jaffa Orange brand from Sarona.jpg as requested Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, That was fast! Thank you very much! -- Orionist ★ talk 11:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

User JS pages to delete

Resolved

 – All the requested pages have been deleted.עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Please delete these pages, I can't edit them.

User:Chantessy/monobook.css (user-placed MfD tag)

Broken redirects:

• User:Aaron Schulz/Deletion/monbook.js
• User:Voice of All/Speeper/monobook.js
• User:Voice of All/Deletion/monbook.js
• User:Aaron Schulz/Deletion/monobook.js
• User:Aaron Schulz/Speeper/monobook.js
• User:Aaron Schulz/Sleeper/monobook.js

Thanks! — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 20:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Community ban for User:QuackGuru

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.

---

Much as I hate to raise this kind of discussion, I think it's time we considered a community site ban for QuackGuru (talk · contribs · logs · block log). A ban would be based on the following reasons:

• QuackGuru has an aggressive, tendentious editing style that numerous editors have complained about, with complaints including (but not restricted to):
  • Page ownership issues
  • Multiple reverts, up to (and sometimes exceeding) 3rr limits
  • Making contentious edits without discussion
  • Frequent broad accusations of policy violation against other editors
• QuackGuru demonstrates an inability or unwillingness to communicate with other editors, with behaviors including (but not limited to):
  • Consistent blanking of his talk page without response to items posted there
  • An overwhelming towards towards edit-summary-only responses
  • A refusal to participate in or even acknowledge dispute resolution processes which might ameliorate his behavior
• QuackGuru demonstrates an inability or unwillingness to engage in consensus discussions, with behaviors including (but not limited to):
  • Frequent, consistent, and intractable wp:IDHT behavior, such as endless repetition of the same point in discussions
  • An overwhelming tendency towards simple declarative 'truth-statements' (sometimes posed as challenges in question form, à la Perry Mason)
  • A broad failure to acknowledge other points made in discussion, even when made by multiple editors
  • A seeming inability to compromise on any issue, no matter how trivial

QuackGuru has a reasonable sized block log (11 blocks, mostly for disruptive editing, since 2007). He has been the subject of three wikiquettes [31], [32], [33] and one RFC/U [34], but did not acknowledge or participate at any of them. he has been the subject of 20 Administrative threads (discounting a handful of 3rr violation reports and without evaluating the merits of the threads): the current ANI thread, [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], 2007 proposed community ban, [43], 2007 proposed article ban, [44], [45], proposed short topic ban, [46], [47], [48], proposed article probabtion, [49]. He does slightly better at responding to these, having added at least one comment in three or four of the threads.

The general problem can easily be exemplified by his recent behavior concerning edits to wp:NPOV. From June through October there was a discussion between a number of editors (Users Blueboar, Ocassi, Tryptofish, Kotniski, RexxS and myself, for the main list) on wt:NPOV that culminated in some revisions to the wording of the policy. The revisions were largely cosmetic (clarifications, tightening of language, etc), but involved to items - the removal of a video explaining NPOV and a reworking of the problematic 'A Simple Formulation' section - which QuackGuru objected to. QuackGuru engaged in a number of reverts to try to preserve sections, but the real problem of concern here was the style of discussion he used on the talk page. For instance, QuackGuru's contributions to the thread discussing the video were as follows:

• You removed the video without any good reason. You never had consensus to delete it in the first place. What is the specific problem with the wording of the video. The video also helps blind people get interested in policy. QuackGuru (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• You have confirmed there is currently no consensus to delete when you have not given a specific reason about what is specifically the problem with the video. Again, what is the specific problem with the wording of the video. Are you going to remain silent and not answer my question again. Your silence equals consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• The "main points" of the video works for me when you click on the video. I see you can't explain what is the problem with the wording of the video. It seems you just don't like having a video regardless of what it says. QuackGuru (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• Open question that has been ignored. Again, what is the specific problem with the wording of the video. QuackGuru (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• I suggested a compromise using a stronger disclaimer or your suggestion to move the video towards the bottome of the page could also work. The problem is that editors claim the video is a problem when no editor has explained what is actually problem over the 'specific wording' with the writing of the video. If there is no real problem then nothing needs to be fixed. QuackGuru (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• You have refused to explain what is the specific problem with the wording of the video. QuackGuru (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• There was a previous discussion about using the video here. I noticed have not answered my question again about what is actually the specific problem with the wording of the video. Should I take that as consensus to include the video. QuackGuru (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The responses he got to these various points made no difference whatsoever - he consistently returns to the same claim that 'no specific problem with the wording' has been offered. Likewise his comments in an earlier dispute about the use of a 'differing points of view' subheader ran as follows:

• This edit was not the way to go about things. A subsection title should be kept or renamed. WP:YESPOV is about "Different points of views". QuackGuru (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
• I made this change to add a section heading. QuackGuru (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• The section header was removed without explanation. So, I restored it. QuackGuru (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• The section heading was removed again without explanation. QuackGuru (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• I restored the "Different points of views" header again. I think it may have been accidentely removed. QuackGuru (talk) 03:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
• Numerous times the "Different points of views" header was removed. There never was any explanation. QuackGuru (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• Editors are not explaining the reason for deleting the renamed section title. QuackGuru (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• I have given other editors plenty of time to reply. The title "Different points of view" summarises the general framework of the section. QuackGuru (talk) 02:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• I restored the section title "Different points of view". QuackGuru (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
• I restored the section title "Different points of view" but it was removed again without any reason. QuackGuru (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
• There seems to be consensus for renaming the section. I propose "Different points of view" again. QuackGuru (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
• I do see support for renaming the section and you have not suggested any other section name that would be better. You repeatedly removed it without discussion. What is your objection to it. Do you have a better name. QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, it's the repetitive, badgering style that is as (if not more) disruptive than the reverts. It is impossible to have anything like a normal consensus discussion with him since he simply doesn't respond to the arguments or comments people make - he simply steamrolls ahead with his original thought.

Normally these kinds of problems would be handled on talk page discussions or in dispute resolution procedures, but QuackGuru has not participated in any of the dispute resolution efforts (Wikiquette and RFC/U) that have named him. He rarely even responds when his name gets called up at ANI. As far as his talk page goes, QuackGuru rarely posts to his own talk page and deletes almost all comments posted there on sight, often without a meaningful edit summary response. Many of the more recent deleted comments were requests from editors working on NPOV, asking him to explain some point he made, participate in a discussion, refrain from reverting material without discussion, or (most currently) that he has been mentioned at ANI.

Now I would normally grant QuackGuru a certain amount of leeway, but I've come around to suggesting a site ban on the following considerations:

• He has evidenced the same general kind of disruptive behavior since he began at the project 3 years ago.
• He refuses to acknowledge that he has any problematic behavior, despite being called into numerous administrative threads.
• He explicitly avoids every arena or mode of communication that might lead to him changing his behavior.

Wikipedia is ostensibly a consensus system: we cannot afford to indefinitely indulge an editor who simply does not (for whatever reason) engage the particular kinds of communication and interaction that a consensus system needs to function. I don't see any recourse other than a ban at this point, if only to preserve the sanity of the editors who un across him.

I've talked a bit to long, my apologies (though I'm sure others will have more to say on the matter). --Ludwigs2 02:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support Incredibly disruptive editor; huge net negative to the project. access_denied (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - This time, QuackGuru has gone too far with his latest antics. His unwilling to respond to good faith community concerns and his disruptive editing at Wikipedia cannot be tolerated at this point and he has exhausted our patience with the community. So, with that said, enough is enough. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose As ever, draconian solutions do not work. In the case at hand, the friction between two editors is quite insufficient to warrant such actions in any case. And in some cases the diffs provided reflect well on QG to be sure. As for broad statements, WP works better with diffs than with broad assertions about editors. Collect (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• I am someone who has been in quite a few conflicts with QG, found their manner exasperatingly difficult, their talkpage practices undesirable and the robustness of their tendency to edit-war dispiriting. However, major issues with this editor have only been raised on these boards in the past few days, and like any good faith contributor they deserve a chance to respond to concerns. IF that response is inadequate, then sanctions may be appropriate, but to jump straight from ANI to ban in the case of an editor who has contributed much to the project is unacceptable. Oppose as premature. Skomorokh 02:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• So your objection is primarily, if not purely, procedural? That is, in your opinion, QG has probably earned a community ban, but you oppose imposing it here and now, on the grounds that the usual 24-hour discussion here won't be enough time for QG to respond (although it was apparently enough for other long-time contributors, like Gavin.collins, who had a very similar length of tenure and very similar number of total edits)?
  Do you think that spending a month bickering about it at an RFC/U would actually help the community somehow? Or that a serious sit-down and talking-to would dramatically change QG's goals, social skills, and overall behavior? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• No, that has very little resemblance at all to what I wrote. Skomorokh

• Well, tell me where the difference is. I see you calling QG's behavior "difficult", "undesirable", and "dispiriting". You acknowledge a serious and sustained level of edit warring. You don't say a single positive word about QG's behavior: no claims of mitigating circumstances and no assertions of good work done elsewhere. The closest you come to a positive statement is saying that he's a high-volume editor. Your sole stated reason for opposition is procedural—"jump straight from ANI to ban"—and you appear to believe that some sort of sanctions are "appropriate" (although you would naturally prefer reform).
  I realize that you wrapped it up in much more pleasant language, but what's the substantive difference between your pretty version and my plain version? Do you secretly think QG is a really good editor and a clearly positive contributor to the community, but you just forgot to mention it here? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Skomorokh - I've pretty much outlined why I brought this to community ban, above. QuackGuru has had several opportunities to justify his actions, and has ostentatiously refused to do so. My current opinion is this: If QG comes to this discussion and participates properly and fully (either justifying his behavior or admitting that it is flawed) then I would be happy to see him get a short topic ban and some mentoring. If QG refuses to participate in this discussion (as he's refused to participate in RFC/U and Wikiquette) then to my mind a full site ban is the only possible remedy. If his respect for the community is that low, then he loses whatever benefit of the doubt we might be inclined to give him. would that be an acceptable criteria for you? --Ludwigs2 03:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral leaning to support There have been a lot of problems with QuackGuru and his editing of Jimmy Wales/Larry Sanger. Honestly, if the subjects weren't closely associated with Wikipedia he probably would have been blocked indefinitely for some of his actions there, but no one wants to be seen as silencing criticism of Wikipedia. If he's unable or unwilling to communicate with editors who have legitimate problems with him by deleting messages and not responding on boards in Wikipedia space, perhaps this isn't the project for him. Some sort of sanctions are necessary here, but I'm not sure a community ban is appropriate right now, but honestly... it will likely happen one day. He's fairly awful about working well with others. AniMate 02:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I've been involved in numerous conversations with QG related to Chiropractic, Pseudoscience, NPOV, and MEDRS. I haven't found them pleasant, and sometimes he leans towards being badgering [50] [51], taunting [52] [53] [54], or even deceptive [55]. He's also sometimes right, but he makes it very difficult to see through everything else. I think that despite the frequent displeasure he causes, a community ban would be a step too far. He is already under scrutiny of past arbitration cases, but one solution could be a three to six month topic ban on anything related to Pseudoscience, Chiropractic, Stephen Barret, and perhaps Policy pages. Other solutions could include a 1rr condition, a 'no claiming consensus condition', a 'no accusing editors of violating policy' condition, a 'no clearing your talk page condition' or anything that might encourage more civil discussion. I regret that my interactions with him biased me considerably towards other scientific/skeptical editors, but I have found that even many of them don't appreciate his style. With that, it seems like QGs contributions to the important area of improving reliability at alt-med articles may be overstated. If even editors who generally share his concerns are avoiding discussions where he participates, I don't see how his efforts are being helpful. It's not the lack of civility that is a problem, though, it's the lack of discussion. By asserting his stance as correct and barreling ahead with it, battle lines are drawn where instead there could be discourse. If I've taken the bait on that, it's been mainly to stop him from just running roughshod over articles. I do think QG has sincere intentions to advance the status of science and deprecate the status of pseudoscience--yet he brings that conviction to a head as if other editors are enemies if they don't automatically agree; and this makes enemies. Those are my thoughts so far. I won't pile on, but I will suggest that something be done, because if it's not I can't see how a) things will stop or b) it won't lead to a community ban later. Ocaasi (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I will abstain from supporting the ban because I have been involved with so many disputes with QG. However, I do support some sort of action if it can lead to the cessation of the tactics that QG uses. I have no problem with not seeing eye-to-eye with other editors, but QG's editing style is clearly tendentious, and makes for a hostile editing environment. There IS an issue here that needs to be resolved. DigitalC (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support. From the list of sample responses and the threadstarter's case, I think QG's done his time as an editor. He is incapable of decently working with anybody and his ignorance of consensus plus those feigning-ignorance-cum-dumbness answers indicate defiance. I would probably be as incensed as the other editors here if he messed around in the article I work in. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as premature WP:Requests for comment/QuackGuru 2 is still a redlink (the last request was thee years ago). So too is WP:Requests for comment/Ludwigs2 despite almost daily instances of incivility. [56][57][58] (See also Necessary Evil.) Mathsci (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - I am concerned that Ludwigs2 may have been in repeated editorial conflicts with Quackguru. I would prefer that somebody with a more objective point of view consider decide whether such a proposal makes sense. I am worried that diffs have been cherry picked and do not provide a fair sampling of Quackguru's work. Also, the volume of evidence posted here is WP:TLDR, unlikely to get serious and thoughtful consideration in this venue, which tends to be better at dealing with clearcut issues. Quackguru seems to have taken my advice not to blank their talkpage. That is a sign that the editor might be willing to listen to reason. Jehochman ^Talk 05:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. No, it's not a sign of improvement. On the contrary. It just means he's being careful because he's under observation. That's typical of him and doesn't indicate any improvement, but rather sneakiness. Not long after the ruckus is over he'll be back at the same behaviors. That's his typical MO and there is nothing to indicate he's changed his MO. He isn't communicating, and that too is his typical MO. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support. He runs in circles on article talk pages with endless repetition and IDHT behavior. He's an expert at stonewalling. Discussion on article talk pages doesn't help because he just makes edits in spite of objections and then claims consensus where there is none and uses reverting all the time. Appeals and warnings on his talk page (since nothing works on article talk pages) are deleted with no visible change in his behavior. His block log is huge, but his methods of disruption are so complicated that it's often hard to pin him down to a particularly grossly blockable offense, but his behavior is still very disruptive and his lack of communication removes an important possibility for helping him and dealing with him. It's time to cut our losses. He's not worth it. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, very premature. I seem to be in perfect agreement with Jehochman and Mathsci, who have put it perfectly well. NW (Talk) 05:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Jehochman & Mathsci. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose (but a topic ban from "Jimbo Wales / Larry Sanger" could be good, to stop all those bitter recurrent fights about founder/co-founder). When I saw the section title, I inmediately knew that it had been done by Ludwigs, who has had many conflicts with QuackGuru. A user RfC on either QG or Ludwigs could clarify the situation. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I value QG editing in several lemmata I have on my watchlist. He keeps them in line with science and academia, removing promotional and bias additions. Chartinael (talk) 09:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I guess it's time for a user RfC on QG. I am not optimistic at all: In my opinion such an RfC can only end in a clarification of the situation and possibly some restrictions for QG, but is extremely unlikely to lead to any helpful change in his behaviour. That's why I don't oppose this ban proposal. But I am not sufficiently sure that my assessment is correct to support the proposal. Hans Adler 10:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I am in opposition to this ban since the conditions for behavioral improvement are not being discussed by the individuals clamoring for the ban. QG, in my opinion, has been battle-worn by a string of extremely contentious battles including some that have resulted in sanctions against myself. I have a lot of sympathy for his stand-offish-ness and his edits are all, in my opinion, sound. Contrary to the stated opinions of some, QG does engage in discussion, but he has a very low tolerance for the kind of TL;DR litanies that pass for discourse here at Wikipedia. It is also simply not true that he cannot be swayed by consensus or by discussion. It doesn't lend itself to diffs because QG indicates his agreement through WP:SILENCE more often than not. His style is markedly different from a lot of the other editors who are opposing him here, and I think that there is more of a cultural opposition being made here as a case for banning. We need to tease out what the problematic behaviors are precisely and indicate how many of them are behaviors that need modifying. To pick a relatively recent example, it's pretty clear there is no consensus for forcing QG to not blank his talkpage. I'd continue to analyze the evidence presented by Ludwigs, but I don't think this is the correct venue. A more structured place where community discussion can occur about these matters would be better. I think Wikipedia can tolerate and should tolerate editors with QG's style when their edits are of the caliber of QG's. This may place me in the minority, but we really need to present all sides of this ongoing issue fairly and completely before rushing for banhammers. jps (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • That's an interesting comment. It made me understand better what it is I don't like about the talk page blanking: When an editor simply removes my message without comment, I consider this rude in general and have to force myself to assume that it's just a very different communication style rather than intentional rudeness. (To make this explicit: Some people tend not to respond with words even in personal interactions. But there is always a non-verbal response that allows others to discern their mood. In a wiki this information is filtered out, and the lack of a verbal response tends to create aggression.) If the same user also has the obviously rude habit of keeping to untenable positions against a consensus for ages and never conceding a point explicitly, then I find it even harder to assume good faith when the user removes a message without a response. Such a user just looks like one of those losers who attack others but are incapable of thinking of themselves as anything but perfect. This type of user behaviour is poison to an environment that is built on consensus-seeking. Hans Adler 22:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Your disapproval of a particular style is understandable, but is it really something we should be basing a sanction on? Describing an editor as "poisonous" for letting matters drop and blanking their talkpage just seems a bit over-the-top to me. jps (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I didn't !vote for a sanction. This was an open-ended contribution to an analysis of the problem. I have changed a word to make it clear that my comment was targeted at the behaviour. Obviously I would have no issues with QG if he managed to change that. Hans Adler 08:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment, leaning toward support. I feel reluctant to support completely because I've had very little to do with QuackGuru. It's true that my every encounter with him has seen him serial reverting, insulting editors, engaging in IDHT, violating BLP, and trying to change the core content policies to aid him in his edit wars. Based on that behavior alone I do think he should be community banned. But I'm wondering if there's better behavior elsewhere that I'm not familiar with. If he's not banned, we should enforce the suggestion of the 2007 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru that he be topic banned from articles about Wikipedia, including its policies. His editing of Jimmy Wales has been problematic, and he has made more edits to it (385) than anyone else, which we shouldn't have allowed to happen. In addition, he should be topic banned from chiropractic, pseudoscience, medical articles, and anything related; required to leave posts on his talk page for a minimum period; placed on 1RR in general; and it should be made clear to him that this is his last chance. That is, if we can find admins willing to enforce these restrictions. If not, a community ban might be the only practical alternative. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I understand SlimVirgin here and tend to support this as an option if this ban proposal doesn't work. It would be a shame if this proposal were a total waste of time and we turned to a huge time waster, an RfC/U. We could solve this right now if we adopted SV's proposals, and one more thing - forced adoption by an experienced admin. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Agree with SlimVirgin. But it should be time-limited and a note defining the restrictions should be added to his user and talk page. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. It would be more convincing if evidence and views were supplied in dispute resolution (WP:Requests for comment/QuackGuru 2) in lieu of allegations and proposals being supplied here. Should the evidence support the allegations, and issues persist after comments to that effect, that's when it's time to come here looking for action - not now. Conduct dispute resolution is not normally absolutely necessary if there is tendentious editing involved, but (a) the user has been editing here since late 2006 and (b) if it has been an ongoing problem and it is continuing (as is being alleged), then we need to understand why the user was allowed to edit for this long. For that, we need evidence, responses and views. Accordingly, I think a better opportunity needs to be presented for the user to respond to the concerns and better attempts need to be made to resolve the current dispute. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have been involved with the project since 2007 and registered a username in early 2008. Since 2008 I first became aware of Quackguru, and have continued to come into editorial conflict with him since. I can tell you that while it has been an ongoing problem, it is also a problem that has gotten worse with time. If you look at his lengthy block log, you will see he has been blocked several times for disruptive editing. In my opinion, the behaviours that I have observed most recently that are problematic are IDHT violations (repeating himself over & over without taking any consideration to other editors input), problems with consensus, and attempting to edit policy to suit his editing style (see WP:NPOV/WP:ASF). On the other hand, I have not been very active in the project recently, so I'm sure others can better supply diffs of recent problematic behaviour. DigitalC (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - as per SlimVirgin's comments. Off2riorob (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support with some caveats. I would have strongly preferred that this had gone from AN/I to RfC/U, rather than to here, as consensus at AN/I (and previously at WQA) had indicated. In some ways, this ban discussion is the "right" conclusion but jumping the gun. Perhaps we should institute topic bans and 1RR, as discussed above, pending an RfC/U. I've read Ludwigs' evidence at the top, and I believe it to be accurate, based on my own experiences at some of the policy pages involved. I think there has been some incorrect reading of bad faith into the opening post, when in fact it may have just been tl;dr. Yes, these are areas where editing has been contentious, but there are some real issues with QG's manner of editing. I think that it comes down to a matter of WP:COMPETENCE. It's not the talk page blanking. It's the apparent inability to engage usefully with other editors. There's a net minus to the project when an editor literally does not "hear that". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support There's been an RFC/U, a proposed article ban, a proposed topic ban from 2008, and a community ban proposal from 2007. 2007! He's been at this for more than four years with little to no interest in participation with other editors. This is way, way overdue. - KrakatoaKatie 22:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't believe we've reached the point where we can't tolerate editors expressing an opposing point of view. I have found myself at times disagreeing with QG (for example at WT:Neutral point of view/Archive 43#Definition of fact) and at other times agreeing with him. Looking at the archive I cited, you can see that he displayed the ability to accept points made to him, and to accept consensus on changes while still seeking to improve the text. I can understand (though I don't endorse) his frustration when faced with changes to text, effectively closing the debate, while discussions were still going on to establish consensus. In the same way, I found it frustrating to try to find consensus with Ludwigs in this (lengthy) debate where the WP:ASF was removed from NPOV against objections WT:Neutral point of view/Archive 43#'equal validity' section. It's not easy trying to make a case when Ludwigs is calling me "Dude" and pointing out what he calls his "pit bull attitude", while ignoring the points made. I'm not surprised therefore that QG and Ludwigs would have issues with each other. Sadly, an uninvolved observer would have to read through WT:Neutral point of view/Archive 43 and WT:Neutral point of view/Archive 44 to get a full picture of the problematical interactions that Ludwigs adduces as part of his initial statement. Nevertheless, I view all of this as robust debate and simply don't see the need for sanctioning either editor. I'm sure both of them would benefit from someone they respected "looking over their shoulder" to kerb any excesses, but I guess we'd all benefit from that. Finally, I'd like to express my disappointment (but nothing more) that Ludwigs failed to notify me of this thread, even though he named my in his initial statement. --RexxS (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Prone to wikilawyering and semi-deliberate misunderstanding of others' position on vertebral artery dissection. Also given to the occasional WP:POINT edit. JFW | T@lk 15:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per RexxS, Ncmvocalist, Jehochman & Mathsci and the fact that Ludwigs is just being a WP:DICK. Shot info (talk) 06:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Son, I'll play kettle to your pot any day. --Ludwigs2 06:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Ah yes, but your kettle is enormous compared with my so very small pot - keep up the good work and of course - feel free to ignore the fact that you may have started something that even you will find it difficult to extract yourself from. Good luck! Shot info (talk) 07:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't know what you think you mean by that, and I suspect if I did know it would fill me with existential sadness about the innate poverties of the human mind, so I'll let it slide. Have a nice day! --Ludwigs2 14:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 prior involvement with Quackguru

• Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am concerned that Ludwigs2 might have "a history" in their dealings with Quackguru.[59] Ludwigs2, would you please summarize when you first became aware of Quackguru, and list any specific instances where you've been in editorial conflict with them? Jehochman ^Talk 05:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I would certainly hope that Ludwigs2 had prior involvement, otherwise he wouldn't know what's this is really about. It is the involved editors that are most qualified to speak on this matter. Those uninvolved don't really understand what's going on. The very existence of this subsection seems to be an improper poisoning of the well. I suggest you take it to Ludwigs2's talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is the second recent campaign of this kind by Ludwigs2 against another user. The last one concerned Ronz (talk · contribs) across multiple noticeboards, notably Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Problem on BLP noticeboard. At that stage, the request also concerned QuackGuru at the start, but those commenting over quite a prolonged period concentrated all their attention on Ronz. Now QuackGuru is back on Ludwigs2's agenda for a whole set of different reasons. Note that I am not disagreeing that QuackGuru's editing is quirky and many times quite unhelpful, but it would be preferable to see nuanced critiques by a set of editors in a calmly conducted RfC/U. Mathsci (talk) 07:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless I am forgetting something, the only other time I had any significant interaction with QuackGuru (outside of the issue with NPOV) was the last time I edited on QuackWatch back in late 2007, perhaps. I have occasionally passed him on this page or that (never a particularly joyful experience, but without any overt hostility that I remember). The last such time was a couple of brief comments he made on Weston Price, but that was mostly an outgrowth of the NPOV issue, not a separate incident.

I'll also point out that as the person who opened this request, I don't need to be uninvolved or neutral (any more than QG needed to be uninvolved or neutral when he made his far more specious ANI report about me here). I simply need to express the problem that I see as clearly as possible and leave it up for discussion by the community. If you'd like to try to make a case that I have some kind of 'history' with QuackGuru that makes this an inordinate request, please feel free. I'll be interested to see what you come up with.

That being said, I'll make the same observation I made to you over on QuackGuru's talk page. If you were to offer to mentor him and he were to publicly accept, that would satisfy me and I would withdraw this discussion. I think that would be a far more productive use of your time and effort than trying to dig up dirty diffs on me, and I think everyone recognizes that QG needs a good mentor if he's going to continue editing on project. Your choice, of course... --Ludwigs2 07:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

P.s. lol - Mathsci... You I have a prior involvement with, so we can hardly credit your perspective as neutral. --Ludwigs2 07:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You two keep editing in the same disputes: 3RR report from September 2008, March 2010 discussion, October 2010 discussion, and you reported him for etiquette in October 2010. Specially the November 2010 disagreement on WP:MEDRS where you bring up past disagreements at QuackWatch[60].

And everybody knows that you two are like water and fire like oxygen and fire. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I've crossed paths with him here or there. what's your point? I don't know what 'everybody knows', and I don't really much care what the rumor mill has to say about me. is this your idea of a smoking gun? --Ludwigs2 14:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Politically, it wasn't a particularly good idea of Ludwigs2 to start this discussion: for some reason almost every discussion he starts on AN or ANI is quickly turned into a discussion about himself. But this does not change the fact that QuackGuru's activities do present a problem, and that it appears extremely unlikely that the problem can be solved by an RfC/U. (My impression is that QG is simply no capable of rational thought, but this may be just an impression, caused by language difficulties or similar issues.) By the way, this is not just a fringe issue. See Talk:Citizendium/Archive 4#editorializing? for a strange discussion completely unrelated to fringe. As far as I remember that one also made a big splash on noticeboards and led to conflicts between QG and others on some policy talk page. (Perhaps someone remembers the details?) Hans Adler 08:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• This section is stupid. Of course Ludwigs2 has had past interactions with QuackGuru, otherwise he wouldn't be initiating this conversation. If someone wants to discuss Ludwigs2, by all means do so. AniMate 10:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• That would be fine with me. However, if someone chooses to go that route, please close this thread and open a separate one. As of now this sub-thread could be interpreted as an effort to distract attention away from QG's well-known problematic behavior. it would be best to keep discussions of the two issues (his behavior and mine) distinct. --Ludwigs2 14:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

2007? Try March 2009 on Quackwatch talk page. Each appears more than ready to make uncivil comments about the other. Trout them both mercilessly. Collect (talk) 11:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Summary

• I think we have a situation where an editorial battle is now being fought via noticeboard complaints and a ban proposal. I don't see a clear consensus above. Perhaps this entire matter ought to be submitted to arbitration for a close review of the editing of Quackguru and Ludwigs2. Ludwigs2 has not been especially thorough about declaring their past conflicts with QG, instead minimizing and omitting relevant details such as the prior noticeboard complaints cited by Mathsci, 3RR report from September 2008, March 2010 discussion, October 2010 discussion, and etiquette in October 2010, and November 2010 disagreement on WP:MEDRS. Jehochman ^Talk 15:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• I see. so, instead of taking me up on my suggestion that you mentor QuackGuru (which you would be admirably suited for, and which would resolve the entire issue), you've decided it would be better to make this more contentious and more focused on me. That makes me believe that you're acting out on some 'history' that you have with respect to me rather than assessing the situation with the objectivity one expects of a sysop. Can you clarify why you're zeroing in on me with quite such a degree of prejudice? Again, if you'd like to start a separate thread on my behavior, please feel free - I am always open to valid critiques. But if you don't actually have a clear, specific complaint against me that we can discuss, I request that you stop polluting this thread with vapid insinuations. It will play out as it plays out, and the community can discuss the matter more easily without you trying to get in your licks for some perceived wrong that I don't even remember. Thanks. --Ludwigs2 16:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think there is a real issue here. If it were just a matter of QuackGuru coming into conflict with people who inappropriately promote fringe ideas or nonsense, then I'd be inclined to latitude, or at least sympathy. But I've seen QuackGuru wear out too many good editors, people who are solid, constructive, thoughtful editors who work to make this site a serious, respectable reference work. Basically, if you disagree with him on a content issue, however small, you will be in for a very frustrating ride.

The talk-page blanking is annoying but within the bounds of policy. To me, the most problematic behavior is edit-warring, and so I personally would advocate a 1RR restriction rather than topic- or site-bans at this point. But that's just me. I recognize that at present there does not seem to be consensus to impose any sort of restriction on QuackGuru, but I also think that the problem is bigger than just a fight between QuackGuru and Ludwigs2. MastCell ^Talk 17:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If possible, can you point to the good editors QG wore out? jps (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I had in mind Jfdwolff (talk · contribs) and Eubulides (talk · contribs) - arguably the two best medical writers we have, and both invaluable in the effort to produce high-quality, nonsense-free, useful medical content. I've seen both of them beat their heads against the wall dealing with QuackGuru (though I should stress that is my perspective as an observer, and not based on comments from them, as I don't want to put words or views in their mouths). I don't their cases are isolated, but they're the two examples that came to mind immediately. MastCell ^Talk 21:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware of these issues. If you could get them to articulate their concerns, I'd appreciate it. jps (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, at Talk:Citizendium/Archive 4#Won't someone please think of the article? you can see how David Gerard and SlimVirgin were about to fix an article between them, and then gave up after QuackGuru made it clear that he is the owner. Hans Adler 21:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow. A good, recent example of the type of stone-walling techniques employed by QG. I don't know how editors can read that talk page and not see problematic behaviour. DigitalC (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Count me as one of those editors who don't see problematic behavior there. It reads to me like QG is asking for SV and DG to make substantive suggestions for how to change things and criticized a questionable source. That's a pretty vanilla interaction and doesn't, to me, look sanctionable. Am I missing something? jps (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

@jps - I'll point out the things I see wrong with this interaction (which I hadn't seen until now). both are typical forms of i nteraction with QG, which can be seen on many, many pages

First: QG makes generic policy claims without substantiating them. for example, in the first section of the linked thread (first indent-block), QG starts out with a claim that some of the sources don't satisfy wp:SPS and that secondary sources should be used. his language is a little confused, but in general that's a valid concern to be raised. however, over the next few posts, where SV tries to tries to find out in what way specifically SPS is violated, QG consistently responds tangentially and reasserts the generic policy claim:

• Slim points out that self-published sources can be used in some cases, QG responds that 'Random comments on a board is (sic) not reliable' and reasserts the secondary source point
• SV brings up a specific source (pointing out that it is a CZ council member making an official CZ announcement, and QG responds 'Did a CZ editor make a comment or was it self-published by CZ'
• SV states again that it was a council member making an official announcement, and QG responds 'This is not an article on a CZ council member or a particular CZ person. So it's not reliable for this article".

Now clearly QG is trying to dismiss the source by casting it as an unreliable blog entry, but the frustrating elements of this are (1) that he never actually says that's what he's wanting to do (he simply waves his finger at policy in an authoritative way without much in the way of explanation), and (2) he refuses to engage the very reasonable point that this was an official statement by a CZ official. That's a bit like claiming the State of the Union address is not a reliable source for the current administration's policies because it's just television thing, and one would expect QG to put some effort into discussing the claim.

Second: Despite this vagueness of his own policy claims, QG's standard response to actions that he opposes is to claim that it is not specific enough, but then instead of asking for more specific clarification, he demands that it be undone or stopped. note his three comments in the second indent-block: "Vague comments about structure is really sensible?", "You have not given specific enough comments.", "It would be more productive if you tried to explain what you are proposing rather than continuing to make vague comments.". I've never myself seen him accept any explanation as sufficient, and I know he can go on like that for days on end.

The problem with this - aside from the double standard of demanding specific explanations while offering vague finger-waving - is that it is (intentionally or not) a tactic that frustrates other editors, rather than a productive form of discussion. I don't know if you have kids, but if you do you'll live (or will have lived) with this frustration for years: children often speaks in vague circularities, stubbornly refuse to discuss things that likely won't go their way, make excessively angry repetitive demands when they feel frustrated, break rules they don't like by using exasperatingly literal nitpicking. We put up with that kind of thing from children because we know that children don't know any better; when we have to put up with it from adults it's crazy-making. I assume that QG is older than 14 (though I could be wrong, you never know...); if so there's no real excuse for this impoverished form of communication, and it's just a hassle and a half.

In the long run we need to decide as a project whether we are going to aim for high-level interactions or allow discussions to fall to the lowest common denominator on any given article. It only takes one editor arguing at the level of an 8 year old to reduce an entire discussion to 8 year old standards, and that makes for crappy discussions and crappy articles. If we're going to aim high, it's important that we do something to encourage editors like QG to adopt a higher level of discourse. --Ludwigs2 01:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the aim of Wikipedia should be "high-level interactions". The aim of Wikikpedia should be the creation of good content. I don't think that the cultural criticisms you raise against QG have prevented him from providing very good and well-researched content for Wikipedia. jps (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

And I don't think you can create good content without higher-level interactions. maybe sometimes - even a broken clock is right twice a day - but any context that draws out those childish qualities will just deteriorate into a spitball fight. If there's one lesson from the internet that is not lost on anyone it's that quality of discussion matters. --Ludwigs2 15:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic. Knock it off. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"I don't think you can create good content without higher-level interactions." You and I together tend to collaborate better and produce better content when we avoid higher-level interactions, I've noticed. jps (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC) No, you and I work together much better when we lay our concerns out clearly, listen to each other carefully, and reason through the differences to reach an effective compromise - that's what I mean by higher-level interactions. You and I get into conflicts when we stop communicating at that higher level and start acting more like bulldozers (and that's because neither one of us is inclined to allow ourselves to be bulldozed). I do sometimes see QG lay out his concerns, listen, and discuss, so I know he's capable of it and could be encouraged in that direction. Most of the time, though, he's plow-to-the-ground, treads spinning away, dead set on moving things in the direction he wants them to go. Higher means more communicative, not more philosophical; it means a better appreciation of the person you're having a discussion with, not a greater knowledge of the material. I've seen some very smart people who are utterly incapable of having higher-level interactions - they talk 'at' people rather than 'to' them. --Ludwigs2 14:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC) I tend to think of our productivity in content and policy generation as being on a pretty low-level in the Bloom's Taxonomy. We rarely talk about why we prefer a particular wording in great detail, for example. That our work occurs on the talkpage instead of the article or Wikipedia space is just a matter of preference. For QG, he tends to avoid talkpage back-and-forths. I don't begrudge him this style and would actually like to see more people act that way. WP:BOLD is normally how the encyclopedic improves. jps (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC) Bloom's Taxonomy is a pedagogical (K-12) typology for use by teachers in evaluating students; if you see me as a student, jps, that would be... interesting. At any rate, I'm using the ideas set out by Jurgen Habermas in terms of communicative rationality, which was explicitly intended as a theory about the interactions between adults in liberal society. Unfortunately, our article on the topic isn't very good (I'll have to put that on my to-do list), but the upshot (very roughly) is that H lists out four discursive 'action-worlds', in the following order: teleological discourse (language designed to achieve an end without any real regard for sense or meaning - the lowest form), normative-rational discourse (language designed to reaffirm and maintain existing norms), performative discourse (rhetorical language designed convince others through claims on emotive/affective bonds), and communicative rationality (language designed to establish common understandings through through the application of reason - this is the highest form). I see all of these on wikipedia: from the true teleological POV-pushers who will say or do anything to get what they want into the project; to policy mavens who insist on literal applications of policy norms; to drama-ridden editors trying very hard to out-perform others and appear more virtuous/maligned/sincere/pick-your-favorite-affect; to a solid core who really do try to work things out through discussion. I'd like to increase that last group, because I happen to think they are the most sensible of the lot. Do you object to that effort? --Ludwigs2 19:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC) You aren't the student, Ludwigs2. Our audience members are the students, and they are not particularly academically endowed. As such, critical theory is not relevant, and, in the Wikipedia chronicles, we have more in common with Bloom's ideation of education than we do with the sophistry of Habermas's petty continentalism. My opinion? Habermas is an idiot who cloaks his idiocy in obtruse language. He excuses his inability to balance a checkbook with a strawman attack on an invented Platonic idol of scientistic rationality. He entertains notions that are prima facie incorrect as object lessons for an antiquated hierarchical theory of mind that has more in common with the blathering of the Roman Catholic curia than the discourse of the modern world. He suffers from the same delusions which allowed for the Sokal Affair to happen. No matter, his bourgeois post-modernism will be dead soon. Meanwhile, I'd rather be an educational reductionist/realist than rest my laurels on Habermas's teleological fallacy. jps (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC) Lol! Well, it's good to see that you're not shy about expressing yourself. However, if you're going to express your opinions this forcefully you'd best do your homework first. Habermas is not PoMo, he's just German (with the traditional long-winded circularity that all German philosophers inherited from Hegel). Habermas has pretty much the same critique of post-modernism that you do, though he's a good bit more generous with his language. If I were to critique Habermas myself it would be that he spins out an incredible amount of text over something that is at heart fairly simple and uncontroversial. And calling one of the foremost philosophers of our time an idiot, no matter how much you disagree with his approach, simply speaks to your own prejudice. Whatever you might think about his theories, Habermas is no idiot. I have absolutely no doubt that I could convince any open-minded listener of the merits of applying Habermas' theories to wikipedia and its processes. From what you said above, though, it seems unlikely that you will have an open mind on this issue for the foreseeable future. that's fine, but that doesn't remotely suggest that your opinion is correct; quite the contrary, actually. With respect to your 'educational reductionist/realist' approach - I'm not even sure what you mean by that. With respect to readers, wikipedia is not 'educative' but rather 'informative', the difference being that we're not trying to convince readers that any given perspective is correct, but simply informing them of the various perspectives that are present in sources so that they are as fully informed as we can reasonably manage. With respect to other editors, Wikipedia is (by principle and policy) egalitarian, consensus-based, and neutral, which obviates every sense of 'educative' and 'reductionist' that I can think of off hand (and most senses of the word 'realist', with its implications of facticity). Trying to 'educate' people is, in fact, somewhat suspicious on the face of it: what are you trying to teach them, and on what authority are you teaching them 'this' instead of 'that'? In short, I'm not trying to convince you of one darned thing, I'm simply telling you how I view the project. You believe wikipedia is an educative project with yourself (and like-minded editors) as the head teachers; I believe wikipedia is an informative project built collaboratively through communicative means. Unfortunately, our respective beliefs carry very different assumptions about what is required to be a good editor on project, which is where we get into conflict. One of these days we're going to have to rationalize that, but (given the vehemence of your opinions above) I sincerely doubt that today is that day. --Ludwigs2 23:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC) You sincerely missed my point about post-modernism. "Habermas has more in common with them than he does with me," is the point I was making. Finally, education need not be hierarchical. Just ask Paulo Freire. Enough. jps (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Having watched a significant amount of the conflicts here, I really don't think it's accurate to describe what is happening as "an editorial battle is now being fought via noticeboard complaints". I would have preferred an RfC/U over a ban discussion at this step, however. I'll elaborate on these points above, but wanted to note my concern about this "summary" here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• After looking at the discussion linked by Hans, Talk:Citizendium/Archive 4#editorializing.3F I agree with Tryptofish's assessment of this so called "summary". How about changing the heading from "Summary" to "Comment" or something else that is more subjective in nature? Mentoring doesn't seem like a bad idea to me given the pedantic nature of QG edits in the above linked discussion.Griswaldo (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with MastCell's analysis and proposed remedy. Is it known why Eubulides, one of the most skilled medical editors, stopped editing wikipedia in March 2010? Mathsci (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• My impression is that he invested far too much time and personal attachment into WP:ALT and pretty much burned out. Conflict and the effort to try to get/keep ALT adopted in the form he envisioned as a requirement for our best articles probably sealed it. --RexxS (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• I know that Quackguru definitely wore me out during a discussion that happened on the Chiropractic talk page back in August. It starts here, but the main section where I got involved is here. And it didn't help when he followed me onto my talk page. Silverseren^C 03:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No consensus?

It seems there is no consensus for this proposal at this time. Would someone close the thread so that the participants can finally begin a RfC/U? Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

As the person who opened this, I concur. Please mark it as 'Deferred to RFC/U' or some such. It's sad that QG once again refused to participate in a discussion a discussion of his behavior, and if this goes to RFC/U and he refuse to participate there, that should be taken into account. --Ludwigs2 16:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I support this proposal. QG's powers of IDHT are legendary. A specific case I remember is one stemming from this bit of information, basically a poll regarding perceptions of 7 (seven) different health practitioner occupations, QG had excluded the rating for Psychiatrists which led to incorrect information regarding the range for the other occupations 62%-82% rated as having high ethical standards vs the 38%-82% value indicated in source, see source. The subsequent 'discussion' is here. There have been a number of such very time consuming discussions that simply shouldn't be necessary. un☯mi 00:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, but there's clearly no consensus for action at this time. However, this issue has already come up at least a score of times on various administrative pages, and at this point there are just too many well-established editors who are aware of the problem. It's going to become progressively harder for him to hide from the discussion. With luck, he'll read the writing on the wall and mend his ways; If he stays true to form he'll most certainly end up here (or at RFC/U, or elsewhere) again, and then we'll go through it all one more time. --Ludwigs2 01:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Backlog at Wikipedia:Requested moves

There are over 150 discussions waiting for closure at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Some help from admins and non-admins would be welcome. Closing instructions here. Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested edit

Please help Edit Talk:West Virginia Alcohol Beverage Control Administration to add {{WikiProject West Virginia}}. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done, was there a reason that you couldn't create the page yourself? Mjroots (talk) 10:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Title blacklist ('admin'). –xeno^talk 14:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a query on protection of AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage

Hi guys. Although AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage is fully protected (and comes in the list of fully protected pages), I'm not see the protection details in the Special Log, making even the protection details vague (with respect to who protected the page and when). Could someone please point me to the right link from where I can get the details of who protected the page and when? Thanks and regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 07:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

One of the first edits in the current history was to move the page from userspace - the log for the original page location shows the protection and I assume that protection level carried across with the move. Camw (talk) 07:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Camw. But then, why doesn't the Checkpage log show the protection details? Don't protection details also get moved along with page moves? Regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 07:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe they are - maybe in 2006 when the move took place moving protection details wasn't implemented? That's just a guess as I don't know for sure sorry. Camw (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I would have guessed the same as Camw, that's it's just because the move took place such a long time ago. You could try searching bugzilla, or ask at WP:VPT. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't implemented back then. I remember that when I moved {{bots}} to preserve the history of the documentation (the template has no output), I was suprised to see that Template:Bots/doc had a protection log entry. As this was October 2008, I think this gives us an idea when the feature was implemnted. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks everybody. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 14:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Iriatoni

Hello! Please have a look here and here. I warned the user for breaking AGF rule and personal attack, but with no result. The user continues vandalizing our Mingrelian language. –BruTe ^Talk 17:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like this user comes back about once a year to make the same sort of edits. Time for an indef block IMO. Tarc (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for urgent action. –BruTe ^Talk 18:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Please review request for namechange on users talkpage

Resolved

 – Username changed and user unblocked. –xeno^talk 20:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Bmcglobal (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)

The user has requested a name change several days ago and has not been responded to. (I had placed a request on the username board but the helperbot saw the user as blocked because of the name and quickly removed that request). Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Help:Talkspace draft

I've recently created Help:Talkspace draft, adapted from Help:Userspace draft. The idea is to encourage collaborative editing, particularly in the occasional high-stress situation that leads to full protection. What do people think of (a) the idea (b) the implementation (c) how/when it may be useful, or how/when it should not be used, etc. Also, if feedback is positive, suggestions on where it would be helpful to mention the approach as a possibility. Rd232 ^talk 02:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Revision deletion needed

There are two articles in Category:Requested RD1 redactions, one for over two days, and one for more than a day. Due to the importance of quickly removing copyright violations, the assistance of an administrator would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Chester Markel (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend doing as I do and sending the links to WP:RFO (use this form) and they will take care of it. You must have email enabled to use that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The requests for oversight page says that it should only be used for non-public personal information and extreme nastiness that needs to be suppressed by an oversighter. I wouldn't want to clog up the oversight mailing list with something any administrator can handle with normal revision deletion. Any volunteers? Thanks. Chester Markel (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I use RFO so well seen pages like AN or ANI aren't clogged with RevDel links (where all can see). RFO allows it to be reported and removed with only the admin and reporting user seeing the offending the information. We definitely need a RevDel email form that goes to the OTRS people (who get the oversight requests) so people can see which is which. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Both tags dealt with (by removing the revdel tag, rather than actually doing a revdel, FWIW). I was unaware that category existed, I'll try to remember to look in on it now and then. I agree that this isn't the kind of thing that the mailing list is for. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that those requests should have been accepted and processed. I left a note at WT:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup#Category:Requested RD1 redactions asking for review by a WP:Copyright problems regular.

• Trevor Clay
• Sam Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences (User talk:GraemeL#Sam Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences‎)

Flatscan (talk) 05:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

While you might argue the first one is a rather minimal copyvio (although therefore perhaps more dangerous) the second one is an obvious copy/paste and RD1 candidate. The whole point of using revdel is that you can delete the article history while keeping contributor names and thus preserving attribution. This is an improvement to the rather clumsy selective deletion where you had to manually attribute all the content you recovered. That this was misunderstood is probably due to the wording of the RD1 criteria, which is rather poor. See also Wikipedia:Cv101 for an explanation how to perform RD1 revdels Yoenit (talk) 07:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that you keep the names, but you lose all record of what they actually did in the article. Probably meets the letter of the law, but certainly to be avoided unless there's a strong reason. If this is actually the case, you might also want to change WP:CP, which seems to say not to use revdel in this instance. All this revdeling going on seems to be an over-reaction that does more harm than good; I think the important thing is to get the copyrighted text out of the article, not try to erase it from the history. Anyway, do what you think best; I may ask MRG about it sometime if I still disagree after further thinking. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The value of rev deletion is that it eliminates inadvertent (or intentional) restoration of copyvios. I've seen this happen many times; although I cannot now recall the article title, I once did it myself. I agree that there's importance in keeping a clear record of who did what in an article--for many reasons, including that copyrighted content is sometimes added in waves by multiple contributors, particularly on certain "prone to it" articles. But one of the advantages of rev deletion is the transparency. If it is necessary to access those records, they can be accessed by toggling the necessary switches. I'm afraid that the instructions at WP:CP and Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins lag far behind practice. The latter hasn't been updated for over a year. I guess I need to put that on my "to do" list. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The first one, IMO, was a good decline. Purging the entire article history over a couple sentences is overkill. The second, however, I went ahead and processed. It was terribly blatant, and every edit after the copyvio was introduced was so minor as to be GFDL insignificant, fruit of the poisonous tree, or in two cases, someone rollbacking the copyvio back in. These type of things need to be RD1'ed. Courcelles 13:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I see the trade-off at Trevor Clay differently: 4 (3 closely paraphrased and 1 copied) problematic sentences versus 19 revisions with substantial contributions from only two users. Flatscan (talk) 05:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

There are a very few people on this site whose word on certain subject I accept without question. (If Malleus told me that "ain't" was proper grammar, I'd believe him; if Xeno told me it was OK that his new adminbot was blocking all the admins, I'd change WP:BOT to reflect his view) If MRG told me it was necessary for me to jump off a cliff for copyright reasons, I'd do it. So I defer to that rationale, even if I would weight benefits and costs slightly differently. In this particular case, Courcelles, I looked again at the second one, and you're right; although a lot of people contributed after the copyvio was added, they were indeed almost all insignificant as far as GFDL or CC-by-whatever is concerned. Thanks for the explanations. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Don't do that! Copyright is complex; I learn new stuff all the time. It's a whole lot easier to undelete something than it is to pull people up from the bottom of cliffs. :) There are costs, yes. On the whole, though, I like it a whole lot better than the way we used to do things, with selective deletion. I would sometimes painstakingly recreate subsequent edits, attributing in edit summaries, but this method is so much more efficient. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

User:LobãoV (third time)

LobãoV (talk · contribs) has been twice blocked (first for 48 hours and then for one week) for failure to heed warnings on his talk page or to engage in discussion on his talk page about constant and repeated creation of articles about non-notable Brazilian footballers. He has returned from his last block and, despite a request that he address the concerns directly, has continued to create such articles with no attempts to discuss the matters on his talk page. I believe it is time to put a permanent stop to such refusal to enter into discussion with the rest of the community. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The previous thread on this noticeboard was here. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indef per previous sanction notice and discussion. Should the editor start communicating any unblock need not refer to me - but I would also suggest keeping an eye open for new accounts with same pattern emerging. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Wanted: admins to be Online Ambassadors

Howdy! I want to draw your attention to the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes. And it's always nice to have more admins as part of the group, since admin tools are sometimes necessary to clean up after beginners' mistakes, and admins typically know their way around most of the issues newcomers are likely to run into.

If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Not Admin Question How does this supplement WP:NPP? I'll concede that some of the NPP members are quick to pull the trigger on bite-y actions, but a decent portion of the articles are getting tagged and improved before they cross the 24 hour threshold from being a fresh article to one that has more possibility of living. Hasteur (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't have much to do with new pages patrol. The main thrust of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program is creating an easier way for instructors to have their students edit Wikipedia as part of class assignments, and offer structured support for the instructors and students, with Campus Ambassadors who show up in person to introduce students to the basics of Wikipedia, and Online Ambassadors who help the students make the best of things on-wiki. Of course, one thing online ambassadors may sometimes do is to help students avoid situations where they are likely to get bitten, or to help smooth things over when they do get bitten. But with clear instructions ahead of time about how to get started, I don't think NPP will cause much grief.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Spliced

Anyone wanna tell me why a simple housekeeping deletion, namely Spliced (TV series), is still sitting there after 17 freaking hours when C:SD is nowhere near backlogged? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. You can tell Jimbo to dock our pay. --Jayron32 17:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Ottava

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.

---

So Ottava Rima (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) remains a very active chap around the wikiverse, and it's coming up to the one year anniversary of the arbcom case which resulted in a year's ban see here for all the details.

He had an 'unban' request denied by arbcom earlier this year, and it was indicated then that he shouldn't appeal further until January 15th next year - I think he feels that this isn't really right for a variety of reasons, and would like the broader community to share thoughts about his request to be allowed to resume editing at the anniversary point of the initial one year ban.

Here's part of his request for being unbanned in his own words;

'I haven't socked while banned, have received 2 FAs, multiple GAs and multiple DYK while banned, and revealed mass plagiarism like this. And a Foundation Board Member, SJ, proxied for me in posting up two high quality pages (Kubla_Khan, and Ode:_Intimations_of_Immortality). And a soon to be Arbitrator did the same for Elegy_Written_in_a_Country_Churchyard

I am a published writer, am ABD in British Literature, have multiple Masters (English Lit, Classics), and worked on a lot of pages in both terms of writing and reviewing. I just want to be able to edit again.'edited minimally by me

I told him that I didn't mind sharing this with you good people, so here I am :-) Privatemusings (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not averse to considering this, but by what methods did he receive 2 FAs etc. if not by socking? Some details would be nice. --Jayron32 23:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I think maybe he wrote them before getting banned? - I'll see if I can get the links :-) Privatemusings (talk) 23:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Ottava was not banned for writing an insufficient number of FAs. This appeal request does not address the reason for the ban or indicate that the editor's problematic behavior has changed. A request that dealt with those issues would be likelier to succeed.   Will Beback  talk  23:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's been my opinion on this situation. I've been in contact with Ottava Rima at least 3 dozen times over the year, either talking to him about stuff he points to my attention or not getting the chance (I do have other friends on Skype). I try not to get involved as drama is the last thing I need right now. I do feel like the one-year ban he deserved, and letting bygones be bygones, I can't see nothing wrong with him taking back his rightful position. If ArbCom decides we need to make a few limitations, I'm fine with that, now we'll see if he is. I don't feel extending his appeal period to add another month is worth it. I mean, using the Elvis/Cobain/Jackson theory, he's been making more in death, as he was an active member of the community. His writing is a big contribution to Wikipedia and if we kept Ottava to that focus, hell I'll take the mentor role if ArbCom approves, I can't see anything wrong with letting him go. He has been a very fair person since the ban, and I am happy with the honesty he has put, better than some ArbCom sanctioned-people. I fully support giving him a fair chance and I find it rather unusual that my old chap Privatemusings would post something proving he was put up to it worries me, but if this is the last time, I'm fine with it.Mitch32^{(Transportation Historian)} 23:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Mitch :-) - Good to see you around :-) Privatemusings (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, OR is in good standing on Simple English Wikipedia, and wrote these articles there, supposedly to be turned into Simple English (it is common practice there to write in regular English and then convert into the simple in a sandbox). Admirers of his moved copies to this wiki and put the articles through FA and so forth, with OR on the phone to his proxies, so to speak. This has been discussed before at AN/I I believe and there was no consensus this was outside the rules.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Wehwalt. That seems reasonable. I think that Will Beback raises good points as well. Ottava was never blocked for his content additions, so I think we need to see some positive statements regarding his behavior that led to his banning. There may also, in addition to that, need to be some sort of limited restrictions on his time here. If his content contributions are good, but his interactions with others have been a problem, we need a set of conditions that maximize the former and minimize the latter. --Jayron32 23:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Be nice to have him back, but he has to play nice with others.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally I find it a bit punitive for arbcom to have changed the ban from 1 year to indefinate just because he appealed in the first place, that was bad taste to say the least. As for the appeal, I think it's good to see that Ottava has continued to contribute constructivly via proxy and on other projects despite being banned, it's not an easy thing to do and I like the character that this shows, it shows a level of dedication. That being said I can't see any reason not to give him a second chance, it's apparent that he wants to continue contributing and that as long as he understands playing nice will allow him to do that, I'm sure he will do just that (play nice).   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Promethean - just because he appeals against a ban which was due to end anyhow, you switched him to an indef? Absolutely bloody absurd. He had 4 days left on a 1 year ban, and you extend it and make him wait another month before appealing again? What are you gonna do the next time he appeals? Send him to the electric chair? For god's sake, give him some credit. 2 of the things mentioned in the statement I saw referred to him being blocked on commons, and being restricted on one of the mailing lists. The block on commons was lifted after it was proved that the admin who placed it had been abusive to Ottava, and the mailing list restriction I understand, didn't happen. Either way, what have 2 incidents unrelated to this project got to do with him being excluded yet again? Will the ARBCOM (for once) admit that they've buggered this up royally, and give the guy a chance to get back on his feet? BarkingFish 00:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This is just my personal opinion but Ottava is hard working a rather dedicated. Let's AGF here and let him back on the day of the initial ban provided he formally asks so. As long as he "play's nice" like Wehwalt said, I'm all for his return.--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 00:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

--> If I'm not mistaken, the fact that he's indef'd prevents him from editing, so who is he supposed to ask? Anyway, he shouldn't need to. The ARBCOM should keep their word and make a 1 year ban a 1 year ban. Doesn't it seem convenient that a month or two before Ottava's allowed back, they miraculously find a way to keep him banned? Smells very fishy from where I'm sitting. BarkingFish 00:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that is not the complete story. Ottava's completion of the 1-year ban was not the sole remedy. His return was also subject to a probationary period after the competion of said ban. The origional arbcom ruling does NOT say that he simply returns to full status after 1 year. Rather, it says that he may not edit Wikipedia until the terms of his return have been negotiated, either with ArbCom or in the community at large. In other words, the ban of 1 year was total, while after 1 year his return was conditional. He has not yet, to my knowledge, completed the conditions. This discussion appears to be part of working that out. But it does not appear that ArbCom changed anything at any point. The original plan is still being followed. --Jayron32 01:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Either way, Jayron, you've got to admit that slapping an indef on him doesn't exactly help solve matters. The application of said indef was in my opinion at least, wrong. If this is supposed to be a discussion to resolve the way to allowing him back, how does stopping him contributing help? BarkingFish 01:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

BarkingFish, there is a misconception here. Ottava Rima was banned for one year on December 20th of 2009, as you can see from the official announcement here. It also had the provision that Ottava Rima would need to negotiate probationary terms with the Committee before any unban would occur. He appealed his ban in mid-2010, and the Committee reviewed the request and declined it (in July 2010, stating that Ottava Rima had not shown that he would improve his behavior, and indeed noted several issues that occurred with Ottava Rima on other WMF projects. The next "date of appeal" per the motion was January 15th, 2011. You can read the motion here. The status quo is that Ottava Rima will have to appeal to the Committee and show that he can edit without causing further issues. I assume some time after the 15th, Ottava Rima will appeal to the Committee.. but the community cannot necessarily remove ArbCom remedies. So this discussion is premature and in the wrong location. SirFozzie (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

So let me get this straight; what you're basically saying SirFozzie, is that despite ARBCOM being an elected body, representative of the community (since we put you there), once you guys are in office, the community has very little say in what you do, how you do it, or that we can't make ourselves quite clearly heard if we consider that a remedy made by the arbs is out of place, wrong or not in keeping with the policy of assuming good faith that we're used to? Man, that sucks nuts. BarkingFish 01:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(de-indent) You can certainly ask the Committee to change their minds on this. ArbCom is the final word in dispute resolution however, and it has been placed in that position for a reason. I was just stating that this discussion really serves no purpose, as any impetus for an unblock has to come from Ottava Rima, and it needs to be to the Arbitration Committee. SirFozzie (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the time has come that we do this. According to the Banning policy (see below for a refresher), the community can undo a ban, any ban, even one of yours. Arbitrators are expected to know and abide by policy, so your statement above - ArbCom is the final word in dispute resolution - is wrong. We, the community, are the ultimate final word, if we want to overturn you, we can. When looking at the response to the appeal and some of the inaccuracies it contains, this is very problematic.

Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except:

(a) with the written authorization of the Committee; or

(b) following a clear, substantial, and active community consensus to do so.

BarkingFish 01:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think what SirFozzie was trying to say was that issues come to the Committee only after the community has decided they can't solve them; overturning an ArbCom decision would need to involve a significant portion of the community which you're unlikely to find responding here. In this particular case, the community tried a variety of things but couldn't resolve the core problem. While there is no doubt Ottava Rima is capable of excellent content contributions, he's had persistent difficulty in another important part of participation in Wikipedia - the ability to work with others. Unfortunately when he spoke with the Committee last, it was clear from his participation at other Wikimedia sites that he's yet to overcome this issue. Remember that indefinite here doesn't mean infinite - it just means until the problems are resolved and/or suitable conditions are hashed out to allow an editor to return and edit productively. Shell ^babelfish 01:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Shell, what I want to know is how did the community "try"? There wasn't even an RfC which is the standard for escalation. That's not trying, that's shutting the door in his face. BarkingFish 02:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that way too often good content editors get banned while the users, who are mostly waste of space, do not get banned for a similar conduct. Why? Is this because it is much easier to aim at something bright than at something gray? I believe Ottava should be given another chance.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

@BarkingFish, the issue of Ottava, in the absence of evidence that ArbCom will treat him badly on an appeal, is not worth the precedent. He's eligible to appeal in a month. If ArbCom is unfair with him, in that case, well, bring the pitchforks and torches, you'll find customers.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Being the generally good-natured and forgiving person that I am, my urge attm is to support removal of the ban on time with it's original expiration date and allow Ottava back once he has negotiated the terms and conditions of his return. He shows dedication to Wikipedia above and beyond that which an average editor would; enough so that he sticks around and waits out a year-long ban by contributing to sister projects and by contributing via proxy. I would think that someone who has just lived out a year-long ban would be thankful enough of the chance to return to the project (even under terms and conditions) that they would be perfectly happy to stay away from conduct which earned them the ban in the first place, lest they get another, more permanent ban. While I lack the enforcement ability of an admin, I wouldn't mind being a mentor of sorts, keeping an eye over his interactions with other users, warning him if he's starting to act out of line, and reporting him when/if he acts in a flagrant manner. With me being a very calm, hard to irritate person, I think this could perhaps do Ottava some good, and would be happy to volunteer if he is allowed back. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 02:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ottava ban appeal section break 1

I know a lot of people would like to see Ottava unbanned (I included) but AN is not the appropriate venue for this. If he wants to appeal the ban, it'll need to be to ArbCom; if someone wants to start some sort of process to gain enough community support for an unban, AN isn't the place to attract enough opinions. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's better not to just whack one of those boxes around an ongoing conversation :-) (or to put it another way, if you really want to, you'll need to seek a consensus first, but it really would probably just be better to let conversations take their course :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I just don't want to see this devolve into a shitstorm over something that no one can change atm. Which it probably will, now, because all "discussions" end up that way :( /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Fetchcomms, where are ban-related proposals supposed to get community consensus if not the Administrator's Noticeboard (which seems to be the de facto place for deciding such things)? (Note: I'm not trying to be snarky, which for some reason my comment kinda sounds that way to me, but I can't think of how to improve the sound of it at the moment...just a question of proper procedure.) Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't know (an RfC) but AN doesn't attract much attention overall, really, nor is it a good idea to just jump into a big discussion right now. I think Ottava might want to present a slightly more ... appealing? unban request that addresses his behavior, first. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Touché...an RfC might garner more attention and he could do with a more focused request, I'll admit. I still think that since this thread has already started, it might be a good place to hack out what the community wants to do moving forward from here, but another time, possibly another place for an actual unban request. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 04:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Asking mother (the Community) because he was turned down by father (ArbCom) is inappropriate in this case. I don't see any reason why the Community needs to or should undermine the Arbitration decision when (a) he can appeal to ArbCom in 1 month anyway, and (b) this discussion adds nothing useful beyond what the larger Community seems to already have been in agreement with. It was never a question of whether there was sufficient Community support for his return with probation - it was always an issue of whether Ottava would satisfy his conditions. That's what his previous appeal turned on, and that's what any future appeal is going to turn on. The fact that there continues to be a failure to address those reasons, and that an attempt is being made here to undermine the ArbCom decision as if it was unfair because he contributes content, is really not a good sign of things to come. Privatemusings, you exercised incredibly poor judgement to have brought this here in such circumstances, and it would be in your own interests to request the thread be closed before further damage is done to Ottava's next appeal; in fact, a trout slap might also be in order. And to the administrators who have responded here, you should know better as well. It's a very simple message: if OR's willing and able to: (1) recognise the issues with his behavior, (2) make a committment to avoid that behavior (including on other projects during his ban), (3) agree to the probationary conditions as per the arbitration decision and (4) fully complies with that committment (and probationary conditions), then his appeal will be successful (in that order - that is, we can't determine probationary conditions until we've seen 1 + 2, or ArbCom has confirmed that 1+2 have been satisfied). If he is unwilling or unable to do so, then that means he does not have a place on this project - it does NOT mean that the Community is going to overturn ArbCom's decision as if it was wrong. Simply demanding to be allowed on the basis of personal qualifications or content creation is insufficient for a successful appeal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what more I can add to this discussion, besides a general "ditto" to BarkingFish et al.

Like many editors, at first I was put off by Ottava being...how shall we say...a "drama-magnet." :)

However, the extension of the ban is, in my opinion, an amazingly punitive violation of AGF, and goes well against standard practices. And, frankly, Ncmvocalist, such measures seem to put OR in an apologetic position, when, in truth, he has really little to apologize for. The ban was set for a year, and he has served that. He asked to appeal the ban, and it was then upped by leaps and bounds to indef. I fail to see a correlation here. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 05:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no 'extension'. If you, he and others actually re-read the text of the remedies (i.e. number 3), you will find things were never black and white (as a 1 year ban) to begin with. If he's not ready to agree to conditions, then he cannot return to editing. It is actually quite standard - a ruling as far back as 2008 imposed a similar remedy. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no real reason to extend the ban. When you look at it, ArbCom knows the assume good faith thing pretty well but their actions seem to show otherwise. I'm not saying that they're bad people but actions always speak louder than words. I think the community seems to be accepting Ottava returning, albeit with a small amount of dissent from a very vocal minority. I look forward to the next month of actions surrounding him. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I fail to understand. Probation != jail time. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 06:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank god I'm not the only one who spotted something fishy when Ottava appealed and ArbCom declined plus extended the ban from 1 year to indef. For one moment I thought I read it wrong or missed some keywords here and there but at the end I came to the conclusion that ArbCom wants to set a precedent to show what happens when a person serving the ban at that time appeals their decision. Whether by chance or not, it sends a chilling effect to others in the future who would consider such an appeal. And when did contributions/blocks from other projects can be used as evidence? They are outside of ArbCom's jurisdiction. ArbCom members are expected to know this. I agree with User:BarkingFish's comments. Who watches the watchmen when the watchmen is out of control? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The ban is only "extended" if Ottava does not agree to comply with the probationary terms. It's a bit like an editor who has been unbanned on a condition and the editor defiantly or otherwise refuses to comply - then they are re-banned for a period of time. Contributions/blocks from another project are relevant in some instances if they show a strong likelihood that similar behavior is going to recur upon allowing Ottava to return to this project: he does not recognise the problems with the conduct that got him banned from here and there, so it falls on ArbCom to prevent that disruption from occurring. That is, it's not possible for probation alone to help him recognise those problems. The ban was 1 year because it seemed like it would take at least that period of time to recognise those issues; still, they AGFed so that he had the ability to appeal in 6 months if he could show recognition earlier - he did not. Finally - "I have x y z qualifications and I'm a content builder...so let me in...(never mind the fact that others had concerns about my conduct, and it was my conduct that got me banned rather than my qualifications/content)" - doesn't inspire confidence; it suggests that he's going to behave as he always has and the Community is OK with it. Newsflash: it isn't OK. The text of the outcome of the previous ban appeal obviously needs to be re-read. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me make a few (probably controversial, as with everything else here) comments, if I may:

• ArbCom made the statement about Ottava Rima's ban appeal and intent to indefinitely block him at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 6#Statement on ban appeal by Ottava Rima, with talk page discussion happening at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 12#Arbitration Committee statement on ban appeal by Ottava Rima. This was announced amidst other major ArbCom announcements such as the following:
  • The call for applicants for CheckUser and Oversight permissions, which happened in August and September. This announcement was made 3 days before Ottava's announcement.
  • Major motions regarding the WP:EEML ArbCom case (1 day prior).
  • Major motion regarding the allowance of User:Δ (formerly Betacommand (talk · contribs)), 9 days after.
• Is ArbCom not hard enough trying to establish rapport with the community, as apparently failed above? Or, as with the entire 2010 ArbCom election, in which nobody from the community (assuming the "community" is completely separated from the "adminship") arsed themselves to comment on anything about the election until yours truly started an RfC here? Or is the communiy simply waiting until the proverbial "shit hits the fan" until they start to actually belligerantly complain about stuff (which I personally find to be the case)?
• Is the community not trying hard enough to resolve disputes, as mentioned above? Here are dozens of WP:ANI cases involving Ottava Rima alone. As far as WP:RFC/U are concerned, I was understood that they have no binding (being a person who used to utilize that a fair bit) resolution. There is some inconsistency among the community about these processes, as well. I tried to close an ANI thread with regards to User:YellowMonkey here, but I was severely chastised for doing that, and I was accused of "covering up" for another administrator and was told here that RFC/U is basically a 'crap process' and that the only binding agreements can possibly be made on ANI. I am seriously confused here, as an administrator and a CheckUser, how to pursue on stuff like this; this is mainly because I think the community has been unable to get together and establish any processes on anything regarding this.

I am not saying that Ottava does not deserve to be unbanned (in fact, I personally support a conditional unban, provided proper watching/mentorship), but it is of my opinion that some communication breakdown between ArbCom and the community has obviously happened, and one faction is trying to blame the other on this; neither faction can escape blame for this breakdown. –MuZemike 07:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh Whilst Ottava may be in good standing over at 'tardpedia, I recommend folks check out his recent record at Wikiversity. Where goes Ottava so goes endless drama and fuss. Content be fucked, unban him and the ensuing blizzard of shit will be epic. Crafty (talk) 08:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

_{Actually, fuck the whole statement, struck by Promethean per WP:CIVIL   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 09:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)}

Without commenting now on any other aspect of this case, it seems to me that it's in everyone's best interests for the next review by ArbCom to occur in January. That will allow the newly elected group of arbitrators to participate, instead of just the same group who made this year's decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that maybe so, but we all know you're just fixin' to let Ottava Hussein Rima back in here to advance your lieberal agenda. It's in nobody's interest for this fella to be allowed back. Just see how he trails a path of ruination behind him. There are those who pointed to your re-election to the ArbCom as a dire indictment on this great 'pedia. I didn't believe them. Until now. Crafty (talk) 11:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Crafty you aren't all that better yourself. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Torn here. Ottava may be a fantastic writer but, simply put, he has a personality which renders him unsuitable for a collaborative project. The reality is that we can do process and set conditions and let him back, but the result will be drama, drama, then re-ban. It is that predictable. The best thing would be just to keep him banned. However, there may be more drama in doing that and have people complain about process, so that leaves me thinking: just unblock him per WP:ROPE, and see what happens. If he can change, fine - but I doubt it very much - leopards spots and all. --Scott Mac 11:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ottava's an arse incredibly disruptive influence which outweighs his value to the project. We all know it. The place has continued on an acceptable form in his absence. Readmit him and we become Wikiversity. Crafty (talk) 11:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

First, the benefits: Ottava is a beastly content builder who would improve the encyclopedia if we unban him. Cons: Ottava tends to throw around wild accusations when something does not go his way, and he can be disruptive in general. Only because the benefit I listed is our encyclopedia's main mission, I would support an unblock with heavy restrictions on the way he interacts with people. By doing so, we'll receive the benefits of his writing while cutting down, hopefully eliminating, the negative and disruptive aspects. Given Ottava's polarizing nature, however, I believe that the restrictions should be decided by the Arbitration Committee. I urge their Ban Appeals Subcommittee to take this up immediately – regardless of your pedantic appeal rules, he should be unblocked on the 20th as per the original ruling. Let's get a coherent set of tight restrictions from you guys in the four days we have. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I strongly urge that anyone attempting to draft restrictions review Wikiversity:Community Review/Ottava Rima for a recent review of his editing behavior. Also, I agree that it's probably a good idea to punt this to the next Committee, since it's only a question of a couple more weeks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You might also review his recent RfC/U at Meta . Ocaasi (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

In Ottava's defense, the Wikiversity CR was strictly related to Ottava's actions in the "wikipolitical" arena. Blocking him never even came up in the review, it was only a matter of how he was using the sysop tools and the way he was "projecting power". Lately he's been making some interesting contributions on the subject of civility here... an interesting discussion a lot of the people commenting here could perhaps benefit from as well ;-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 20:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the new ArbCom should deal with this, as sit also happens to coincide with the next date for reconsideration anyway. There's no reason to override that at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It's no secret that I thought Ottava's original ban was ridiculous and the extension to indef after his unsuccessful appeal so far beyond ridiculous that it warranted its own post code. FWIW I therefore agree with Newyorkbrad, in that it's probably preferable to have some fresh ArbCom eyes on this come January instead of just replaying the same old script. Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I am profoundly concerned by this. It seems to me that Ottava ought to be allowed back after his ban expires. The placement of an indefinite block is confusing to me both in origin and justification. This case screams for intervention and justice. Basket of Puppies 04:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

BOP, you could do with reading the whole thing. Ottava was banned for a year, with a proviso that he would have to agree terms when he came back. He appealed after six months, got turned down, was told he could appeal again in another six months, but would have to agree terms when he came back. If he can agree terms, he can come back when the second six months is up. Nothing is screaming here but a very mangled communication from Arbcom six months ago, leading everyone to an advanced WTF moment. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

EOTR, I have read every bit of information possible, from the original self-filed ArbCom case to the appeals and talked to several editors, admins and former arbcom members involved. I have also talked to Ottava about this. I have weighed all the information and evidence and I firmly believe that extending Ottava's ban to an indefinite block is a fundamental miscarriage of justice. I have no doubt that Ottava would be subject to civility blocks after his return, but no one can actually predict the future. An indefinite block seems very punitive to me, not preventative, which is why I oppose an indefinite block. Basket of Puppies 17:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• NO Just no. Thanks for the heads-up re January. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 05:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• All this back and forth about "wrong venue" seriously pisses me off. It does not matter one IOTA if the discussion takes place at AN or at an RFC. MANY ban and unban discussions have taken place at AN. Furthermore, bans can be enacted by either ArbCom or the Community and either ArbCom or the Community can withdraw bans. Do we need to spin our wheels and rewrite policy every time some high-profile or controversial editor is the topic of a ban or unban discussion? Just let the discussion here run it's course! If the community discussion results in no consensus, then appeal to ArbCom in the manner we've followed for years now. This isn't rocket science. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Having only experienced Ottava Rima on Commons for the last couple of weeks in connection with the poll on a new policy, I must say that from that short experience alone, he comes off as an extremely hostile editor that are prone to make unfounded personal allegations, and apparently keeps making trouble for himself and others. Letting him back on board would in my opinion be a net negative, as it seems most of his energy is used for personal conflicts. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting ban at this time (or in January), as per Saddhiyama's diff above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? The only thing that I see is there is one user complaining that criticism against him is harassment. I also see a bit of attacking on Sadd's part on those who supported the policy, but that is just my opinion. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Ottava's rhetoric here and elsewhere in that thread are just as over-the-top as anything he posted before his ban here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

He's only standing up to someone when you think about it. There is nothing wrong with that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

He is "standing up to someone" on account of an initial hostile personal allegation that he himself made. I am sorry, but in my opinion that incident was a direct result of Ottava Rimas combative behaviour. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2010 (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.

List of social software

Resolved

 – deleted bad nom. Jclemens (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The AfD for the article was apparently closed as "Keep" but the tag was not removed from the article. What is the proper procedure? Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

That discussion was from 2007. Someone added a new tag, but didn't do anything else, on December 9th. There have been no comments since then, so I just deleted the tag from the article without prejudice. Anyone is free to renominate for a fresh AfD discussion starting now, and I'm explicitly taking no position on whether or not that should be done. Jclemens (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence

By vote at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification, a majority of the Arbitration Committee has voted to amend the above case:

Remedy 6 ("Mathsci topic-banned by mutual consent") of the Race and Intelligence case is terminated, effective immediately.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
NW (Talk) 21:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Please redirect "I_Agapi_Akoma_Zi" to "I_agapi_akoma_zei"

Hello.

I've re-created the article "I Agapi Akoma Zi" to "I agapi akoma zei" due to bad transliteration of the Greek song name title, and thus the article's title. When I tried to redirect the former to the newer, a warning message told me that the page cannot be changed due to be blacklisted.

Please, redirect to the new, corrected article to avoid near duplication.

Thanks in advance --Ricardo Cancho Niemietz (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies is backlogged

There are open requests at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies dating to November. Could an admin with experience in answering requests there please respond? Thanks! --Jayron32 00:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Stop the bot

Hope I'm in the right place, this is the first time I've used this board... apparently MPUploadBot is caught in an infinite loop (see the page at the upcoming POTD File:Oil platform P-51 (Brazil).jpg) and needs to be kicked or something. Sasata (talk) 03:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Nakon 03:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I do believe I have fixed this. My TS account ran out of disk quota, so it couldn't save any more images, resulting in a failed upload, resulting in a constant loop of "the page doesn't exist!". I have cleared out disk space, so it should work again. The important thing... When you block a bot, notify the owner!. Had I not been checking this (which many admins do not), I would not have seen this. (X! · talk)  · @258  ·  05:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Unprotected image on the Main Page Part XI and Part XII

This is not a beat Delta / Betacommand thread.

Not to be confused with Cod throwing. Whacking with a wet trout or trouting is a common practice on Wikipedia when experienced editors slip up and make a silly mistake. It, along with sentencing to the village stocks, is used to resolve one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior amongst normally constructive community members, as opposed to long term patterns of disruptive edits, which earn warnings and blocks. Example Whack! The above is a WikiTrout (Oncorhynchus macrowikipediensis), used to make subtle adjustments to the clue levels of experienced Wikipedians. To whack a user with a wet trout, simply place {{trout}} on their talk page. for letting File:Jane Austen, from A Memoir of Jane Austen (1870).jpg and File:Vasco-da-gama-2.jpg reach the main page unprotected. ΔT The only constant 00:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC) The first one says it is protected, so no trout needed for that one as far as I can see. But yes, a trout is needed for the second one as far as I can see, however (as there is no protection box or "view source" (instead of "create this page") button anywhere that I can see). [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 00:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Both of them where unprotected until I had an admin at commons protect them ~26 minutes after they reached the main page. ΔT The only constant 00:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Oh, yeah, now I see...the second one is protected at Commons (but not here at Wikipedia). :-) [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 00:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Its taken care of here via cascade protection. ΔT The only constant 00:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC) You are right. Now I get it. :-) [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 00:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Per WP:BEANS and the Streisand effect, wouldn't it be better to just, you know, find an admin that does this sort of thing a lot and quietly ask him to fix the problem. The louder on this page we annoucne that its a problem, the more attention we draw to the fact that this happens quite frequently. It's like a giant banner saying "HEY TROLLS! WANNA FUCK UP WIKIPEDIA FOR A FEW MINUTES, HERE'S HOW!". Instead, wouldn't it be better to just, you know, work quietly to get it fixed? --Jayron32 00:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Before I ever post I make sure that the images are protected, thus no WP:BEANS. Ive been very tempted to do just that and re-upload a wrong image, just to prove my point and try to get more admins involved. Im not always around to get this fixed. ΔT The only constant 00:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Yes, I already know that. The fact that, after the protections are done, you come here to announce "Yet again, this is a problem" alerts the trolls to a weakness in our armor. Its a dumb idea to repeatedly (now what, 12 times?) anounce "HEY TROLLS, HERE'S A CONSTANT PROBLEM THAT NO ONE FIXES ON TIME. KEEP YOUR EYES OPEN FOR THE NEXT TIME IT HAPPENS". Once it is fixed, there is no impending need to announce that it was a problem, except to a) let the trolls know it is a constant problem, and thus a way to fuck up Wikipedia or b) to embarass the admins as a whole to no purposeful end. Fix the problem, then let it go. --Jayron32 01:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC) I am in agreement with Jayron32 here. If a vandal does get around to doing some main page image vandalism, it will be largely Δ's fault for raising the visibility of this issue. –xenotalk 13:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC) 1)It's already happened. 2)we tried security through obscurity on the main page and it didn't work.©Geni 20:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC) 1) When? 2) The trouts don't seem to be doing any better. –xenotalk 20:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Well the highest profile event would probably be when someone repaced the globe at wikipedia.org. But there were other cases back when we didn't routinely protect such stuff. As for the trouts at least we haven't had the goatse on the main page as a result of them.©Geni 22:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC) I was more talking about future occurrences, i.e. subsequent to the advent of the UIOTMP series. –xenotalk 22:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC) @Δ, Wasn't File:Jane Austen, from A Memoir of Jane Austen (1870).jpg protected by MPUploadbot 8 hours before it showed up on the main page: [61]? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Yes and No. It protected the image description page (which is located here on en.wp) but never actually uploaded it locally, thus any autoconfirmed user on commons could bypass said protection. ΔT The only constant 01:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Ah, of course. (self-administered mini-trout for being dense). --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Better use minnow or user:Darwinfish for such incidents. Bishonen | talk 21:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC). Great, just take the fine out of our salaries as admins. After all, as we are paid, you have a right to complain about us.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Being volunteers doesn't make us immune to complaints. We should figure out a way to prevent this from happening all the time (and by "we", I mean people who are more comfortable than I with images). If the worst that happens is a big collective trout every so often, small price to pay for the reminder. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Is there a way of stopping images reaching the main page if they are unprotected? A bot takes them out of the queue or something? Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC) @Floquenbeam, of course as an admin I get complaints, and I try to be extremely cordial in my responses. However, the tone of that, and the application to all admins, called for a reminder in my mind that we're all just doing the best we can here.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Why not just have whoever sets the POTD/OTD/DYK/ITN/TFA/etc. protect the image(s) used when the day is prepared? AFAIK, only OTD is already 95% ready for the whole year; I doubt it's an issue if whoever prepares TFA (Raul654), POTD (Howcheng), and DYK (various) locally uploads the images they need at the time of preparing the blurbs/queues/etc. and protects them then. For ITN, I don't think any of the regulars there forget to locally upload and protect MP pics, and this just leaves OTD kind of susceptible, and we can have some bot do it the day before or something. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Please stop with the fucking fish who ate Cincinatti. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Yeah, no kidding. What, is Delta/Betacommand hoping we'll just give him the right to run roughshod over Wikipedia with bots just because he points out problems and is generally unpleasantly in-our-face about them? It's already old, and every time I see it, it just reinforces my poor opinion of Betacommand's collegiality. Jclemens (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Im not asking for anything myself, but rather that someone fix the major problem. I guess I'm one of the few people who remember the days before cascade protection, when it took 20 minutes to track down how on earth a penis or goatse image was placed on the main page. I would really rather not have a repeat of that. Yes I could whip up a bot that fixes it, but the community has stated they dont want that, and because I am not an administrator here on en.wp the odds of me getting access to an admin bot is below zero so Im not going to waste my time and even propose that. However if this is not fixed exactly what I fear will happen, its just a matter of time. Its just so frustrating because I have seen this happen multiple times, Ive tried trouting, lol cats, and saying nothing yet nothing changes and we continue to see the problem. ΔT The only constant 00:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Security through obscurity is never a good policy, so those people getting their knickers in a knot because someone raised a prevalent issue here need to focus on the issue and not who raised it and how. As for a bot that did this kind of thing, I'm all for bots doing admin tasks where it is demonstrated that admins are consistently incompetent at doing them, this is one such case.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC) I'm not advocating for security through obscurity. I'm advocating for fixing the problem. And then letting the problem be fixed. Ex-post-facto bitching about the fact that this had not been done isn't doing much to get it fixed, now is it? So perhaps someone needs to get creative in coming up with an alternate means of reducing this problem, because showing up and leaving a giant obnoxious fish picture doesn't seem to be working... --Jayron32 13:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Proposal I propose to let Betacommand write his bot in conjunction with another knowledgeable bot-op who will be given either administrative rights over the bot, or be responsible for overseeing and approving Beta's administration of the bot. This needs to be dealt with and people shooting the messenger is no closer to the solution than the giant fish. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

User: 109.78.198.253

Resolved

 – Blocked. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Not really a big deal, but this IP appeared recently at 2 User talkpages to say hello. The IP has indentified itself as the banned user Redking7. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Previously, the same banned editor used 84.203.65.99, on articles & article talkpages, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

MfD backlog

There is a growing backlog at MfD going all the way back into November 26 that need to be closed. —Farix (t | c) 14:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

And SFD has a major backlog, including one discussion from October. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

User:HelloAnnyong

Moved to WP:ANI § User:HelloAnnyong

 – GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Auto-blocking by default?

Currently, the default block settings will block IP addresses recently used by a blocked user (per the "Auto-block any IP addresses used" check box). I've recently encountered a number of cases where this lead to problems. As a result, I think we should discuss if we want to enable auto-blocking by default, and if we should give clearer guidelines on when and when not to use auto-blocking. On the one hand, auto-blocks can be very useful for dealing with generally disruptive users who are willing to sock to evade a block. But on the other hand, we have many users who get temporarily blocked due to minor infractions, and who accept the block, probably not happily, but with a reasonable degree of contentedness. Since more and more organizations use Firewalls and Network Address Translation, very often many legitimate users are behind an institutional IP used by a blocked user (think university, company, library). On the other hand, many residential users can get a brand-new IP-address via a reset of their DSL modem, so auto-blocks are not a sure-fire thing. I personally would suggest to avoid auto-blocking for established users who have no history of socking or block evasion. This may be achieved by changing the default on the block page, and/or by adding an appropriate explanation on that page. I'm happy to hear pros and cons. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

As I myself have probably caused innocent bystanders to be autoblocked due to recent fair blocks on my account and my dynamic IP address (I can "get a brand-new IP-address via a reset of their DSL modem"); I support this suggestion. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 22:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I think a simple clarification of policy that tells admins when and when not to enable autoblock would be fine. It doesn't matter if it's default as one can uncheck the box. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"It doesn't matter if the blinker is on by default, because the driver can always turn it off" ;-). Sorry, but this would make a large difference in practice. If there is a consensus that auto-blocking is the rare case, we should support this by this simple technical means. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I know, but I don't think it should be the rare case—we can always turn it off later if clicked by accident, but if we leave it off by accident, then we can't prevent the same person from continuing to vandalize. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Dedicated vandals and trolls will get around it either way, so I don't think that should enter into our thinking. What it will stop is the casual vandal who is willing to log out to continue vandalizing, which probably describes most of the vandals at Wikipedia. I agree that it should be left "on" by default, its likely to cause more problems by being left off than on. --Jayron32 16:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Per Jayron32. I presume that when the use of the block button was devolved to admins it had already been found that a blocked vandal account was likely to immediately "exact revenge" through disruptive editing via the ip, and thus it was decided to default to autoblock. A decent block notice on the user talkpage, which the auto block refers to, will advise the non disruptive ip editor what the situation is. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. At one point, I experimented with unchecking the autoblock button when blocking vandals. It became quickly apparent that the common response was just continuation of the same vandalism from an IP address. So I think the autoblock button should be on by default. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that we should have a CheckUser bot keep track of which IP ranges have this problem (I don't think that giving the community a general picture of "127.0.0.0/16 has 2000 IPs autoblocked" would be a violation of anyone's privacy), and add them to MediaWiki:Autoblock whitelist. Beyond that, I think that all blocks except for AGF usernames, role accounts and malfunctioning approved bots should be autoblocked.

I don't think a CU bot would ever be approved. Too risky, marginal benefits. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

UAA

Resolved

 – Cleared, twice now. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There's a bit of a backlog at WP:UAA, if an admin familiar with the intricacies of the username policy would like to get block some of the vios. Thanks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Cleared (mostly). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 23:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; it's now built up again, if someone would like to take a look. Doesn't really require an admin though; I don't want to unilaterally remove a horde of reports, but there are many added in quick succession which are unactionable. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

 Sorted GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

New account making null edits?

Boi O Death (talk · contribs) just popped up on my watchlist; seems to be making null edits. Could be a vandal account trying to get past some tresholds...? Or could be something innocent... I haven't seen anything similar. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This looks like it may possibly be a user who thinks that one becomes "Autoconfirmed" by doing enough edits, and not knowing that he would also need to have 4 days. Note that his may not be only som,ething a vandal would do - some of the reasons for creating an account listed at Wikipedia:Why create an account? require a user to be autoconfirmed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Notify the discussed user anyone? DuncanHill (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

User has been notified here. Jarkeld (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, Making null edits is not a violation of policy, there are several reasons for doing that, so AGF, even if the user is just doing it to get autoconfirmed there are reasons for wanting that other than to vandalise or similar. Secondly, it's not exactly nice to tell a new user that they're already being discussed on the admins board, it slaps of WP:BITE in that it's not exactly welcoming and may deter the user. In this instance the proper course of action would have been to sit back and keep an eye on the user yourself, I hope you are capable of that, and then report to ANI/AIV if and when the user does become an issue. Until such a time there is nothing no one can do here. Case closed.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 14:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Since I was not familiar with a case like this, I wanted to bring it here and ask for advice from active admins who I assumed may be more familiar with such cases. I don't see myself suggesting a block or anything like that, so BITE hardly applies - other then, apparently, in being bitten for daring to ask a question here. Next time I'll consider the benefits of stumbling in the dark or doing nothing instead of seeking advice. PS. Thanks to Od Mishehu in particular for giving useful advice. As far as I am concerned, that should've been the end of this matter. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I believe they're not null edits (which would not be recorded in the articles' histories or in the account's contributions) but dummy edits. The last two of his edits at the time of my writing this—and presumably all the other edits as well—involved adding unnecessary additional word spaces, between the first two sentences of the section here and between "c." and "1915" here (the changes don't show up in the diffs; one has to look at the edit windows for the versions before and after the edits). Although the changes may be minimal, it would be interesting to know what the person thinks he's doing. Deor (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Although I see this was somewhat settled by Promethean a couple posts ago, I felt that I should at least acknowledge and respond to the charges by which Piotrus is persecuting me. I just want to know if what I was doing is a crime, and if so, I will halt my actions immediately. And if not (and even if so), I would like that you please contact me of my actions or any other grievances you have toward me privately before you attempt to grab a pitchfork-wielding mob to crucify me. Thanks in advance! Boi O Death (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

For starters you're screwing peoples watchlists up. Real edits are being hidden from your null edits. I think it'd be a good idea to stop...RxS (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

"persecuting", "crime", "pitchfork-wielding mob", "crucify"? Sounds like somebody is overreacting. Do I hear quacking? Yworo (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I ask if that was a necessary post that contributed at all to this discussion, Yworo? It just so happens that that is the way I talk. And excuse me if I may seem a tad paranoid, but I have already been attacked by multiple people, as it seems (which includes you). Boi O Death (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

So are you going to tell us why you're scattering isolated spaces about in an indiscriminate manner? Deor (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to keep this discussion going, so unless there is something substantive on which I can comment, I am going to ignore this - and I suggest you all do the same. Boi O Death (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Substantive... how about answering Deor's question above? @Yworo: I think I am hearing it, too... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, according to what I have always been taught, it is right and proper to add two spaces when following periods. Nothing more, nothing less. So please, just let me be on my way to editing more grammar and spelling mistakes, and I will stop my space-adding. Boi O Death (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

If you put a double space, the MediaWiki software will trim it back to one space. See MOS#Spaces following terminal punctuation. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:MOS#Spaces_following_terminal_punctuation. Although in proportional typesetting, for decades, only one space has been used (not two spaces), the wiki software treats two or one spaces as only one space when rendering a page. There is no reason at all for adding two spaces to terminal punctuation on Wikipedia. Two spaces is mostly a leftover from the days of typewriters, most of which used non-proportional characters. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Boi, you are more than welcome to help with copyediting the Wikipedia, but as Gwen mentions above, familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia:Manual of style would be helpful. I'd also suggest you check the guides and activities of projects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. Well-meaning but misguided actions can lead to discussions such as the ones here. Lastly, please avoid personal attacks - check out policies such as WP:AGF and WP:CIV. And good luck with your future copyedits, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You're a couple decades out of date. While it used to be two spaces in the days of typewriters, there's no reason for it in the computer age, where fonts can vary so widely. A single space is all that you need after a period. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Please could an uninvolved administrator re-close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada–Tonga relations

Resolved

Please also be aware of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 19 in re-closing.—S Marshall T/C 12:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have deleted it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, Spartaz.  :)—S Marshall T/C 12:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested edits

Please help Can someone create Talk:Academy_of_Public_Administration_(Belarus) and add {{WikiProject Belarus}}? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Quick note about the banners

Just posting this here so that admins, who may be asked, are aware: Today, I had the fundraising banners disabled for logged in users. This was a data-driven decision: it became clear that those logged in users who wished to contribute already had, and those that hadn't yet probably knew how to. With that in mind, the banners are now running to anonymous users only. This state will continue until around January 1, when we'll turn them back on for everyone for the final push of the campaign. As always, more information is available at m:FR2010 or by emailing me directly (philippewikimedia.org). Thanks for your work, everyone.

Note: this decision only applies to users who are not in an area that is running chapter selected banners. Chapters control messaging within their areas, and some of them are continuing to use banners, as is their privilege. I know that they're all making smart decisions based on their financial needs. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 11:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Islamic views

Resolved

 – Closing and redirecting per discussion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved admin please take a quick look at User talk:Someone65, User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Dealing with the articles of Islam, User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Consents, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic view of Sarah and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic view of Cain and Abel. It's not as bad as all those links make it look and differences would not help except for this. Also the Islamic view of Elizabeth was PRODDED, removed, re-added and then removed. This is something that started out poorly but the two editors are discussing this in a civil manner and seem to have come to an agreement on what should be done. I think the AfD for Islamic view of Sarah could be closed but I'm a bit too involved to do it myself. Someone65 knows I'm posting here and I'll let Imadjafar know as well. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 11:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

We have agreed to merge all the articles that include are based on hadith and not Quran. All the rest will be deleted; so stand by for a few more deletions. Someone65 (talk) 11:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I hope you have seen the new page, dealing with all the figures. We have come to the agreement.--Imadjafar (talk) 12:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist's editorial role on Signpost

irrelevant to this page; Rodhullandemu 02:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ncmvocalist included a summary of the lifting of my topic ban in WP:ARBR&I which appeared to be designed to cause offense. He himself had actively attempted to block the lifting of the topic ban by extensive lobbying on Newyorkbrad's talk page.[62] On Signpost he wrote a biased report making apparent a personal grudge he appears to have against me, expressed unequivocally on Newyorkbrad's talk page. Signpost is not the place for Ncmvocalist to continue his petty disputes. If he cannot maintain objectivity, perhaps it might be time for him to relinquish his editing of Signpost. Mathsci (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC) To be honest, I don't see much bias in this version, which seems to be Ncmvocalist's most recent version. I see a good deal of irrelevant fluff, but not so much a POV. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 19:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC) I can't immediately find anything wrong with that specific report, although I haven't followed the case. It's unnecessarily verbose, but not patently biased. But in general terms, I would have thought it to be a matter of basic ethics that one should not write Signpost articles about conduct disputes in which one is personally involved or about which one has expressed a strong opinion elsewhere.  Sandstein  23:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC) I'm just wondering what this thread is doing here anyway; admins act on breaches of policy and have no editorial control over the Signpost. I see no breach of policy here, and unless it's changed recently, the top of this page clearly states "This is not the complaints department". Therefore, I'm proposing closure as off-topic. Rodhullandemu 00:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Shouldn't Ncmvocalist have been notified about this complaint? This page also states, "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion." --Captain Occam (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC) I've notified, but I see from his Talk page that there is previous discussion. However, I maintain that this does not belong here, and Mathsci seems to be taking a break. Well, hot dog! Rodhullandemu 00:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Self-reverting and topic bans

It is my understanding that when a user violates 3RR or 1RR, and self-reverts immediately, it is treated as a good-faithed mistake and gives no reason to block (or report). What about a situation where a user under a topic ban violates it, then immediately self-reverts? Could and should we treat it is a topic ban violation (punishd by a block), or is the self-revert enough to treat it as a good-faithed mistake with no action required? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I consider self reverts which are timely and unilateral to be not normally counted toward 3RR (or less where agreed) or topic bans unless they are obviously part of a disruptive pattern. If an editor is topic banned I may also consider a self reverted edit to the main article to be disruptive, unlike to an article which may be considered peripheral to the ban - the topic banned editor should know that they cannot edit one of the main pages. Except for fairly obvious gaming of restrictions it is likely less disruptive not to enforce any self reverted violation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

An occasional slip-up followed by an immediate self-revert is likely OK. If, however, a user is doing this dozens or hundreds of times, something is up... --Jayron32 22:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with both of the above. This (last thread on the page) is a recent case of an editor self-reverting to game the system and copping a firm sanction. It all depends on the circumstances.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

"Use common sense" is the essence of IAR, is it not? Jclemens (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with everyone above. Self-reverts can be used to cure unintentional xRR or topic ban violations; knowingly violating a xRR rule or a topic ban is always blockable. One particularly clear example of the latter is this case. T. Canens (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree.  Sandstein  20:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

How does one "Accidentally" violate a topic ban? I was just reading that page and my mouse slipped and hit the edit button. Then I tripped and as I was falling I hit the keyboard and typed all that content. As I struggled to my feet I was pawing at the desk and the mouse came down and hit save.--Crossmr (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

↑ Best conjecture ever – Athaenara ✉ 05:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

If one is topic banned from the area of edit conflict A/B because of partisan editing to the B aspect, it might be possible to edit article Z in good faith without initially realising its connection to A? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC) ps. I would thank you not to advertise my content editing method, either.

How about accidentally hitting a rollback button instead of a diff on a watchlist? I know I do it every few months, at the very least :) Or how about when you are doing some wikignoming, like AutoEd or article quality assessment on a new article feed or a category, and around article 250 you realize that one of those you just did might have intersected with the blurry boundary of a poorly-defined topic ban? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between accidentally clicking two buttons side-by-side and banging out content on an article you're banned from. I would say the onus is on the person who is topic banned to be fully aware of the articles they're banned from and if anything is fuzzy seek clarification before editing a particular article. Other than vandalism there is nothing that is an emergency that requires they edit it that moment if there is any ambiguity.--Crossmr (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Smileys and Co.

Hello, there is a user Drinas who is massively editing only « smileys » and « emoticons ». Also on commons and WP-fr (didn't check more). For what I know, he really look like a payed POV-pusher of some sort about copyright of Smiley. I don't have much time look at all his edits. Can I have help of some administrator to make sur all his claims are purely verifiables and not controversial ? plz.

I just did the same message on commons. Iluvalar (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Not only did you sent them to the wrong noticeboard but you never tried to sort anything out with them. Try talking to them and see if you can work something out and figure out their motive to their actions. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I just did what the banner was telling me ({{subst:AN-notice}}). I don't have that much time so I might not "try" what you are asking me. Iluvalar (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, it appears like you might have used the ANI banner by accident. No harm done as I'll go correct that right now. I might engage them later tonight but there does appear to be an issue going on here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

They are trying to claim that smiley face images are copyright on Commons, I've reverted this and pointed them to sources that suggest that such a trivial image cannot be copyright protected. Trademark is another matter. This user does seem to be pushing the "Loufrani" line on this. Also see a recently created semi-ad for Nicolas Loufrani by another user. Fences&Windows 02:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Smackbot and Rich Farmbrough

Resolved

 – SmackBot (talk · contribs) unblocked by Magioladitis (talk · contribs). HeyMid (contribs) 12:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• SmackBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

SmackBot, operated by Rich Farmbrough, was blocked on 8 December 2010 by MSGJ (talk · contribs) for the reason: "bot breaking editing restriction, and operator not responding to concerns". Rich Farmbrough has since requested the unblock of his bot, but the two admins who have commented on the bot talk page have noted that the unblock request does not make clear what exactly the problem was and how it has now been addressed. I agree and submit the unblock request to the community for review, in the hope that more knowledgeable people can make sense of it.

In addition, the bot-like edits and edit summaries made by Rich Farmbrough recently ("... build 590: using AWB") are so similar to those of SmackBot ("... build 582") as to make me wonder whether Rich Farmbrough is not evading the block of his bot by operating the bot on his own account, which is prohibited per WP:EVADE. I have asked him to comment about all of this here.  Sandstein  12:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Since the block was vague (and the notice to me buried in the middle of a thread) it is difficult to respond to it precisely. However rules such as

Code hatted to prevent page from extending several inches to the right off screen.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
<Replacement> <Find>{{\s*(Citation[ _]+needed|Facts|Citeneeded|Citationneeded|Cite[ _]+needed|Cite-needed|Citation[ _]+required|Uncited|Cn|Needs[ _]+citation|Reference[ _]+needed|Citation-needed|An|Sourceme|OS[ _]+cite[ _]+needed|Refneeded|Source[ _]+needed|Citation[ _]+missing|FACT|Cite[ _]+missing|Citation[ _]+Needed|Proveit|CN|Source\?|Fact|Refplease|Needcite|Cite[ _]+ref[ _]+pls|Needsref|Ref\?|Citationeeded|Bollocks|Are[ _]+you[ _]+sure\?|Citesource|Cite[ _]+source) *([\|}\n])</Find> <Replace>{{Citation needed$2</Replace> <Comment /> <IsRegex>true</IsRegex> <Enabled>true</Enabled> <Minor>false</Minor> <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions> </Replacement> have been replaced with <Replacement> <Find>{{\s*(dummytemplatename|[Ff]acts|[Cc]iteneeded|[Cc]itationneeded|[Cc]ite[ _]+needed|[Cc]ite-needed|[Cc]itation[ _]+required|[Uu]ncited|[Cc]n|[Nn]eeds[ _]+citation|[Rr]eference[ _]+needed|[Cc]itation-needed|[Aa]n|[Ss]ourceme|[Rr]efneeded|[Ss]ource[ _]+needed|[Cc]itation[ _]+missing|[Ff]ACT|[Cc]ite[ _]+missing|[Cc]itation[ _]+Needed|[Pp]roveit|[Cc]N|[Ss]ource\?|[Ff]act|[Rr]efplease|[Nn]eedcite|[Nn]eedsref|[Rr]ef\?|[Cc]itationeeded|[Aa]re[ _]+you[ _]+sure\?|[Cc]itesource|[Cc]ite[ _]+source|[Cc]itation[ _]+requested) *([\|}\n])</Find> <Replace>{{Citation needed$2</Replace> <Comment /> <IsRegex>true</IsRegex> <Enabled>true</Enabled> <Minor>true</Minor> <RegularExpressionOptions /> </Replacement>

Rich Farmbrough, 21:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC).

• Not this again. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 13:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
• I understand the unblock reason and I think the block is not necessary anymore since the new build doesn't unnecessarily capitalise {{reflist}}, etc. I think the problem with the 2 unblock admins was that there were unable to understand what's going on. I am willing to unblock SmackBot in the next few hours. I already contacted the blocking admin but I had no response. I did some steps to reduce the work of SmackBot by requesting AnomieBot to do part of/the whole of date tagging which seems to be the task causing the problem. Moreover, new version of AWB provides better handling of dated tags by correcting common errors. AWB bots and AWB based bots can use this function now. We also disactivated older versions that had bugs in general fixes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
• How many times does RF and his automated editing need to be brought up here before someone finally says enough is enough? I propose that RF simply be banned from automated edits; use Betacommand's old restrictions as a template. End of problem, end of nearly biweekly threads about the problem. → ROUX ₪ 14:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, there was no strong reason to bring this matter here and in fact the discussion is not about SmackBot's edits but whether blocking reason and unblock request re clear enough. I agree with the admins who tried to examine the unblock request that both should be clearer. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you have a few hours on your hands, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Rich_Farmbrough/October_2010#Edit_restriction_proposal_for_Rich_Farmbrough (I just noticed that you actually commented in that discussion, don't know how closely you followed it) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. (I don't recall me participating in this discussion and I can't find my name in there). -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I edit conflicted with you, was intended to be directed at roux - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Curious how ROUX is always there at AN or ANI to comment negatively, whether this is reserved for me, or is just his habit I neither no nor care, I merely observe and comment. Rich Farmbrough, 19:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC).

Actually, that was my first edit to AN or ANI since 6 November. Oh well, facts, who needs 'em when hyperbole will do? → ROUX ₪ 23:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah so it's just AN/ANI realted to me then? Rich Farmbrough, 23:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC).

• (edit conflict)x2 As I read it, SmackBot would still be editing contrary to the restrictions, as it will still be changing template capitalisation (but only when it's dating the template). I find it difficult to really care about that, tbh. Although I find it frustrating that Rich still seems to be unable to explain what's going on clearly (as apparent by uninvolved admins not understanding what his unblock request really meant). FYI, Rich's restrictions are found here. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
• I think that the reason for the block has been addressed and Smackbot should be allowed to continue editing. The block reasoning was weak to begin with. --Kumioko (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • IMO many of the blocks (but not all I admit) were based on things that Rich and Smackbot didn't have control over such as other bots or editors fixing the things that smackbot normally did (because it had been down for so long), causing the bot to make a null edit. If we let the bot go we have to give it a little time to catch up before we block it again. If it blanks a page or adds a bunch of crud thats one thing but a couple of blanks while it plays catchup isn't going to kill us. If this bot isn't reinstated then we need to develop a plan to split up the multitudes of things that Smackbot did and get other bots to do them or create new bots to do them. If there are any takers on taking on the responsibilities of Smackbot who think that there is a better way or they can do it better heres your chance to shine. --Kumioko (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• As I was the admin who blocked this bot I have been asked to comment here. The bot was certainly infringing the editing restrictions imposed on its operator; more importantly the operator was not responding to concerns within a reasonable time. That's why I blocked the bot. Looking at the wider picture, this is a bot which frequently malfunctions and seems to have a high ratio of errors. It has been blocked many times in the past; each time it is unblocked on the understanding that the problems were fixed, and each time it malfunctions again. Therefore any temptation I might have to unblock is tempered by my doubt that the issues will be resolved. The current unblock request does not inspire much confidence (although the humour was appreciated). Personally, before unblocking, I would like to see some comments from other editors who have been involved with Rich/SmackBot recently, e.g. (Rd232, Fram, Sladen, etc, and I think an early unblock would be inadvisable. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand your block was made while the bot was not editing, and within 3 hours of a comment left on my talk page. Boradly speaking:

• 00:08 last edit
• 08:00 comment left
• 11:00 block for not responding

Secondly we are not talking here about "malfunctions" in the sense that it creates errors on the page. Simply a small percentage of edits (approximately a half a percent historically - i.e. until, let us say, the ANI/I that sparked this in September) which happened for any one of a dozen reasons not to date a tag.

Thirdly, almost all the previous blocks (previous to September)were from an SPA, and most of the rest were in error.

Fourthly I wonder what is meant by "an early unblock" - since an "early block" was imposed in 3 hours of a comment, 2 weeks for an unblock does not seem "early". How the "earliness" affects anything is a mystery anyway. perhaps SmackBot is meant to feel chastised? Rich Farmbrough, 22:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC).

Rich, your quoted times are rather misleading if I may say so. The first concern was raised more than 24 (not 3) hours before this and you were editing in between which means you had time to respond. Buy "early" I mean before consensus develops on this page for the appropriate strategy, and we are not there yet. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the long-term pattern of malfunctions is the main issue to think about before unblocking. The malfunctions also make the block evasion that Sandstein pointed above out more problematic: R.F. often runs the bot on his main account when it is blocked on its own account.

I think that we need to look at a more comprehensive solution, rather than continuing with a pattern of block/unblock/reblock that hasn't been working. My suggestion would be:

1. A tighter edit restriction that R.F. is not permitted to use AWB from his main account. This is motivated by the continuing block evasion in which he runs SmackBot AWB under his main username, and by the ongoing violations of the previous edit restriction that R.F. makes using AWB ([63]).
2. SmackBot's tasks need to be divided up to separate bot accounts, e.g. User:SmackBot 1, each with a single clearly-stated task. The huge list of tasks given on User:SmackBot makes it very difficult to tell whether edits are working correctly, or even whether they have bot approval.

— Carl (CBM · talk) 22:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I guess this is in response to Fram, I have not read most of Fram's comments in that thread and have no intention of doing so. Fram's contribution to these discussions has seemed wholly negative and I would in fact challenge the characterisation "contribution". Rich Farmbrough, 22:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC).

The benefit of making many fixes at the same time is to reduce the load on the servers, the noise on the watchlist etc. I would suggest you simply evaluate an edit by establishing whether it does harm. If it does tell me. Easy? Rich Farmbrough, 22:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC).

I agree with point 1: Rich not to use AWB on his main account (non-Smackbot tasks can be on a different alternate account, but Smackbot-like tasks shouldn't be done while Smackbot is blocked). Point 2 seems to me like it would make Smackbot vastly less efficient. One thing I wonder about is whether it wouldn't be better to just take a completely different approach; at the moment Smackbot is basically AWB; maybe it would be better if it were done in perl. At any rate, transparency about the regex or coding helps. Generally, I'm willing to unblock and give Rich another chance to sort this out; but if the problems recur, I'm not sure I'd give another without something else happening, eg Rich cooperating with someone on the task. Rd232 ^talk 22:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I strongly support both of Carl's proposals. I believe one of the main problems, and the reason that Rich has been unable to fix SmackBot up till now, is because of the complexity of the code. It needs to be simplifed and broken down, and each separate task needs to be reevaluated. Splitting up the accounts may be slightly less efficient but would be worth it for the gain in accountability. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

recoding in perl is something I am looking at, and would frankly be pretty much done (as would much else) without all this bureaucratic diversion. The tail, here is firmly wagging the dog of an issue long long resolved. Rich Farmbrough, 00:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC).

I know nothing about bots and coding, and can't understand the bunch of code posted by Rich Farmbrough above. I am however concerned that he hasn't explained in a clear and nontechnical manner what changes he has made to his bot in order to address any perceived problems. On that basis, I agree with point 1 of the proposal above and think it is prudent to keep the block in place until it is clear to all of us what the bot was doing wrong and what it will no longer do wrong. In addition, Rich Farmbrough risks being blocked for block evasion if he makes bot edits, as he continues to do, while his bot remains blocked.  Sandstein  23:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

That particular "code" change by Rich above doesn't really seem to be that helpful. Although it does add and remove a few templates that the bot identifies (e.g. remove Template:Bollocks), which is helpful. Other than that it just seems to make so that the bot doesn't pick up every casing of the template (e.g. it will pick up Cn but not CN) but it does pick up on either case for the FIRST character in each template (e.g. it will pick up both cn and Cn). The problem? Well it doesn't change what the bot replaces the template with, it will still always end up replacing with Citation needed (using an uppercase C). So for example, both Citation needed and citation needed will still end up being Citation needed... As far as I can tell anyway. Sorry if that isn't all that clear - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it won't/ because the list does not include "Citation needed" itself. Once upon a time it did, thus picking up typos like CItation needed. ... The fix of removing the template itself, however did not work for items where there was a redirect like "Citation Needed". For that you need to search case sensitively for "[Cc]itation Needed". That is what this does, and I was reluctant to do it because of the added complexity, but in fact it turned out to be relatively easy to implement. Rich Farmbrough, 23:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC).

Eh, my example was indeed faulty, what I mean is the text which the bot replaces the template with isn't changes by what was previously used, so it's pretty much useless, because all it changes is what the bot replaces, not what it replaces it WITH. So for example, both cN and Cn will be replaced with the same thing. Anyway, I don't quite see the point of this particular rule..? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes but it was the replacement of {{citation needed}} with {{Citation needed}} that was being complained about. The point of the rule is to change the indefinite number of (grmmatically and syntactically correct) variations of the citation needed template to a canonical one. By doing this in one step, subsequent rules can be massively simplified, the rule that deals with mis-spellings of November, for example, need only apply to relatively few templates, rather than thousands, and does not need to legislate for things like {{_ : Template _ _ _ : ___ _ citation _ _ Needed _ _}} which is perfectly correct wikisyntax. Rich Farmbrough, 00:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC).

But there were also complaints about bypassing redirects, which this would do, correct? If you want to just use one "canonical" template, you need to get community consensus to do so, rather than just using a bot/AWB to impose your preference upon others. I note your restrictions state "prior to orphaning/emptying and deleting categories or templates, the appropriate processes (WP:CFD/WP:TFD) should be engaged". If this has been done already please point it out, otherwise you need to go through RfD/TfD before you start bypassing template redirects (in general, dunno about this specific case). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes the only redirects replaced are those allowed by the editing restriction, I.E. those which standard AWB replaces or those replaced under a BRFA. And please note that this does not by any means orphan those redirects, some of which (possibly most of which, I haven't counted) I would be in favour of keeping even if they were orphaned. Rich Farmbrough, 11:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC).

A summary of reasons

1. The rulebase scales in number of rules more like O(t) instead of O(t2) 2. Some templates were specifically moved because the old name was considered unsatisfactory (Fact -> Citation needed for example) to use in wiki-code. This resolves that issue. 3. Some redirects are typo catchers. This resolves that issue. 4. Some redirects are cryptic shortcuts (wfy, cn, dl, uncat, unref, EB, VC, VS spring to mind). This resolves that issue. 5. People learn templates through seeing them in source - if they "only" have 570 clean up templates to see, rather than 2000 this makes learning about them easier. 6. It helps free up redirects, which are sometimes re-purposed. Rich Farmbrough, 00:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC).

• The edits I am making are using a different ruleset than SmackBot has used, and one designed to change the behaviour in a way cromulent to the complaints. There is no reason that I (or anyone) should not use this ruleset manually. The block on the bot is based on two things, 1. behaviour that is not occurring with these manual edits, and 2. response time on my talk page. neither are reasons i should not make these edits manually, moreover, I am not supposed to make manual edits on the bot account (although that does happen).
• The rules I posted are for clarification, since my previous explanation "Will not change the capitalization of tags it is not dating" was said not to be specific enough.

Rich Farmbrough, 23:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC).

OK. Unblocking and testing is the only way to do this. Since most of the dated tags get tagged by other bots anyway I fail to see the drama here. The discussion can be kept open but this is not a good reason to keep SmackBot grounded. The whole thing loses the idea of "automated" edits". We have a bot running and 7 people watching it! I'll unblock and I suggest Rich to use more of the build-in functions of AWB. We now provide much more tools for the scope of dating. I also suggest not to double run with AnomieBot which seems to make clearer edits (even if it should be bypassing some redirects to make wikitext easier to read and help us avoid more drama). -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I unblocked SmackBot for reasons explained in Smackbot's talk page. This doesn't mean the discussion on the matter should stop. To blocking admins: Feel free to reblock if you are not satisfied with my action. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Help closing a discussion

Resolved

--Mike Cline (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there "a technically-competent, fair-minded administrator who hasn't been previously involved with Ahnentafels or genealogy" who can help close the discussion on Template talk:Ahnentafel top/Requested Comments 1? It's been going on for five months and there is no more new opinion to be made on this issue.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary

Since admins can now remove individual edits, perhaps someone can remove one recent edit summary and while you're at it perhaps also this advertisement. Thanks a lot Hekerui (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done Nakon 16:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Need some help with AFD

Hey guys, I goofed up in the AFD nomination process, and could use some help. I tried to nominate The Savior's Alliance for Lifting the Truth and Rich Iott, and like a dumbass, thought I'd double up on step three, listing the two rather than opening the AFD log and adding, saving, then repeating. The result has been to somehow entangle the two nominations into one. Both are displayed in the source of AFD, but the texts for both—without the headers for the second—appear under one entry on the page itself. I don't want to make even more of a mess by trying to untangle it myself, so I'm here to beg some assistance in extricating the two.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

On it, let me see what I can do here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done. The Savior's Alliance was missing headings, so it fell into the debate above it - which, by coincidence, was also yours. Both articles link to the correct debates, both debates are properly formatted, and both appear separately in the text and TOC of today's log. You're all set. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thankyou very much! :) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Administrative attention needed

Although it's understandable that no administrators would want to wade into the this acrimonious dispute at AN/I, I believe that I've uncovered a serious case of abusive sockpuppetry and sneaky vandalism. The assistance of an administrator would be appreciated. Chester Markel (talk) 04:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Buckshot06

Administrator:Buckshot06 acted one sidedly, and deleted Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre, Garadaghly Massacre, Agdaban massacre without contributing ongoing discussion. It clearly shows his poor dispute resolution abilities. He should simply stay away ethnic conflict and war crimes related pages.--CenkX (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The proper place to address this is WP:DRV. You could also take up the matter with the administrator on their talk page. --Jayron32 06:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, reviewing the deleted articles, it does appear that they were deleted out of process. I have notified Buckshot06 of this discussion. It still may be better to take this to WP:DRV, but since this is here, lets see what their response it. --Jayron32 06:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi all. The discussion and the original issue can be viewed at User talk:Buckshot06#New section, including the original request by User:MarshallBagramyan. The question at issue was whether the articles asserted that the massacres did take place without any question, or, whether they should reflect ambiguity over whether the incidents had taken place in the manner described. Not being able to read all the language refs provided (I don't speak Azeri or Armenian), I had to follow the English and what I could of the Russian, and decided that the articles did in fact posit the events had taken place, while they should have only been describing allegations. Therefore, I decided to delete the articles in accordance with WP:IAR so that better redrafting could take place.

Since then I've been attacked by what appear to be a number of nationalistic POV-pushers. Yet they do have a point; I probably should have sent the articles to a deletion debate instead. I would welcome attacks over potential misuse of process, but I am annoyed by those who imply a New Zealander is taking the 'wrong' view in a Azeri-Armenian dispute. Regards to all Buckshot06 (talk) 06:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Buckshot06, I'm not nationalist, I intend to attack nobody. Please stop trying to make ridiculous excuses. It doesn't matter where you are from, you're an administrator here. Keep this in your mind when you take part in discussions. I seriously demand banning of Buckshot from ethnic related issues.--CenkX (talk) 07:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I seriously demand banning of Buckshot from ethnic related issues. Pedantic comments like this don't seem to help out at all. Being upset with edits is one thing, but to call for a summary banning of an administrator seems to show that the same restraint and understanding that the above user is demanding for does not apply to those who he interacts with. Just to add my two cents: while I do not wish to comment on Buckshot's actions, the sources he was looking at most probably did not inspire much confidence in their reliability. When almost every single source was originating from one side and presenting it in such a slanted manner and making non-academic and liberal use of the words "Armenian terrorists" (e.g., here) and republishing century-old racist tracts ("Armenians' morbid ambitions and vanity", etc.), one clearly sees why the articles were deleted in the first place.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Marshall, excuse my tone, but we are not discussing my personality here. You say you don't wish to comment Buckshot's actions, then I kindly suggest you not to write here. Because here, I put his objectivity in question, his ability to bear administrator's responsibilities. Although the source I added to article was Human Watch report, a full English, reliable source, edited in US, I do not wish to discuss it now. Nor I want to discuss Azerigenocide.org's words, cause the article is deleted. --CenkX (talk) 08:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Given how sensitive the topic of Azerbaijani-Armenian issues is and the fact that the articles concerned many living people, I think that Buckshot06's decision to get the articles off Wikipedia after making an assessment of their content based on the sources provided was the right one, particularly as the articles in effect identified (presumably) living individuals as being responsible for war crimes. If the articles weren't adequately supported by their sources and contained negative information about living people they needed to have been extensively re-written before they were suitable, and deletion pending this seems within the rules. I'd suggest that rather than AfD, posting a notification here of this unusual action and asking for other admins to have review the deletions would have been the best option. Nick-D (talk) 11:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Nick-D - we have restrictions on topics in this ethnic neighbourhood which, while unrelated to this spat, show how volatile the situation is. The comments by CenkX are well beyond the level of civility that we require on Wikipedia. It's one thing to request a review of an action, but his commentary in this section is a pretty disgusting way of trying to make a very poor WP:POINT. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The user CenkX was correct in notifying the board about Buckshot's actions. I personally commend Buckshot's work in Wikipedia in a whole range of articles, however as an administrator he abused his rights and deleted those three artciles with complete disregard to the editors who were involved in the discussion of tags added to the articles at the time. He abused his rights because he deleted those articles out of personal sympathy to the user MarshallBagramyan. Look at his responses on my page and Atabey's page. Looks like he based his judgement on a single thought that User MarshallBagramyan had raised some article to a certain level (?) So? Look at my contributions to Wikipedia and raising many articles to various levels, including those on the conflict. Does that mean any administrator has to go on deleting other articles out of sympathy and affection to me?! Those articles have to be restored, at least because two of them are supported by sources by human rights organizations and experts in the conflict. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, without interfering into civility debate, User:Buckshot06's selective treatment of user edits based on his personal interaction/impression is rather concerning:

• [64]. Note what he says referring to the leading A-A case ArbComs participant User:MarshallBagramyan: I am reasonably convinced of his trustworthness in regard to these type of articles. Because I've had relatively little interaction with you, I have not gained the same perception..

So User:Buckshot06 is establishing as a fact (his personal) trustworthiness of one A-A contributor to question another even longer-established user as an administrator. And this was User:Buckshot06's way of judging whether to remove article or not as well. Based on this judgment, he chose to remove Agdaban massacre article while keeping silent about the removal of Maraghar Massacre. I think Wikipedia administrators need to act more along the lines of WP:NPOV without interfering much their "personal impressions". Atabəy (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Uh, it's kind of a requirement for Admins to use their personal impressions when making judgement calls. Things aren't always black & white, so admins are called in to make a decision. When the facts themselves are in question, the reliability of the editor in question can sometimes be a helpful measure. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

...does this mean he went on a Massacre massacre? I regret nothing! HalfShadow 18:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well his "personal impression" of the contributor is his own business of course. But this does not seem quite neutral in case of articles Agdaban massacre vs. Maraghar Massacre. If he wants to remove massacre articles as not notable, then he should probably do that with other massacre articles that have questionable notability as well, not just those chosen by his "personal impression". Atabəy (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

In my understanding, the task of the administrator is to administer disputes and once the disputes are resolved or mediated to be resolved, action can be taken. Otherwise, this looks like pretty dictatorial to completely disregard a few editors out of personal affection towards one editor without even commenting on pages of those articles. Personal affections and sympathies can be shared in private communications and should not affect the work of other editors. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Might I be as so bold to inform the administrators who are now somewhat familiar with this issue to an article which the above two editors seem to be making a POINT by carrying out objectionable edits and adding questionable tags in probable reaction to Buckshot's decision?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the administrators should also look into why Agdaban massacre article with over dozen references was removed by supportive administrator User:Buckshot06 based on suggestion of prominent A-A Arbcoms' participant User:MarshallBagramyan claiming the lack of notability. Why is that Maraghar Massacre or Kirovabad Pogrom did not cause similar notability concern for either the suggesting editor or removing administrator (unless because they were massacres in opposite direction)?

Moreover, after reviewing Maraghar Massacre, I not only found the lack of notability but a clear fabrication of wording and pages from cited sources in this article. I did not make a point but rather clarified the wording from the cited sources exactly as they are presented. I did not remove any single source that was there before, the administrators are welcome to check my edits and question them on talk page.

And I would kindly suggest User:MarshallBagramyan to do the same, providing proofs that this article is notable, instead of WP:CANVAS on the issue, as he has already done here, here, as well as in this thread. Atabəy (talk) 02:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

So, you are admitting that your edits were done in retaliation for Buckshot's actions? I will turn to the Maragha Massacre article soon enough. And please re-read the definition of canvas - I have simply notified or been told to notify certain administrators who have some understanding of the issue. Your tacit admission for carrying out retaliatory edits would, in my mind, seem to be a concern for others, especially given the fact that you have been permabanned from editing several articles related to Armenia/Azerbaijan for some time now. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

AfD could be possible. But according to Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, it is impossible to open these topics as independent articles. Takabeg (talk) 07:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Buckshot's rationale for deleted the Agdaban massacre article was criterion for speedy deletion (CSD) G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP, and not anything to do with notability. This is one of the articles in which he states above where the sources didn't support the claims being made. This discussion and the posts on Buckshot's talk page seems to be demonstrating how heated this topic is and why precautionary deletions of the articles were justified. Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• I should think this deletion would probably be overturned at DRV.—S Marshall T/C 12:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes it would be overturned. Nick-D, the articles were clearly deleted out of personal affection to editor MarshallBagramyan who proposed the deletion in the first place and Buckshot just followed up. If deletions were to occur, the administrator could at least comment on the talk pages and make suggestions or notifications, but that never happened, let alone propose the deletion as per Wikipedia rules. The deletions occured in one-sided manner with disregard to editors who were actually discussing the issue at hand on the talk pages of the articles. This is not about the sources. Sources did support the text of the article. The Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre and Garadaghly Massacre articles were supported by third party sources from human rights organizations and experts in the conflict. Even Buckshot understands that the deletions occured out of process. Here is his good faith comment [65]. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think DRV would make any such finding. It would overturn on procedural grounds.—S Marshall T/C 17:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed there was no review of talk page discussion or voting to delete the page initiated by Buckshot06 prior to deleting it on the grounds of his view of "trustworthiness" of A-A case participant. Atabəy (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Atabəy has just asked me to undelete one of the articles at issue. As I explained to him, due to the reason for deletion and the BLP issues involved, I do not believe this is the correct approach. Should anyone wish to list these articles for WP:DRC, I will outline the situation there. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I presume that you meant WP:DRV? If so, I agree that taking the matter there would be the correct course of action if editors interested in the articles wish to follow up on this. Throwing unsubstantiated accusations of bad faith around here is rather unproductive. Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

If the administrators here opine that deletion was not procedurally correct, I am not sure why doesn't the administrator restore the article and follow that proper procedure, instead of another time-consuming process through DRV? Or is it a matter of principle now? Atabəy (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

To put it more plainly Atabəy: I do not believe that all the people in this discussion are acting in good faith. I do not wish to aid slanderous/biased/POV depictions of events by restoring articles which represent WP:Disruptive editing. In this case, I believe I would not be aiding the encyclopedia by recreating them, and thus IAR applies. Send it to DRV if you believe that they will be endorsed as accurate, NPOV descriptions of what happened in 1992-93. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Buckshot, let me remind you Wikipedia:Assume good faith: When doubt is cast on good faith, continue to assume good faith yourself where you can. Be civil and follow dispute resolution processes, rather than attacking editors or edit warring with them. I don't think anybody here will act uncivil manner. If you undo your delete, normal dispute resolution process will take place. No need to worry about afterwards. --CenkX (talk) 06:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing slanderous here, User:Buckshot06. The discussion is about your removal of Agdaban massacre article, not about yourself as a user. As determined above by administrator, deletion was done against formal procedure, hastily, amidst the discussion on talk page. So instead of engaging yourself in another edit conflict here, clearly defending unencyclopedic "killed by Azeris" (wow, whole nation killed them?) POV, it may be more useful if your restore the Agdaban massacre and other articles that you improperly deleted to close this thread. After that we may follow the proper procedure for deletion. I think stubbornness or ego over the matter, when deletion was clearly not handled properly, is not constructive for an administrator. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 23:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Relevant discussion is now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 24. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Revision deletion needed

The histories of the following articles contain copyright violations by Logger9 which were recently removed, as explained in edit summaries when the removals were conducted:

• Quartz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hurricane Ridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Biopolymer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Physics of glass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Strength of glass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The assistance of an administrator in deleting the copyvio revisions would be appreciated. Thank you. Chester Markel (talk) 16:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest using {{copyvio-revdel}} and letting an admin who patrols Category:Requested RD1 redactions process them. Flatscan (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Kebab move was incorrect

This move was incorrect because articles about kebab meat dishes use lower case "k" for kebab (eg, List of kebabs) and articles about restaurants having kebab in them use uppercase "K" for kebab (Hossein's Persian Kebab, Hossein's Persian Kebab, Kebab Norwegian). Can you use your advanced powers to move it back? TIA. Also, any shoutouts for kebabs will be welcome! -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I G6'ed Shami kebab for you, so you can move it back now. Seems uncontroversial enough, especially since the only thing stopping you from doing it yourself in the first place was a bot sorting redirects. Courcelles 17:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

G6. Thanks. I try to remember that for next time. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Labeled section transclusion's installation on this wiki,

Please see this bug report, and my reasons there for requesting installation. If you support, don't forget to vote it up.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 21:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Has this been discussed on-wiki at all? Or anywhere else other than bugzilla? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

While it would be a useful extension, you need to show consensus on the Wiki first, then go to BugZilla. In any case, I don't see why that extension shouldn't be enabled, but more comments are necessary. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No, this is the first I've brought it up on-wiki. Please discuss here and such.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 03:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't used this extension in any of the MW wikis I've run but it seems reasonable to use here. Count me as a thumbs-up from a community approval standpoint. (Disclaimer, Daedalus969 mentioned this to me while we were separately discussing one of my edits, which probably speeded up my noticing and commenting, but I read AN fairly often anyways... ) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I support sung this extension, but I'm not sure why this is at AN. VPT or VPR would be better, I'm guessing, for consensus? Although I foresee little opposition. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding a case request about User:YellowMonkey

Passed by a vote of 8-2 at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case:

The Arbitration Committee has considered the request for arbitration (filed 30 November 2010) concerning administrator actions by YellowMonkey, which followed a request for comment on similar issues (certified 23 November). Although YellowMonkey responded to the original issues raised in the request for comment, he has not edited since 24 November 2010 (six days before the arbitration request was filed) and has not yet been afforded the opportunity to address the new issues raised in the request for comment or in this arbitration request. Accordingly, the arbitration request is declined as premature, and those wishing to engage in dispute resolution on this matter (including YellowMonkey) are directed to the request for comment or other appropriate venues.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 21:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Large Page Move Backlog

Hi,

Could someone clear the backlog at WP:Requested moves? I've had a page move in backlog for almost 2 weeks that has not yet been acted on. Thanks! Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Current requests is up to date, only controversial requests has a backlog. Rich Farmbrough, 22:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC).

Fresh eyes needed please

Closed by Mjroots pending opening of an RFC

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

I'm in a dispute with an editor who is also a fellow admin. I'd rather not take the issue to ANI as I'm not looking for any administrative action to be taken against the editor in question, but would like some uninvolved opinion please.

BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) has nominated a large number of templates I created for deletion. In many cases, she removed entries from those templates before nominating them, thus the nominated templates had been "degraded". Said templates were also removed from articles before nomination.

There has been discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kent#Kent town and village templates and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kent#When to create navboxes for villages?, the templates nominated for deletion are at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 19.

By the way BHG grouped the nominations, it appeared that once a template had 5 bluelinks, there could possibly be justification to keep it. BHG states that this was not her intention. After I argued to keep certain templates, BHG has further degraded some of them, and removed them from more articles. There has been zero input from other editors, even after I stated that if any entry was objected to, then it should be raised on the talk page of the template in quesion. BHG has ignored this and carried on degrading the templates.

To my mind, it seems that BHG is using TfD to push her opinions forward. When there is one oppose and one support, the only possible result is "no consensus", which defaults to keep. Although he has not !voted in any of the TfDs, ClemRutter (talk · contribs) commented at WT:KENT Deletion seems to be a pointless and un-constructive activity. If templates are found to be useful by just one editor, and that helps to document this populous county then they are doing a good job. There are many jobs that need doing. These pointless TFD just waste good editors time as they are dragged from article creation into defending the template in the labrynthine world of the wiki-gnome. Give it a rest and do something useful like trying to pull all these villages to GA status.

From the time that the first template was nominated for deletion, I stopped creating new templates while the issues were dealt with, hoping that the community would give some guidance as the when a template would be sustainable and when it would not be. I put forward a proposal at WT:KENT, which BHG strongly opposed as premature. Again, there has been no further input from any other editor. Mjroots (talk) 05:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

BHG and Clem both notified of discussion. Mjroots (talk) 06:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Part of the discussion continued on my User page User talk:ClemRutter#Kent templates --ClemRutter (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a bit of a waste of time for WP:AN, particularly given that Mjroots has grossly misrepresented the discussions which have taken place so far. Mjroots has also enaged in partisanly selective notification of this post to AN, by failing to notify the involved editors who have explicitly disagreed with Mjroots.

In summary:

• Mjroots has created a large series of pointless navboxes, by relying on the essay WP:NBFILL, and appears not to have read the relevant guidelines WP:NAVBOX and WP:REDNOT
• Over 40 of these navboxes have been nominated at TFD, and in not one case has anyone other than Mjroots supported keeping any of them
• Apart from the !votes at TFD, 3 other editors have explicitly opposed Mjroots's use of the navboxes: User:PamD, User:Weakopedia and User:Ssilvers. Those editors should have been notified of this complaint.
• The comment by ClemRutter was not that the navboxes should be kept, but rather that it was too much hassle to delete them
• No other editor has supported Mjroots's creation of these navboxes for small villages, and no other editor has supported Mjroot's padding them out with links which breach WP:NAVBOX

Here's what happened.

I noticed that Mjroots was spamming barely-relevant templates onto some biographies on my watchlist. The first one was {{Tonbridge}}, which Mjroots applied to articles on people who were pupils of Tonbridge School. The discussion here led to the removal of those templates from those aticles.

I then noticed that Mjroots had applied a navbox for a small village to a biographical article to which it had minimal relevance. This was discussed on Mjroots talk page, when I noticed that there was more of this. The only editor who joined in the discussion was Weakopedia, who supported my view.[66] [67]

Along the way, we had another discussion of Mjroot's tenmplate-spamming, in relation to H. F. Stephens, in which Mjroots falsely accused me of "vandalism". Mjroots is an admin, and so should should be aware of WP:NOTVAND, and should not try to justify their actions in a content dispute by making unfounded allegations.

Mjroots then quite sensibly opened a centralised discussion at WT:KENT#Kent_town_and_village_templates, where one other editor (PamD) joined in and supported my view.[68][69][70]

I then took two of the templates to TfD, as a trial run: see KENT#First_one_at_TFD. Both templates were deleted (here and here), and User:Ssilvers posted to to WT:KENT to support my view

I then nominated many more of these teplates at TFD; see TfD Dec 19#Kent_villages_navboxes. So far, not even one editor other than Mjroots has advocated keeping any of these navboxes, whose existence mjroots justified at WT:KENT per the essay (and rejected guideline) WP:NBFILL. In subsequent discussions Mjroots has shown no sign of being aware of the existing guidelines at WP:REDNOT and WP:NAVBOX, and has repeatedly refused to engage with requests both at TFD and at WT:KENT to examine these navboxes in the light of WP:NAVBOX.

I have indeed removed from many of these navboxes articles which do not meet the criteria set out at WP:NAVBOX. In every case I have explicitly set out the remaining in detailed edit summaries. Where I have nominated at TFD a navbox from which I have removed the irrelevant links, I have explictly noted that in the nomination, but despite this Mjroots still falsely accused me here of doing so without acknowledgement.

Mjroots lists ClemRutter as a supporter, but ClemRutter's comment at WT:KENT was to oppose the deletions as a waste of time, rather than to support either the existence or the content of the navboxes. When I asked ClemRutter on Clem's talk whether zie believed that the links met the test set out in WP:NAVBOX, Clem answer was no, not yet.

So the real problem here is that Mjroots continues to follow the essay WP:NBFILL, and refuses to assess the navboxes against the guidelines WP:REDNOT and WP:NAVBOX.

Yet after all this discussion, and the complete absence of any support for Mroots view, Mjroots has lodged a complaint here which systematically misrepresents the discussions so far. That suggest to me that some further action may be needed. Is this an ANI issue, or should I opened an RFC/U on Mjroots? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

PS Note that the TFDs about which Mjroots complains include at least 4 navboxes-to-nowhere: 1 here and 3 here, which consist only of redlinks. Why does Mjroots does not help out by supporting speedy deletion of this pointless clutter rather than making silly complaints of misconduct against the editor who is trying to clear up the mess he has made? -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The notification of ClemRutter was entirely in accordance with {{Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard}} as I had mentioned him in the request I made for fresh eyes on the difference of opinion we have. I did not need to notify the other editors BHG mentions because I had not mentioned them in the post. They are quite capable of finding their way to TfD and commenting, as they have done in the past. WP:REDNOT is a guideline, which may be ignored. There are plenty of navboxes with redlinks. My justification for a redlinks is "would the target be able to sustain an article per GNG, V, RS etc". If yes, then a redlink is justified, and such redlink may promote article creation. WP:NAVBOX is an essay, which as a section headed "advantages", but no section headed "disadvantages". The advantages section links to WP:NBFILL.

BHG has continued to remove entries from templates, and templates from articles after I made my feelings over this known to her. My approach would have been to have left the templates as created and places whilst discussing them at TfD. Any individual entries that were objected to would have been raised on the talk page of that template, and discussed there.

As to the deletion of templates, I've not objected to the deletion of the smaller templates. They were created for the sake of completeness, but if we can establish a threshold by consensus then they would almost certainly fall below such a threshold. My preference would be that all templates are kept, but it's not such a big issue if they go.

My addition of the templates to articles linked on those templates was not, IMHO, spamming but merely standard practice where all articles on the template have the template on the article. Some navboxes contain lots of entries to closely linked subjects, such as {{Empire A ships}}, whereas with the Kent navboxes, the common link is the locality to which all entries have a connection to. I have also been accused of adding unreferenced info to articles by adding templates to articles. By adding the template, I have do no such thing. All entries on a template were found either directly linked from the locality in question, or they linked from the target back to the locality. If both articles did not contain the same info, that is not my fault nor my responsibility.

So please, can we get back to the original reason for my posting here, some fresh eyes on the situation, opinions voiced, and perhaps some consensus as to when a navbox can be justified and when it cannot. Mjroots (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You're still at it. :(

1. You misrepresented the discussions so far, by falsely claiming that there was only one other involved editor, and notified only that one. That's a skewing of the discussion.
2. You still don't acknowledge that your desire to populate your village templates with people has already been explicitly opposed by the three other editors who have commented on it. Your failure to acknowledge this makes your complaint here look like forum-shopping
3. You deny spamming, by claiming that you were trying to ensure that "all articles on the template have the template on the article". That ignores your spamming of {{Tonbridge}} onto dozens of articles which didn't meet even that minimal test, and it continues to ignore the objections expressed by 4 editors to your inclusion of people into village templates
4. You complain that "BHG has continued to remove entries from templates, and templates from articles after I made my feelings over this known to her" ... but again you don't acknowledge that the only three other editors who commented on this have supported my position. What are you trying to achieve by this repeated misrepresetation of easily-verified facts?
5. You have not at any point explained any reader benefit from your collection of navboxes-to-nowhwhere. I can see no way in which those provide any benefit to readers, and you have not suggested any way in which they benefit readers. Regardless of any thresholds which may or may not be agreed, why not clear that pure-junk out of the way by supporting speedy deletion per G7? You have not opposed deletion, but you have done nothing to assist the tidyup.
6. You are still either unwilling or unable to even try to explain why, for example, you believe that readers would want to navigate from the articles on Denis Thatcher and Margaret Thatcher to numerous mill-related sub-sections of an article on mills on a river near a town where they kept a second home in the 1960s. That question to you is still outstanding at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Kent#When_to_create_navboxes_for_villages.3F ... so before you ask for yet more editors to join those whose contribution to the discussions so far you want to ignore, why not try discussing this yourself?
7. You still have not engaged with the WP:WEIGHT issue of the relevance of these links to the articles to which you add them. Per WP:WEIGHT, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject".

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You're still at it too. . Speedy deletion of the templates would not allow discussion of the issue, nor any consensus to be reached over a threshold. Their existence until the end of the discussion period will not seriously harm Wikipedia. No other editors (to my knowledge) have removed entries from templates, only yourself. I explained the Thatcher situation at WT:KENT, only for you to promptly remove DT from the template, despite the Thathcher's living in Lamberhurst for a good number of years. So far, it's been almost all your opinions vs my opinions. Shall we both step back now and allow others a say? Mjroots (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Boggle. On what basis do you think that there is any purpose in retaining your zero-bluelinks navboxes-to-nowhere, or why you need to waste the community's time on a full discussion for them?

You may be right that I am the only editor who has removed entries from your templates. But you are still in denial about the fact that three other editors agree those entries should not be there, and nobody other than you has objected.

As to the Thatchers, you seem unable to read my repeated reminder that you have not offered your explanation of the benefit to readers of links from those articles to numerous mill-related sub-sections of an article on a river near a town where they kept a second home in the 1960s. (So far, I see no ref for you assertion that they lived there, or for how long they owned the house, and you ignore the fact that they owned two houses at the time).
If you really believe that such links are worth having, why don't you go and add to David Cameron a series of links to non-notable buildings near his constituency home in Chipping Norton? They'd be just as relevant to him as the mills are to the Thatchers (i.e. utterly irrelevant). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

---

• Mjroots is wasting his time and everybody else's. I hereby sentence Mjroots to reference or nominate for deletion fifty (50) unsourced biographies within 14 days. (FX: Bangs gavel) Next case. Oh, and merry Christmas everyone. Apart from the unbeliever majority, to whom: happy holidays. Guy (Help!) 01:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

BHG has suggested that an RFC on the issue would bring in fresh eyes. I intend to raise a RFC in the next few days, and therefore am going to close this thread. In response to JzG, Unreffed BLPs should be improved by referencing, not nominated for deletion. :-p Merry Xmas all. Mjroots (talk) 06:45, 25 December 2010 (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.

Requested edit

Resolved

Please assist Can someone add {{WikiProject Canada}} to Talk:Canadian_Senate_Standing_Committee_on_the_Internal_Economy,_Budgets_and_Administration? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done Graham87 12:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Ban proposal for Jake Picasso/Duncan

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

Jake Duncan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is hereby community-banned. Now all we need is for a sysop to annotate the block log to record the ban. (Note: This is my first time closing a community ban proposal, so if anyone has issues with my closure please let me know. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 02:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

---

I would like to propose a formal ban for Jake Picasso (talk · contribs) aka Jake Duncan (talk · contribs), a fairly prolific sockpuppeteer and hoaxer. I came across his latest incarnation yesterday, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive658#User_creating_apparent_hoax_articles. Also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jake Picasso/Archive and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jake Picasso. There was a note that he was banned on his userpage so I speedied his creations, but I then realised that the ban had been placed unilaterally by an admin who blocked some of his previous socks. Hopefully those articles can stay deleted and we can confirm that we do indeed want this editor banned. Fences&Windows 19:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, de facto banned already, it seems, so let's make it de jure. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban - close the loopholes, as it were. John Carter (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Just a general question for my own education: what are the loopholes? G5 applies to both blocked and banned users equally. Is it that undoing a ban requires community consensus where as unblocking doesn't, and therefore a ban is firmer? I genuinely want to know because if there are any real loopholes I'd propose User:Roman888 as a prime candidate for a site ban.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
    • No, that's for my own education! G5 is colloquially known as the criterion for a "banned user", I was not aware of the finer point that it also applied in violation of blocks. I am not a frequent user of speedy deletion! Gives self a minnow slap, will remember to read policy properly. Fences&Windows 02:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I personally don't see a big difference, but I think one can roll back a banned user's sock's edits without discussion. Although, I doubt anyone would complain if you did that to a only-blocked user's sock's edits. It's more of a formality, as Nick-D says below, I think. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
        • The difference is the 3RR. Reverting a banned user is an exemption to it, reverting a merely indef blocked user is not. Courcelles 19:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban this appears to be a formality given the editor's conduct. Nick-D (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban - Tag the Jake Duncan account, indef all the socks, add to list of banned users and from there, rollback all sock edits and block on sight. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
• support ban Just looked over things, No hope for reform in my eyes The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with Fetchcomms: user is de facto banned already; let's make it de jure. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm boldly closing this with consensus to ban. The minimum 48 hours are up, discussion is snail-like at this point, and all who have opined are in support of a ban. The Jake Duncan account shall be tagged, notified, and added to the list of banned users momentarily. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 02:30, 26 December 2010 (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.

Requested edit

Please help Can someone add {{WikiProject Canada}} to Talk:William_Jackson_(Canadian_administrator)? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I might be missing something, but that talk page isn't protected and adding the template seems entirely uncontroversial so there doesn't seem to be any need for an admin to do this. Or I'm missing something here. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You are missing something. ;-) When I click on the red link, and choose to create the page, it says "Unauthorized", etc. I think this is because the name of the page contains the word "admin". [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 07:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up! Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• The page title Talk:William Jackson (Canadian administrator) is MediaWiki:Titleblacklist and non-admins trying to create the page are shown the door via the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-forbidden-edit template. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done Nakon 08:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Highland Park Presbyterian Church (Illinois) AfD.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highland Park Presbyterian Church (Illinois) began on 8 December 2010 and no one is commenting. Please consider adding your views. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Logging of IP Block Exemptions

Hi all. Just a quick note. While it's not policy, etc, etc - can we please keep logging granting of IP block exemptions? There haven't been any updates to the logs since last May, and it's useful for admin/checkuser work if records are kept of these. I know it's in the userrights log, but it's not really comprehensive enough. Anyways - if you're granting this user right, can you maybe update Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption/log at the same time? Thanks! - Alison ^❤ 12:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as how I'd never ever heard of that log, I added it to MediaWiki:Userrights-groups-help to remind folks when flipping switches. Revert if you want. Courcelles 15:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

A bot could so totally hand this. Unfortunately, it's Christmas eve, so :) - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 16:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I've filed a bot request, but in the meantime, I'll update the list if I hand out the right. TNXMan 16:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

An update has been posted here. TNXMan 17:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Expand deleted

As my "extreme" sport of 2010, I have closed the TFD on the {{expand}} template as "delete". There are apparently 17979 pages which transcluded that template, is there a bot which will do this work? (This is not urgent, indeed if someone wants to appeal my closure to DRV, it might be an idea to keep the transclusions in case I am overturned.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was planning to do it anyway. But we should wait some days or not? -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the template because deleting it without removing the transclusions first means breaking 18k pages, and a DRV is inevitable anyway. If it's going to be deleted, the transclusions should be cleaned up first. Rd232 ^talk 15:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, a temporary restore while the technicalities are sorted out is OK with me. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and that's all that's intended with this restore. I would add, though, that I would support a DRV, because the alternatives to deletion (substantial, even drastic amendment) were not really taken on board by those who had taken against the template in its current form. For example, I had suggested "it would be easy enough to change the template so that it produces no output if the reason= parameter isn't filled. That would be a pretty drastic step, but it would address most of the misuse concerns. There's also plenty of less drastic things which can be done to address those concerns, eg a bot identify pages with the template on for more than 2 years and/or with large expansion since being added, and dropping a note on the talk pages to suggest removal or adding a reason parameter". Or flagging stubs that use the template, etc etc. Rd232 ^talk 15:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I ran my bot in the past to remove the template from stubs. I can do it again. We can also start removing it from pages |date= older than 18 months. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the arguments regarding a reason parameter were somewhat flawed in that we already partially supported this as the second unnamed parameter (|2=) which just needed to be documented and used. For example: {{Expand|article|Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet}} While I don't think blanking the template output is the right idea when a concern-type parameter isn't given, I did add support in the sandbox version to add the page to a hidden tracking category should a reason or talk page section not be given. This template is also usable on more than just articles with the first unnamed parameter (|1=), which also wasn't discussed in the TfD. I too would support a DRV in this case, especially given the comments of the closing admin which seem to indicate he should have !voted in the TfD instead of closing it. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Tony1

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

Resolved

This user is abusing Wikipedia by removing information in infoboxes. Tinton5 (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing abusive about it, and this doesn't belong on the admin noticeboard. If you object to Tony's edits please discuss it with him directly or on the article talk page. You will notice he has responded reasonably to your objection already. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Why did you remove my notification to Tony that you started this thread? Is your complaint resolved? Can we remove this now? Antandrus (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it has. Tinton5 (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2010 (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.

Urgent help needed for SfD backlog

Currently, at WP:SFD, we have a backlog going all the way back to November 10 (A month and a half ago), together with an open discussion from October 8th (2&nbap;1/2 months ago!). Can some admins please help deal with this? As far as I can tell, I'm the only one to close any of these discussions recently, and there are several where I have participated here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutrality in Scientology

Its become apparent that ideological editing has, in some cases, distorted our coverage of Scientology related articles. I'm particularly concerned about BLPs and have started a mini-project to review. Help wanted; pay (as ever) is negotiable.--Scott Mac 00:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't canvass on WR, especially not in a thread devoted to attacking a Wikipedia editor who is known for working on Scientology articles as the participants there are not likely to be neutral. See WP:CANVASS.   Will Beback  talk  01:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Too late...[71] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how WP:CANVASS applies to a Wikiproject invitation. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS has absolutely nothing to do with a notification/request about a specific Wikiproject invitation. Silverseren^C 03:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

If the project can be interpreted as an attack on a specific user, that might apply, as might other policy. A specific user was identified as part of the wider discussion that lead up to this, in off-wiki emails on (wikien-l, I think, but haven't checked).

I don't know that it's actually a problem, but there's a credible cause to ask the question as to whether it's a problem, based on the prior discussion. AGF covers not assuming that it is in fact an attack before looking at it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS applies to all Wikipedia discussions, and warns against "Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement)." Since it was posted in a thread that was very critical of an editor of Scientology articles, the other posters there had known opinions on his work. If Scott had created a fresh thread to announce the campaign, then that would have been different. There are plenty of venues on Wikipedia to notify interested users appropriately.   Will Beback  talk  05:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Editors with agendas have been distorting Scientology related BLPs and violating or being careless with policy for their own reasons. I want editors whose opinions on that are known and negative. We need to get this right. Will, I'm sorry, but you've got poor form on BLPs. There seems to be a mood that says we can go easy on negative material when we don't like the person.--Scott Mac 13:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no need for off-Wiki canvassing. WR is not a place known for respecting living people.   Will Beback  talk  13:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Places can't have respect, people can. Perhaps you might help ensure we don't mistreat BLP subjects rather than rules-lawyering over a post I made that harms no one, and may help draw attention to a real problem.--Scott Mac 14:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

But you feel it's appropriate to put this kind of canvassing on a site that is notorious for its mistreatment of living Wikipedia editors? Corvus cornix_talk 21:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed like we are oh so nice to each other on wiki. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Nicer here than there. It's a cesspool.   Will Beback  talk  17:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Good luck with this, I hope it reduces friction. Guy (Help!) 01:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

IANAAdmin , but I want to put down two of my persistent concerns. 1) In general WR canvassing has been and is a real problem. It used to be commonplace in BLP deletion discussions, for example. So far I've seen no action taken about that 2)There is also the real problem that Scott Mac ignores or insults everyone who doesn't share his radical view of BLP treatment (not BLP policy because he is beginning to step way beyond policy, as a recent Arbcom clarification request by Will Beback can reveal). The problem is that both Arbcom and AN/I use to dodge the issue, probably because Scott Mac's work is overall positive (I have no problem recognizing that) and because no one wants to be witch-hunted as "weak on BLP" in the current "political climate" of WP. If anyone more skilled than me at this has ideas on how to tackle these two issues, I'd be delighted. --Cyclopia^talk 18:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Bad speedy deletions can be reversed after discussion, by consensus at WP:DRV. Really bad speedy deletions, which are routinely reversed, and persist following a request for comment, can result in desysopping of the administrator performing them. But I've seen no evidence of any misuse of the deletion tool by Scott meriting such a response. Canvassing for deletion discussions and wikiproject participation on Wikipedia Review, a site characterized by its toleration and proliferation of attacks on Wikipedia editors, hyper-deletionism with respect to BLPs, and generalized trolling, is another matter. Users who violate Wikipedia:Canvassing can be blocked, and administrators like Scott are no exception. This is one case in which blocking may be intended as punitive, since there is no direct way to inhibit users' off-wiki activities, even when they are soliciting on-wiki disruption. Chester Markel (talk) 15:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't see any reason to canvass on WR except to get input from banned users who can't post here. That's not necessarily a bad thing per se but he needs to be above-board about disclosing any such input, and Scott has been resistant or evasive when asked about this.[72] Scott means well but he has a point of view about this || wide when it comes to any concerns about the methods he uses to achieve his laudable goals. It's unfortunate because the stridency risks alienating those whom we might otherwise recruit to cleaning up the BLP cesspool. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Crusade initiated?

I have come across Rkononenko talk who appears to be on a crusade to right wrongs in reference to Ukrainian connections on Wikipedia. These changes are dramatic, arbitary and never explained, sourced or verified. See: list of previous contacts with other editors. The editor appears particularly concerned about spellings and useage:

1. warning about deliberate errors introduced,
2. major changes to article regarding loan words from Ukrainian
3. change to name of person Bzuk (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC).

If you have already tried to discuss this with the user, I think you're looking for dispute resolution if he chooses to communicate and ANI if he does not. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there a way of finding out when an account was created?

This morning Dralansun (talk · contribs) spammed a message to user and article talk pages, templates, articles, project pages, etc. I think they've been cleaned up but what puzzles me is his creating talk pages for users who have never edited, ie Anjneya Varshney (talk · contribs), AjayKerala (talk · contribs) and Anshu Bora (talk · contribs). How would he have found these? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

New users log; or, noting the usernames, quite likely Special:ListUsers. Rd232 ^talk 11:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Those three accounts do not exist in any fashion. Also, if you click the user page, you should see "User account "[Insert name here]" is not registered. If you wish to use "[Insert name here]" as your username, please make a request at Wikipedia:Changing username."—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. He may have used Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Members as a source for the names, which raises the question of why they are there, see [73], [74] - this one seems to have been a spelling mistake by the editor [75].

What do we do? Delete the ones that don't exist, correct the spelling of the one at the project (and there seems to be at least one other name there with no contributions).? Dougweller (talk) 12:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy criterion U2 permits the deletion of any and all userpages of nonexistent users. This doesn't apply to redirects in the old userspace of users who have been renamed (e.g. we don't delete User talk:Nenarssue), but it should be ruthlessly applied for pages in the userspace of users that have never existed. Nyttend (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I found User:Anshu.bora in the English WP. This user also seems to have an account on commons, The first one appears to be a Phd in India witt an account in WikiEducator as User:Pragati varshney (may not be the same person though I admit), the second refers to Kerala which is a city in India. Not sure if this helps but thought I would provide anyway. Its possible they just did a google scape of Wiki users in India if I have to make a guess. --Kumioko (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

There is something weird there. Some entries are non-existent accounts added by other editors, with details about their interests. Some are real accounts where their only edit is to add themselves to the project, which doesn't make sense. Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The main account seems to be used only for disruptions so maybe it too should be blocked. Just a suggestion after looking at what I was able to see. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea to block the three red linked user accounts as well as the User:Anshu.bora I brought up. It hasn't been used in over a year anyway so its doubtful it will be missed. --Kumioko (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

I don't know if this is related, but the user Wagino 20100516 has established a talk page for my account on the Indonesian(!) WP. FYI, I posted this on the Indonesian embassy page:

Hi! It seems w:id:Pengguna:Wagino 20100516 has established a talk page for my account w:id:Pembicaraan Pengguna:Asav, which is a global acoount. I don't understand the puropse of this, and ask you to remove it and block that user from establishing talk pages for other users. Also see this page, please. Thank you in advance! Asav (talk) 08:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Changing another editor's rationale for deletion nomination

Resolved

 – Trebor (talk) 20:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Joe Sioufi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:JzG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not sure if this is the right forum, but I'd like some clarification as to whether it's acceptable for one editor (in this case an admin) to change the rationale of another editor's nomination of an article (Sioufi) for deletion. In this instance, JzG has changed it twice (first time and second time), apparently based on his belief that the rationale itself violates WP:BLP. Frankly, I don't get it and have said so on my own Talk page here. As I stated, if an editor nominates an article for deletion, the editor has to state a "concern". The idea then is to examine/discuss whether that concern is justified. If the concern is that the article is an autobiography but it turns out the concern is invalid, merely the statement of the concern doesn't violate WP:BLP. In a similar vein, as I also stated, I may suspect a potential copyright violation in requesting deletion of an image file. That doesn't mean I've libeled (I don't know that libel is what JzG is concerned about) someone by raising the issue. To me, changing another editor's rationale is similar to changing another editor's comments on a Talk page or in a forum. Unless the comments are egregious and therefore fall under some exception, which, in my view, isn't the case here, it violates policy to change the comments. Also, if the answer to this question differs based on whether the editor making the change is an admin or not, please explain.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Have you spoken to JzG about this beyond the one comment on your talk page? I can't see anything that indicates that you have.

  In any case, I hardly think this is a matter of complaint. JzG, likely though not certainly acting on an OTRS ticket, changed the deletion rationale to something that would be less offensive to the subject if they saw it. It still gets the same point across, and looks far more professional this way. NW (Talk) 18:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I reverted his first change, and I participated in the discussion on the original nominator's page here. Also, just so it's clear, my coming here was not to "complain" but to seek clarification. The end result may be that I'm wrong, or that JzG is wrong, or that there is no clear answer. I'm just seeking to understand how this works for the future. I don't lightly revert an admin's change, even though some admins tell me that I should treat them the same as I do any other editor. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• You didn't nominate the article for deletion. You added Template:Proposed deletion, which could result in easily reversible deletion of the article after seven days. JzG's changes strengthened the basis for the prod. Your post was in article space, so perhaps it was fair game for revision. JzG probably should have just added his own comments instead of changing yours. Why not just follow the instructions as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion to nominate the article for deletion? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't do anything. Another editor proposed the article for deletion. I simply objected to JzG's changing that editor's rationale. Forgive me if I'm using the wrong terminology (nominated vs. proposed), but some of the deletion methods at Wikipedia are confusing (to me).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• User:Soundvisions1 posted in the prod "non-notable autobiography" and that appeared in a now deleted article. JzG changed that posting to read "Article which fails to adequately establish the importance of the subject by reference to reliable independent sources". JzG's did not change that editor's rationale. Take a look at posted prod templated Category:Proposed_deletion. None of them list the name of the prod template poster. The rational listed wasn't Soundvisions1 rational (in fact, Soundvisions1 didn't and could not sign the post). It was Wikipedia's rational. Because prod templates appear within article space, their parameter text can be edited by anyone, just as text in the rest of the article can be edited by anyone. The term "autobiography" is fairly offensive as it asserts in violation of that every edit to that article was written by the person who was the subject of the article. There was no truth to that. In addition, it implies potential violation by that person of Wikipedia's policies, in violation of WP:BLP. JzG did not need an WP:OTRS to make the change - any could have made the change. It would have been acceptable for a non-admin to make the same change Guy made. The change based on the WP:OTRS ticket means that you need justification from OTRS to revert back. It would not be acceptable for anyone other than an OTRS worker to change Guy's post since it was originally based on an OTRS ticket. If you want to follow up, I added a thread to Template talk:Proposed deletion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• I refactored the deletion request rationale to be consistent with WP:BLP, and I told the user why I had done it. I have no idea why Bbb23 is choosing to make a big deal of this. Anybody with WP:OTRS access can also check Ticket:2010122310018843. WP:BLP applies in all parts of the encyclopaedia but especially to mainspace biographies, accusing people of autobiography when they dispute it is both rude and unnecessary, the rationale as I left it sdays the same thing but in a less polemical tone. I could have just deleted the article, of course, but I chose to leave that to someone else. Guy (Help!) 19:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have access to OTRS. I don't agree with JzG that I'm making a "big deal" out of this. If I gain a deeper understanding of how Wikipedia works (which may seem immediately apparent to admins and other more experienced editors, but not to me), that helps me become a better editor and less likely to take actions that are not in keeping with policy or practice.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at the OTRS ticket and I can't see that Giy has done anything wrong amending the prod tag to something morr informative that would be less offensive to the subject of the article were they to view it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Guy rewrote the rationale to reduce offence to the subject, while keeping the reasoning the same. This is absolutely fine. Nothing more needs to be said here. Trebor (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

One last question, and I'm done. Would it be acceptable for a non-admin to make the same change Guy made?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Admins aren't anything special; if it's acceptable for an admin, it's acceptable for any editor. In this case, changing the PROD rationale isn't exactly modifying another user's rationale (note that the rationale is not signed by the user, for example), it's closer to disagreeing with the PROD rationale and adding their own rationale instead; there's nothing wrong with that. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• By the way to answer you question about venue, for questions like this in future you may wish to use the help desk if you're unsure about whether or not it's permitted by policy. If you have read the relevant policy and believe it is not permitted, you should discuss it with the user, and take it to WP:ANI if that discussion doesn't lead anywhere useful and you believe a policy violation has taken place. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Languishing AfDs

Time to earn you pay. The following five AfDs have been languishing since December 14, 2010 with little input. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Foreman, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microgiving, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Electronics, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Mayhem, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Street Action Team. Three comments in each of these should be enough for an admin to close them. Won't you please help? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• They've already been re-listed. You'll have to await discussions post relisting. And one of them was listed only recently despite having been filed earlier as the filing editor had missed out on the listing (due to script malfunction). So no worries as of now. Regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 09:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry for the unclear request. I am not asking for an admin to close the discussions. I'm asking editors to add to the discussion. Since regular editors don't seem interested, I'm hoping that a few admins (e.g., at least 3) will add their thoughts to each discussion. With enough discussion, these languishing AfD's can be closed, rather than re-listed. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Converseley this AfD has been open since the 8th and had very little participation. It's like the non-contentius AfDs are being overlooked in favor of the drama stirring ones. Hasteur (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Need help with a tricky SPI, need second opinions regarding how to proceed.

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidYork71. This is not actually DavidYork71, but there are still unresolved issues that need additional admin input. I'd like to know how to proceed. Thanks for your attention. --Jayron32 21:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the current solution (indef on all) is fine. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I've posted a question on the SPI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

We don't know who it actually is. Checkuser cannot distinguish with 100% certainty between two users. Thank you for your report. The behavioral evidence quite strongly points to mischief, whether or not they are the same, so I've blocked the accounts. Jehochman ^Talk 09:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with block, whoever it is. Aggressive attempt to force something libelous and tabloid-sourced into an article on a recently-deceased person (which is, by the way, still covered by BLP); multiple accounts; whether or not it's the same person, IMO it's not someone we want here. Antandrus (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Unearned barnstars, etc

• About 15:00 on 28 December 2010 User:ModernWarfare14 copied User:Anthony Appleyard and User talk:Anthony Appleyard onto User:ModernWarfare14 and User talk:ModernWarfare14, and along with it several of my barnstars which he did not earn. He left this message: "== What a Surprise == I Am Just Like You Check Out My Talk And Page (Michael Robertson (talk) 15:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC))" on my talk page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
• I have deleted from User:ModernWarfare14 the copied barnstars and the "I am an admin" matter. I left a note in the end of User talk:ModernWarfare14. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I just deleted their copied content from your talkpage as well. In my opinion, this is probably a RBI situation. Syrthiss (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Why not block it and get it over with before some real damage is done. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal relating to page moves

Hello. I'm here to post a link to a discussion over at Requested Moves. Those of us discussing there have, I believe, said everything we've got to say, and we haven't reached consensus (i.e., I'm not convinced). I'd love to see more input from a wider cross-section of Wikipedians. Thanks in advance for any comments.

By the way, at the top of this page, there are extensive lists of what this page is not for, and no information about what it is for. It's here now, on the edit screen, but not on the page itself. Or am I just not seeing it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Unearned barnstars redux

Users claiming unearned barnstars rub me the wrong way. It is silly, but nonetheless I believe we should warn users when spotted, and crack down when needed. A recent silly case in point: User:Htmlvb claims to have Centijimbos. No big deal except the user has no followers and the "rules" are no less than 30 watchers to claim them. I reverted the claim and the user proceeded to repost it. Before I revert again and start watching the user for possible 3RR and whatnot, the previous topic reminded me to ask and see the consensus, or should I just not bother (it's as harmless as claiming bogus barnstars, or isn't it?) -- Alexf^(talk) 21:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Generally users are allowed to make any wild claims they want, including giving themselves 'awards' such as barnstars, as long as they do not claim to have some permission they do not (i.e. you can't claim to be a bureaucrat if you are not). Prodego ^talk 21:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I am a 'crat, I am also the King of France! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Cue 37 people telling you that they are a Lord of Time … Uncle G (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
      • 36 to go. (X! · talk)  · @243  ·  04:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
        • I think X! just jumped the shark... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
          • Haha. That just made my day. Thank you --124.168.244.171 (talk) 13:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This does seem a bit silly to take to AN; the page itself is only kept as humour; if they add themselves incorrectly, just remove them or move them down the list as appropriate. I'm sure we must have better things to do than worry about who's claiming they have how many centijimbos. Incidentally, I have 2.5 centijimbos ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I've seen this sort of thing before. It's disingenuous and stupid but it usually doesn't fool anybody. There are no actual policies for barnstars and such so there is no real recourse if someone is so desperate for positive reinforcement that they award them to themselves. It's quite pathetic but not sanctionable, and I wouldn't recommend edit warring over it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't actually planning on warring. Unwatched the page and forgot about it already. We have more important things to do. Just wanted to get some opinions. -- Alexf^(talk) 00:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I figured as much, else you wouldn't have come here. Just added that for future reference for anyone else reading this. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Confirm editor or unprotect page

Resolved

User; Mieczeslaw would like to translate Chav into Russian. Since he is a new account on en.wiki and the page is semi-protected he can't get to the code. Would it be possible either to confirm him or to unprotect the page? Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find that user, but I have copied the contents to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Unomi/chav, might be easier. un☯mi 09:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I've found the user- User:Mieczeslaw- and given them the flag. Courcelles 09:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, mind deleting my page then? un☯mi 09:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Gone. Courcelles 09:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI, you can read the source on a semi'd page even if you are not autoconfirmed - the "Edit" link becomes "View source" (hint, hint). Moreover, action=raw can also be used to get the code easily: //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chav&action=raw. Both work even if you are not logged in. T. Canens (talk) 13:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Two community ban discussions on ANI

Since this board is usually the preferred place for community ban discussions, editors here might like to be aware of two ban discussions that have separately been started on ANI as a response to disruptive reports on that board:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Formal community ban of the fluoride spammer concerns an editor who has disrupted articles related to water fluoridation and Wikileaks
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Formal community ban for Mikemikev concerns an editor who already has a one-year ban by Arbcom but is now proposed to be community banned.

Comments are welcome in either discussion per the usual process. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism on Mafia (party game)

Hi, I'm not completely sure I'm posting this in the right place, but the page mafia (party game) has some rather obtrusive vandalism, and I can't figure out how to remove it. Could this be dealt with quickly? Thanks —focus 02:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hypothetical question about refactoring on your own talk page

Resolved

 – What was once hypothetical has become personal; this has been requested to be withdrawn (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

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

• Withdrawn I wanted to have a hypothetical discussion and avoid personalizing it, that has been horribly derailed and no purpose can be served by continuing this conversation. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Although I am referring to specific incidents here I would prefer to keep this purely hypothetical. Even if you dig and check and see who the other two users are, let's pretend this is a purely hypothetical question and the exact identities of the other two users are not important. Quite some time ago I had someone posting on my talk that I did not want to talk to any further. I replaced their remarks with File:DoNotFeedTroll.svg, but left their signature attached. This went back and forth a few times, and we wound up at ANI, where there was a consensus that removing it was fine, but replacing it with a graphic and leaving the sig was not. I saw the logic of that, as such an action could serve to inflame the situation and certainly wouldn't help. Fast forward to the last few months. A particular problematic user and I have had occasion to interact a few times. If this person does not like what I have said they do more or less the same thing, replacing my remarks with disparaging statements about me, but leaving my signature intact as though I want my name attached to insults directed at me. I don't care if they remove my remarks entirely. I don't care if I am banished from their talk page (which they never explicitly stated until recently) but I do care that my remarks are refactored so as to insult me and my sig is left attached to them. I have tried to simply remove my remarks altogether and have been reverted. Now, it's all well and good to say it is their talk page and they can have what they want on it. That's fine, but I don't believe they should be refactoring my remarks and leaving my sig on them. Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Removing or refactoring comments (archiving, shrinking, collapsing) is fine, but altering the comments is against policy; replacing the comment minus the sig with anything else is altering the comment and should be reverted as altering another user's comments. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
• If the signature is removed, of course, all that's really been done is the comment has been removed (in its entirety), and the user's own comment left in its place; which is fine per WP:OWNTALK. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
• Second paragraph, first sentence (including italicised for emphasis comment regarding userpages) of WP:TPOC - you can remove another editors comments, but you may not amend them to change the meaning. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Let's not be coy here (for which you can read "context is everything" if you prefer). This is all part of Beeblebrox's recurrent attempts to provoke an editor he derides as "poisonous, nasty, (and) condescending". It is interesting to reflect on Beeblebrox's use of such language toward others as compared with his sensitivity to insult expressed above. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
    • In any case, and remembering that the issue is whether one's posts may be altered or changed to effect a different impression than one intended, the result is clear. It is improper to alter anyone's posts in any manner designed to make the post different in meaning or tone. Colons are ok. Anything else is likely wrong. Collect (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Whilst inapplicable in this particular case, that is not generally true. They are rare and unusual, but there are times when one refactors to change tone. Refactoring to leave the spirit of an argument whilst removing egregiously problematic BLP violating material is one such. (I'm probably channelling Kim Bruning here. Next thing you know, I'll be using "anti-wiki".) The idea that it's 100% improper to refactor talk pages is something that has accrued by garbled repetition of the real rule, which is that it shouldn't be done unless the requirement to protect the encyclopaedia and its writing outweighs the discourtesy of making people appear to have written that which they did not. For further edification on this subject, go and read Wikipedia:Refactor personal attacks, Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks, and the associated discussions, polls, and — yes — ArbCom cases. The idea of refactoring was not resoundingly and overwhelmingly rejected; but rather it was realized that a rule about refactoring could be gamed by the immature. Indeed, it is the idea that once written by someone something is set entirely in stone and immutable in 100% of circumstances that is the anti-wiki idea. _{There it is. Next thing you know I'll be … erm … writing in small fonts.} Uncle G (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Refactoring is not "amending or changing" the meaning of the message - it is noting that a part is problematic; removing the words "fascist worshipping scum" from a complaint about some editors problematic contributions to an article like racial discrimination does not change the context of the complaint - amending "problematic" to "justifiable" is, as is replacing the entire complaint with a box noting "nigger lover whining again" or even "yada yada yada". Parts of a comment that are not policy complaint may indeed be removed or redacted, but the meaning of the comment may not be changed in doing so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
• Time to drag the kids apart, I think. I propose that we have a two month bilateral moratorium on Beeblebrox interacting with WMC. I'm pretty sure William will have no problem honouring that. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess it was too much to ask to keep this hypothetical. Don't worry, I have no intention of interacting with WMC in any way shape or form ever again. It's just not worth the insults and attacks from him and his fans.I'm not trying to provoke him, the whole point was to not name names, but Boris took a shit on that idea. I wanted to discuss this hypothetically in case such a situation came up somewhere else again in the future, since we apparently can't do that, forget the whole fucking thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

My word, such language. And from a colleague who berates others he considers "insulting."[76] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Last I checked, "forget the whole fucking thing" isn't insulting anyone. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Dudes, behave! Ok, so *yes* you are exhibiting behavior. Very good, that proves you're breathing human beings. Now if you'd kindly exhibit some friendly community building behavior, that'd be even better. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Also, see #Basics, below

Basics

If there is no consensus to stop, there's no consensus to stop. O:-)

The lowdown is that on most talk pages (those not in user space), people don't normally edit or refactor other people's posts anymore. It's certainly not forbidden though; in fact, it's a very normal wiki-operation, it's what wiki's are for. The reason we don't typically refactor posts on talk pages is not because it is forbidden (it is not) but because we have separated discussion from content. What you write on the talk page (hopefully) ends up on a separate content page at some point, so the need to massively refactor pages very often (anymore) has been reduced. Sometimes it can still be useful though. For instance, you can shove a lot of ThreadMode discussion into the archives, and just refactor/summarize the current consensus. This can help a lot! Some people probably still do it, too.

Now, in user space, there's no actual content page associated with the user talk page, and besides, convention is that you can do anything you like in your own userspace (within some level of reason). If you want to refactor everyone's comments into haiku, or into bad zen riddles - traditionally, people have gone right ahead. Example: User_talk:º¡º .

By the fact that you are reading on WP:AN, I hope I can assume that you know better than to believe what you read on any page by the face of it. You should always be using page history to see what was originally said. Obviously, this goes double in userspace.

I *would* like to remind people that refactoring means that you change the *format* of a text, but not the essential *content*. º¡º was within the basic rules/consensus in 2 different ways: both by only doing it in their own userspace and because they were merely refactoring, leaving the essential core message of what a person was saying alone.

So, yes, you may alter edits in your userspace any way you like, because it's not going to hurt or fool anyone. For instance, censoring obvious bad language is quite acceptable (but be sure that that *is* what you're doing!) .

However, with this power also comes responsibility. I would recommend wielding it conservatively. Be careful what you do and how you treat others, lest you be considered a WP:DICK. O:-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC) My name was invoked three times, thus I am obligated to appear.

I may be misunderstanding you, since I'm late to this conversation and haven't fully evaluated it, but this catches my eye: "So, yes, you may alter edits in your userspace any way you like, because it's not going to hurt or fool anyone." That doesn't seem to accord with consensus as per WP:TALKO: "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." There are acceptable forms of altering messages, but "any way you like" seems like a bit of an overstatement. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Changing the actual meaning of a comment is confusing, and therefore a pretty WP:DICK move, and is therefore not a good idea (all wikipedia social rules can ultimately be derived from WP:DICK ;-) ). So my statements and WP:TALKO align; though I feel that the current wording on that page is a bit too legalistic about it, and somewhat prone to WP:POINT abuses. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC) I said: "everything is permitted, but don't be a WP:DICK", the page says "all these non-WP:DICK things are ok. The approach is "you may- except" versus "you may not, except". You end up with roughly the same procedures, except I think my wording is less violent, and altogether nicer :-).

Perhaps, but, sadly, the legalistic language sometimes seems necessary. :/ Some people may not be dissuaded for fear of being considered a dick but might think twice for fear of being blocked for violating behavioral guidelines. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with MRG here, it's better to have some guidelines because there are some things you shouldn't do, for the reason that they foster an unhealthy environment. Replacing someone's comments with a troll graphic serves absolutely no purpose except self-gratification and fostering a battleground atmosphere. That to me is disruptive editing and the TPG should point that out. Franamax (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I'd go so far as to call that disruptive editing (that's a rather big catch-all, for starters). It's certainly not very nice. I never said anything about there not being guidelines. I just said that the current guideline is worded very legalistically -always a recipe for wikidrama. If I were to refactor it, I'd write it from a more friendly perspective. Not my problem atm though, I'm not maintaining policy atm. O:-) Other than that, both my words and the WP:TALKO policy seem to be pretty much in line with each other here.

WRT precedent: replacing people's comments with a DFTT graphic is

• hilarious to oneself.
• Very insulting to the other person.

I think User:Ta bu shi da yu did something similar once. He got the same answer: It's not technically entirely unpermitted, but it's not very nice either; so Please Don't Do That. TBSDY being TBSDY he abided by that advice from his peers, and I hope User:Beeblebrox will do the same. It's always much nicer when things are resolved using common sense, rather than legalistic wrangling. :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Beeblebrox is a good name, btw. don't panic! ;-)

Masterful baiting

Would certain editors please stop this unhealthy obsession with stalking, provoking and persecuting WMC? I am just about to the point of requesting arbitration where I suspect a number of you would lose your bits or get some bans. WMC is under sanctions. It is very unseemly to persist in pressuring and baiting a vulnerable user in hopes that you can finally run them off Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 18:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, Loeb's First Law of Internal Medicines states: "If what you're doing is working, keep doing it." So you see the counterargument. MastCell ^Talk 18:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

That's why we need ArbCom to scrutinize the matter. There are too many game players on both sides who just want to carry on the fight of CC, rather than disengage from an editor who's already been forced from the field of battle. Those who continue hounding WMC should be sanctioned severely. Jehochman ^Talk 18:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting title for this thread . - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

you foul-minded pervert... Over to Jonathan: The likelihood of Arbcom doing anything whatsoever to limit baiting of WMC is just slightly less than the likelihood of Elizabeth Taylor and Michael Jackson showing up on my front porch New Year's Eve to sing the Altenberg Lieder while dancing the schottische. Ask the arbs if you want, but remember I told you so... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman, given that one of the ArbCom-elect member appears to be addressing WMC in way perceived by WMC as personal attack [77], do you think that asking the ArbCom to look into this matter is going to work in favor of WMC or against him? Or do you expect the ArbCom to sanction one of their newly elect members by taking his bits off? In other words, who is doing this "masterful baiting" from the thread title? Tijfo098 (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Being an arbitrator elect does not grant the powers of infallibility. However, that particular diff doesn't look like a personal attack. WMC is rightly upset at being hounded; his perceptions and reactions may be a little off. Jehochman ^Talk 03:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Without further comment, I suggest everyone involved in this crapulence read our article on karma, particularly the buddhist interpretation of the term. Not very scientific, perhaps, but apt. Note that wiki-karma (like most things on the internet, and as amply demonstrated here) is likely to reach fruition much faster and with much more vitriol than real-world karma... --Ludwigs2 03:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Enough already. Let's let this thread peter out. Jehochman ^Talk 03:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Funny choice of words over what became a bit of a dickout. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:41, 31 December 2010 (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.

First edit of 2011 (or not)

May the new year suck less. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 00:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

this edit took the honours. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It depends on your definition of edit; the timestamp on the sig is still 23:59 UTC for me, so it was right on the line from when he clicked save and when it actually saved in the history. Although I wonder who had the last edit of 2010? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

[78] history-wise; the edit Mkativerata brought up was the last to carry a timestamp from 2010. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 00:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Well this is my first edit of the year!--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 00:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Now all we need is the first frivolous complaint to AN of 2011! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I could complain that no one pronounces my username correctly. I can't think of any complaint more frivolous than that. Will it do? -- llywrch (talk) 01:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I could equally complain that you omitted the space in my username in your edit summary! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

To be pedantic, the first edit of 2011 would have been made by someone in New Zealand or one of the Pacific Islands near the international date line. The above may be the first edit of 2011 as at GMT. Nick-D (talk) 01:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah but being wikipedians, we only care about 2011 according to UTC. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC) << my first edit of 2011

Since our edits are saved to servers in Tampa and Amsterdam, I think one could argue that our edits themselves have not "rung in the New Year" until the ball drops in said data centres. Unless you're one of those philosophical "data lives everywhere" sort of folks.  ;) jæs (talk) 01:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought he lived on the Enterprise...? HalfShadow 01:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Time does not exist. 2011 is a figment of you imagination! /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No, time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year from the East Coast!--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 05:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year from the South-east U.S. as well!!! :-D As for "who made the first edit of 2011", we will be going nowhere if we try to figure that out, as Recent Changes can be totally different every time you refresh it, and the world has different time zones, you know, so the new year came at different times for different areas of the world. The new year has not even come yet for the rest of the U.S., I believe. ;-) [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 05:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going with what Fetchcomms said. Or will say...? —DoRD (talk) 07:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Help wanted: Copyright problems board

Wanted: one or more administrators willing to contribute regularly to evaluating listings at the copyright problems board, where text-based copyright concerns that do not meet WP:CSD#G12 are listed for review. Work here is steady.

I'm not planning to ditch WP:CP, but I am hoping to put more of my time this year into WP:CCI to help cut down the growing backlog there. It's one of my New Year's resolutions. I'm hoping for that reason to find some substantial and regular assistance at WP:CP. Work generally involves comparing content to listed sources (and sometimes locating the sources), removing copyrighted content or noting reverse infringements, making sure infringing contributors are advised of policy, and, sometimes, identifying when a contributor has created enough problems to warrant a WP:CCI request. There's very detailed advice/instructions at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins and on-the-job training is also available. Even if you just do a couple of listings a day, that would be a tremendous help. Although I have not yet caught up CP from my Christmas holiday, we do usually manage to keep CP without backlog. CCI, on the other hand.... Well, see Template:CCIlist. We've got listings dating back over a year. :/

Of course, more help at CCI is also most welcome. ;D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

SPI clerk needed to close complex case

Resolved

 – clerk has taken care of it --Jayron32 22:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidYork71. There is a currently open, but resolved case there which needs to be moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Otto4711 because of a misidentification of the sock master. It's been sitting there for about a week unacted upon, but everyone has been blocked and we've all pretty much come to the conclusion that this is Otto4711 and not DavidYork71. Someone appears to be wishing to start a new SPI report for DavidYork71, and the outstanding report seems to be getting in their way. --Jayron32 15:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Should a CU be run to determine if there are any more Otto4711 sleeper socks? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

CAT:NAMECONCERNS

I have undertaken the arduous and tiring task of going through all the pages in CAT:NAMECONCERNS (which contains user talk pages that have had one of {{uw-username}} or {{uw-coi-username}} added to them). I have removed user talk pages from the category where the warning template was placed over six months ago and the user had no contributions (or edited over only one or two consecutive days), the user was blocked indefinitely, the user was renamed, and in other cases where the reason given for the username concern was pedantic or otherwise inappropriate.

Now all that remains to be done is for an admin (or a few admins) to go through all the remaining pages in the category. Many users there have usernames that are obvious and blatant violations of WP:U, for example, Sexfartman22 / Shitraccoon (offensive/provocative), RAwRrAwRRaWrRARARAR (gibberish sequences of characters), and ComponoSolutionsGroup (promotional/COI), as well as a few users with "bot" in their usernames. These users should most likely be indefinitely blocked. Some others were borderline cases, and I left them for admins to judge.

I feel that many (if not most) of the users in the category should be indef blocked for having promotional usernames and/or posting promotional material. Most of the others (where the concern is minimal) can probably be removed from the category. Hopefully we can get the category below its backlog trigger of 100 ☺

On another note, could administrators please take care to remove CAT:NAMECONCERNS from user talk pages when indef blocking a user? There were several indef blocked users in the category (and there may still be more that I missed), and they only serve to clutter the category.

Thanks, — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

A note on the removing when blocking: KingpinBot does this daily, so there is currently a mechanism for cleaning up afterwards even if admins don't remove the category - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's impressive. That must have take simply hours! Definitely deserves a barnstar. I have to say RAWR...etc isn't a violation of our username policy, and I wouldn't bother Shitracoon if xe was editing productively, but I'm concerned that there are so many promotional usernames, as those are the ones that I can guarantee get zapped if they come to WP:UAA. Perhaps we need better guidance about reporting spam usernames, to ensure they are dealt with quickly.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've started going through them. I've cleared all of A and B—most are stale or frivolous and I just removed them, I blocked most of the rest and KingpinBot will remove those on its next run. There are about 400 left if others would care to help out. Anyone who has only made a few edits and hasn't edited for over a month can just be removed, blatant vios reported to UAA and borderline cases left for others. I'll give a barnstar to anyone who does 25! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Done all the L's Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Half way thru M's. Knocking off to watch Hootenanny Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Done the Os. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll take R and S. KrakatoaKatie 00:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It's amazing how many of this bunch created spam about themselves. KrakatoaKatie 01:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've done the Z's. All of them —Soap— 01:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

<<mock applause>>! We're below 200 for the first time in well, er, like, forever! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, people actually scrambling to work on a backlog ... who wants to help delete images that are already on Commons? :P Please remember, though, to remove the category after blocking a user; this is to keep the category as up-to-date as possible (although some of the concerns were expressed several months ago!). If I were feeling picky, I would CfD the category to be renamed to "Wikipedian usernames over which editors have expressed concerns", but the Internet tells me that ending a sentence in a preposition is actually not a completely evil thing and that some grammar experts say it's OK :P /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Really? I thought it was terrible grammar, I just couldn't be bothered to CfD it! As for the images on Commons, what do we gain by deleting those? It seems the most pointless of all the backlogs! Speaking of backlogs, with 50-something names remaining, CAT:UAA is no longer reporting as a backlog! Nice work, folks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

KingpinBot is going to remove the category from the blocked users, so I don't have to go back and do it. Right? Or is Fetchcomms correct that I should be removing it, because I've left it alone for the blocked users. (Please say the bot will, please say the bot will, please say the bot will...) KrakatoaKatie 03:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It may take a few days, but, yes, Katie, the bot will do that eventually. Courcelles 03:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a concern about "Godgundam10" Does that offend anyone else? Thanks, Happy New year! DocOfSoc (talk) 03:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No. What do you think the "G" stands for in G Gundam? HalfShadow 04:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Empty!

CAT:UAA is empty! At least for now! Maybe we can try to keep it relatively under-populated so it's actually useful? New year's resolution! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hooray! From 640-something to zero in ... a very short time! In all seriousness, though, the fact that the category needed such a big clean-out (the earliest stuff I found there was from November 2009), maybe shows that it is not well thought out. Perhaps we need a separate category for promotional/COI usernames (maybe via {{uw-coi-username}}?), and leave this one for other policy violations (offensive, implies authority, etc.). That might make managing the situation a little easier in future. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. Editors who have created an article with the same name as their username need admin attention there and then - I'm fairly lenient with the Ed's grocery store kind of editor, but we need to be talking to them more clearly. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I think if we can encourage admins (and non-admins for that matter) to patrol the category as often as they do WP:UAA and block/report the clear violations and remove the cat where there's no serious concern, then it could work much better and without getting flooded again. Even if just half a dozen editors (preferably including 2 or 3 admins) went through it a few times a day, it could be easily manageable. We can also educate editors on the correct use of the templates that populate the category and on the use of the UAA board in the process. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

(OTRS) Template "convert" vandalized

OTRS has received notice that the page Deepwater Horizon oil spill was vandalized. (See infobox under "Spill Characteristics -> Volume). It turns out that someone has vandalized the "convert template", eg. {{convert|4900000|oilbbl|USgal m3|abbr=none|lk=in|sp=us}} results in 4,900,000 barrels (210,000,000 U.S. gallons; 780,000 cubic meters). The template is protected. Can someone please repair it? Asav (talk) 05:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Gah. Found it and fixed it, that was not easy- it was in Template:Convert/USgal m3. Seems we have a few unprotected subpages of this, which is being used in nefarious ways; though the vast majority already are protected, I'll protect the rest. Courcelles 06:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Great! Better protect that template, too? Oops. Edit conflict. Asav (talk) 06:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a plug for a very useful script here - User:Anomie/previewtemplatelastmod.js annotates the list of transcluded templates with the timestamp and edit summary of the last edit. 99% of the time, the template with the most recent edit is the one that has been vandalized (Any vandalism that doesn't show up in the wikitext is template vandalism, 100% of the time). It makes finding things like this easy rather than hard. Remember to go back to a known-good version, rather than just reverting the last edit. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Promotional userpage

Resolved

 – G11ed GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Please check Promotional userpage User:Dverkys--Musamies (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Backlog

Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests and its subcat now have 36 items in it. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this allowed?

Is it allowed for non-admins to close CFDs as "rename" in the event of a near-unanimous consensus, and after re-categorizing all the articles, tag the old category page for speedy deletion under G6? I am asking because of the serious backlog at CFD. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

In principle, I don't see any objection, but some links would help. Rodhullandemu 02:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is an example. Rename this category, Category:Companies that have entered administration, to Category:Companies that have entered administration in the United Kingdom per the consensus here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

In general, not a good idea; simply because letting an admin close the discussion and file on WP:CFD/W makes CydeBot do all the work, which is easier on folks, and automatically attributes the editors of the old category. I've closed a few CFD's in my day, and other than the rare double upmerge result (which there is no other way to do), doing things by hand or with AWB is a massive waste of time. (For examples sake, closing that discussion and getting the bot to do the work took me less than 20 seconds. I'll see if I can do anything about that backlog.) Courcelles 05:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Unsuccessful scam

Thanks to Wutsje (talk) who tagged it, I have just deleted a scam donation page at User talk:Donation2011, which consisted of most of the text of Jimbo's thank-you message plus a large "Help keep us alive by donating" button which led to http://rp-city.com/donation.php. I have blocked the user and disabled talk page access. Clicking on that link suggests that the scammer had only managed to clear $0.67 after Paypal fees, but perhaps we should be alert in case he posts it elsewhere. Could the edit filter be set to block that address? Also, I wonder if there is any way to discover who is at the other end of it, so as to send them a small letter bomb? JohnCD (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be better suited for the WP:SBL, if it's a widespread problem. Special:LinkSearch shows no active links (or at least will, after I disabled yours above) –xeno^talk 21:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe the helpdesk was replaced with similar text a couple of hours ago (and of course, reverted almost immediately). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Never mind,I checked the diff and it appeared to just be a copy-and-paste of a page which included a welcome from Jimbo. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI: I've globally blacklisted the domain. Wutsje (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Good. It's a Russian site full of ads and get-rich-quick schemes and games, seems fairly inactive (last post on its front page dated Aug 2010) and has the same "donate" button on its front page. JohnCD (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, those Russians... HalfShadow 23:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"In Soviet Russia, lottery plays you!" (That axiom might not be limited to Soviet Russia, though.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Backlog

Resolved

 – no pending requests at this time

WP:RFPP is getting backed up with some requests being there for over 3 hours. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 21:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

3 hours? I remember times when it was backlogged a day or more. ;-) Regards SoWhy 23:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Kids today don't know how good they have it. It my day we had to walk 10 miles up a mountain side swarming with angry bears to request page protection, and if they responded in a week we counted ourselves lucky. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Luxury. In my days we live in a Windows 3.11 box in the middle of the road. We used to get up, lick the road clean, and THEN request page protection - then our dad would beat us until we fell asleep. Kids these days: luxury, I say (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Resolved

Need temporary undeletion of File:110 1058.JPG to establish a copyright trail. Kelly ^hi! 22:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Let me know or post here when you're done. Courcelles 22:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, found the duplicate. It can be redeleted. Kelly ^hi! 22:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Zapped. Courcelles 22:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Wrong

The date on the main page is wrong. It's January 4th. B-Machine (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's January 5th UTC. –MuZemike 01:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Another undelete

Please undelete File:Jonty Rhodes00.jpg to help in establishing a copyright trail, thanks! Kelly ^hi! 04:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done, poke back as above. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, please redelete. Kelly ^hi! 05:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You can also ask at WP:REFUND. You'll get a pretty quick response there too. Protonk (talk) 05:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Zapped. Courcelles 09:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 23#Canada–Tonga relations, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Book:United States and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. special districts

Resolved

Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 23#Canada–Tonga relations, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Book:United States and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. special districts? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Done the last two, I'm involved in the first one so can't touch it. Courcelles 00:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Courcelles. Cunard (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm on that last one. Working on a closing statement as I'll probably be barbecued if I don't write one up. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like User:Prodego beat me to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Cleanup

Nominated for deletion. Can someone please put the TFD notice on the template as it's protected? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done Beeblebrox (talk) 03:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Needs {{subst:PAGENAME}} as the first parameter. The link to the deletion discussion is broken when transcluded in articles. Reach Out to the Truth 15:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Groan, I think it is time to shut down the circus at User talk:Vintagekits

Resolved

 – unblock declined, talk page revoked, VK referred to WP:BASC. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

He continues to blame others for his monstrous series of blocks. He has put up another unblock request that is a word for word copy of one that was declined. Giano is taking the opportunity to fan the flames and accuse people of all sorts of bad faith actions and other misconduct. Could a previously uninvolved admin step in here and put and end to this? I would also ask you to consider the possibility of revoking the talk page and asking him to direct future unblock request to WP:BASC in light of the hopelessly off-base nature of his last three unblock requests and the continued contention that he has never done anything wrong and others are to blame for his thirty plus blocks. The community made it clear just last week they didn't want him back if he couldn't own up to his own mistakes, and he has not and by all indications never will. This is not a request for another community discussion of these issues, just looking for an uninvolved admin to put a stop to this pointless nasty, divisive discussion. (I myself backed off several days ago as I could see it was hopeless) Beeblebrox (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. if you want to do something about the situation on his user page that would be swell too, but it's hardly the most pressing issue. (tagged as retired, which is a bald faced lie since he is blocked and has been persistently asking to be let back in) Beeblebrox (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, it may help if you review what you have written above and modified it so that your comment does not fuel another fire of its own. That is, the user whom you accuse of "taking the opportunity to fan the flames and accuse people of all sorts of bad faith actions and other misconduct" does not seem to have done anything of the kind, at least in the last 4 days. In fact, that user's most recent contributions (on 3 January) seem to have helped stop an (unnecessary) back-and-forth that was occurring on Vintagekits talk. Also, or alternatively, it may help if you included diffs (for what you have written above). Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No thanks. If you can't see what I'm talking about with your own eyes by simply looking at recent discussions there then we'll just have to accept that we don't see the situation the same way. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

If you mean the threads/discussions on that talk page which have attracted replies within the last 3 days, then no, I don't see the situation in the same way with regards to the other user you seem to often unnecessarily mention at these noticeboards. When this blows up one day, you'll be responsible for your own fate. I wash my hands of this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you may have me confused with someone else. I don't make a hobby put of stalking Giano and reporting him, and I haven't asked that any admin action be taken towards him specifically, just that the discussion be closed down. Thanks for your concern but I'm not worried about it blowing up and destroying me. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, should this be raised again at another point, I have not confused you with someone else, otherwise I would not have limited the bulk of my comments to a single sentence you wrote - a sentence which unnecessarily invokes additional drama (to the detriment of the project). That was my concern; the tragic outcome you imagine was not what I had in mind. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have lost me completely now. You said "When this blows up one day, you'll be responsible for your own fate." If that didn't mean that you thought this would blow up on me then I don't have any way of knowing what it actually was supposed to mean. You also said "with regards to the other user you seem to often unnecessarily mention at these noticeboards" which obviously does not refer solely to one sentence in the original post but to a perceived pattern of behavior that I do not believe is accurate. As I declined to provide you with diffs I suppose it would be terribly bad form of me to ask you to do the same to prove these accusations, but I have to say this isn't making a whole lot of sense to me. I can live with that, as I said I'm not particularly worried about it, but I apparently did not pick up on whatever it was you were somewhat indirectly trying to communicate. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Along with Vk needing to acknowledge his part in getting indef-blocked. I'd recommend that the 'RETIRED' sign be deleted from his Userpage. The sign isn't accurate & may also be provocative towards those who aren't infavour of Vk's unblock aspirations. GoodDay (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned that above, but the admin who handled it didn't see fit to do anything with it. As it is now directly beneath {{indefblocked|historical}} I doubt anyone will be fooled by it anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

In a certain way, the "retired" works. Kind of like the statement, "We decided to leave, right after they threw us out." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Completely off topic, but I have actually had people do this to me in real life. Sometimes I have to kick people out of my place of business, and a few of them have loudly declared they would never deal with us again right after I told them to never deal with us again. The fable of The Fox and the Grapes comes to mind. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Weird stuff going on at Seek & Destroy

Seek & Destroy was deleted to make room for a move (Seek & Destroy (Metallica song) → Seek & Destroy. However their talk pages were not moved (Talk:Seek & Destroy, Talk:Seek & Destroy (Metallica song). Both talk pages have significant page history, so you can't just delete Talk:Seek & Destroy to move Talk:Seek & Destroy (Metallica song) over it, at least as far as I'm aware. Or maybe you can. Anyway, I don't really know what should be done, and I was referred to here. So here I am. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Seek & Destroy was created, and speedy deleted.
2. Seek & Destroy was created again, and speedy deleted again. (both were nonsense pages)
3. Seek & Destroy was created, AfDed, and merged and redirected Kill 'Em All.
4. Seek & Destroy was recreated as an article.
5. Seek & Destroy was redirected again.
6. Seek & Destroy (Metallica song) was created, it initial version bears some similarity to the version before redirection (identical sentences).
7. Seek & Destroy was deleted and Seek & Destroy (Metallica song) was moved over into it's place. Neither talk page was moved.

I'll think about what to do. Probably separate the 4 pages out. Please don't touch this page. Prodego ^talk 23:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Seek & Destroy (Metallica song) as it was before the page move now resides at Seek & Destroy. Seek & Destroy as it was before the page move now resides at Seek & Destroy/old. Note it can't be deleted due to the merging. I'll go inform Sphilbrick that that move should not have been made. Prodego ^talk 23:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

"Indefinite" blocking

The meaning of "indefinite" blocking is a perennial cause of confusion, between "indefinite=probably-but-you-never-know-permanent" (vandal account, indef ban, etc) and "indefinite=probably-temporary" (holding block to sort something out, etc). Wouldn't we make life easier for ourselves if we distinguished these at Special:Block? We could amend the "Expiry" list (requires a bug) and in the mean time use the "Other time" textbox. We'd just need to decide on what form of clarification to use. I'd suggest that "indefinite=probably-permanent" is the more common usage, which is a pity because changing indefinite=permanent to "infinite" would be one option. But I suggest we should invent some other term for "indefinite=temporary" and (a) start using it in the "other time" box and (b) ask for it to be added to the dropdown. The simplest and most transition-friendly I can come up with is simply "indefinite-temporary" (hyphenated), but perhaps someone can improve on that. Rd232 ^talk 02:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• No need. No one is, in theory, "permanently" blocked from Wikipedia. There is almost always a route back to editing, it may take an extended time away, and some hoop-jumping-through on the part of the blocked person. However, I think that the number of honest-to-god-permanently-blocked-and-we-don't-ever-want-back-before-the-heat-death-of-the-universe users is actually vanishingly small. --Jayron32 02:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh come on, that's just terminological nitpicking and not addressing the main point. The distinction I've elaborated certainly exists, even if permanent-v-temporary oversimplifies it. Perhaps indefinite-longterm and indefinite-shortterm would be clearer. Rd232 ^talk 09:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Perhaps the point Jayron is trying to make is that a distinction is inherently prejudicial as to which of the two categories a user is likely to fall into, when what we actually want to do is to illicit useful contributions from both groups? - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 10:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Well I appreciate that sometimes the ambiguity is actually useful, but that suggests not getting rid of the ambiguous "indefinite" entry (which I hadn't suggested). We should at least be able to add indefinite-shortterm or something similar for use in cases where that is clearly the intention. It's not like we're going to force anyone to use block entries they don't want to. Rd232 ^talk 12:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• I for one would like to have an 'until' parameter that would hold something more than a date, so that a user could be blocked 'indefinitely' - ie the circumstances in which xe might be unblocked are not apparent at the time of blocking, or 'until' - the issue regarding copyvios is resolved, they respond satisfactorily to these queries, etc. Although I can do that in the block template, so maybe its overcomplicating things. One thing that does annoy me is other editors insisting on blanking the userpage and sticking up an 'indefinitely blocked' template. We are supposed to have stopped doing that ages ago (as I do remind folks), and while its fine if 'indefinite' = exhausted the community's patience and ain't coming back for a long while, its unnecessary if I've blocked someone to stop them uploading any more copyvios. Perhaps the answer is if you had a category that was TEMPORARY, but without duration - although I see Jayron's point here also. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Some joker would put "hell freezes over" in that box. I think it is sufficient to put the "until" conditions on the user talk pages. This sort of thing probably requires more space than will fit comfortably in the block log. Jehochman ^Talk 14:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah. They would :( Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
    • "Hell freezes over" was jokingly requested in 2006. See the talk page Uncle G (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Well, isn't the "until" in both cases: When the user demonstrates that they know why they were blocked and are able to convince the blocking admin / community that they are willing and able to contribute positively and not repeat the action they were blocked for? Its just that for the 'probably-permanent' they have either committed a grievous transgression or displayed an ability to repeatedly tax the resources of the community, so the bar is that much higher. In both cases it is broadly 'until we believe they get it'.
• I think that "indefinite-short-term" will undermine the utility of the indefinite block. I say this as a editor that has previously been blocked indefinitely. un☯mi 15:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Modifying MediaWiki:Ipboptions doesn't require a bug. And this discussion fits at MediaWiki talk:Ipboptions, where you'll see at MediaWiki talk:Ipboptions#sequence of options there's already been some discussion of "indefinite"-versus-"infinite". Notice the subtlety of there being a separate "display name" and string that's parsed for the actual time. Uncle G (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Indefinite means until we are convinced the block is no longer neccesarry. If the system is working properly, how long that is really depends more on the blocked user than the blocking administrator. Sometimes it can be very brief if they show an understanding of why they have been blocked and how to avoid it in the future. Other times they dig in their heels and refuse to admit to something that it is manifestly evident. It's not reasonable to expect admins to know in advance which will be the case, hence the indefinite block. If a user wants lawyer about what the word indefinite means they are probably not ready to be unblocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• What about users such as Ecoleetage, blocked and banned for going after an on-wiki opponent in real life? In such cases, there's no way that the users can redeem themselves. Nyttend (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• I can give you the names of probably a half-dozen users who have been blocked longer than most of you have been contributing to Wikipedia. The hope is that someday even these editors could come back & make constructive edits, because of those idealistic words on the Front Page -- "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" (emphasis mine); the reality is that these banned users aren't going to be allowed back here soon, if ever. They're not going to change. But our ideals insist that we hold out hope, & thus issue no (technically) permanent blocks. -- llywrch (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that is quite wrong. Given enough determination and know-how, banned users easily evade any technical restriction we place, and they do that every single day. –MuZemike 02:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Llywrch was talking about the user being given permission to begin editing, not about ban-evaders. Apples and oranges. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Other wording that is possible includes "indeterminate" or "indefinite, block length to be determined" or "indefinite, block length under discussion", or "indefinite - user response required before unblocking". However, this may encourage a mentality of blocking to get people to respond. This is sometimes needed, but should only be used rarely, and in any case a warning that a block is about to be used should usually be made to get people to talk if they are being unresponsive and continuing to edit. Even simplest would be "blocked - block length under discussion". This would help in cases where someone is unblocked, in that any unblock note could say that discussion determined that the block was no longer needed. It could also be set up so that the admin gets a note when carrying out this sort of block, that the block will expire in a week unless further modified, which would put the onus on them to discuss the block and get a block length sorted out. Carcharoth (talk) 06:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that some people flat-out refuse to communicate and continue to be disruptive until they get blocked. Then they start protesting said block. –MuZemike 21:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Is that indicative evidence that someone is a sock? HeyMid (contribs) 22:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Impersonator and global accounts

I'm not sure if this is the place to mention this, but here goes anyway.

I was just made aware that someone has been vandalizing various wikimedia projects under my username. It was suggested that I make a unified login - however, I never edited any wikimedia projects except for wikipedia proper and I think wikiquote. The login ID "McJeff" is already registered by someone else on wikimedia, making me unable to do this.

If this isn't the place to deal with this, please point me in the right direction to do so. McJEFF ^(talk) 18:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Yep someone sure is: [79]. No SUL has been created yet, so all you need to do is click your Preferences link in the top right and click "Unify my account" on the first pane that comes up. That will prevent anyone from registering that name anymore. Now, attaching all those banned accounts to your SUL is a whole other ball-o-wax, but you don't need to do that unless you want to edit on those other projects. Arakunem^Talk 21:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration Clerks Seeking New Volunteers

The Arbitration Committee clerks are currently looking for a few dependable and mature editors willing to serve as clerks. The responsibilities of clerks are simple—opening, closing, passing and declining cases and motions; maintaining the requests for Arbitration pages; and preserving order and proper formatting on cases. Clerks are the unsung heroes of the arbitration process, keeping track of details to ensure that requests are handled in a timely and efficient manner. Clerks get front-line seats to the political and ethnic warfare that scorches Wikipedia periodically, and, since they aren't arbitrators themselves, are rarely threatened with violence by the participants.

Past clerks have gone on to be (or already were) successful lawyers, naval officers, and Presidents of Wikimedia Chapters. The salary and retirement packages for Clerks rival that of Arbitrators, to boot.

Please email clerks-llists.wikimedia.org if you are interested in becoming a clerk. One of us will be in touch you shortly.

For the Arbitration Committee clerks,
NW (Talk) 20:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

On the appropriateness of linking to IRC from Template:Adminhelp

Can I get some admins to comment on this discussion please? Thanks, œ^™ 02:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal harassment

I have been offended and attacked by the user:Makedonovlah on my talk page. He called my Bulgarian, Slav, the most offensive Slavomacedonia, and calling my country FYROM or FYROMIAN. This is strong offence for the Macedonian users and I expect some actions. He also blamed me for something which I am not familiar with and all this is against the rules and principles of Wikipedia. Here is the message. Regards.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Warned. Since he's a newbie there's probably no need for immediate further action. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Reg--MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment, the Arbitration Committee reviewed a request by User:Jayjg to remove editing restrictions placed on him in the abovementioned case. By a vote of 12-0, the Committee passed the following motion:

In view of his compliance with Remedy 11 of the West Bank - Judea and Samaria case, the editing restrictions placed on Jayjg (talk · contribs) in that same case are lifted effective at the passage of this motion. Jayjg is reminded that articles in the area of conflict, which is identical to the area of conflict as defined by the Palestine-Israel articles case, remain the subject of discretionary sanctions; should he edit within this topic area, those discretionary sanctions continue to apply.

For the Arbitration Committee,
NW (Talk) 18:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 27 and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 29#Westbrook_Technologies

Would an admin (or admins) close the discussions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 29#Westbrook_Technologies and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 27, which includes List of deaths related to Scientology, List of African supercentenarians and List of South American supercentenarians, Tase Matsunaga? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Rules for discussion

As one of my Facebook friends noted, if you strip the first and last lines off this image, it applies pretty well anywhere -- particularly here. (Note that I'm not claiming to follow the rules very well myself....) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Perma ban - For attempting to inject objective, rational rules of discussion into the MMORPG. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Aggro on Burpleson AFB. Aggro, aggro, aggro... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
    • CC SarekOfVulcan. T. Canens (talk) 11:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protecting an article talk page

Little as I like to suggest it, I think that Talk:Schapelle Corby would benefit from semi-protection. The amount of soapboxing and attacks, both specifically and generally directed, are getting a bit excessive. What do other uninvolved people think? I would consider myself uninvolved, as I think I've only taken admin actions here, but considering I've been dragged off-wiki, I'm not sure whether that's a reasonable claim. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Disagree — not because the talk page is free from problems, but because there have only been a few new-or-unregistered editors causing problems. If the soapboxing belongs on the page, it should stay there; if not, its removal could be accompanied by warnings and eventually blocks. In my mind, semiprotection is only appropriate if there's a significant number of different editors causing problems, since we can't easily warn or block all of them. Nyttend (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The editors who seem to be recruited here from http://womenforschapelle.blogspot.com are making no progress in grasping Wikipedia policy. They must be firmly in possession of the WP:TRUTH so they are not listening to any of the advice provided. See the collapsed discussion at Talk:Schapelle_Corby#Exposing the censorship on Wikipedia_._._.. We should not put up with this indefinitely. I propose that a 7-day semi might be considered, if there are any more new posts that express no willingness to follow policy. EdJohnston (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree and that sounds sensible. Judging from the group's website it should be noted, however, that the admin who does this is likely to have their username and comments posted and criticised on the website as being part of some kind of conspiracy. Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, considering I already have, I guess I'm the natural choice. :-) Anybody else want to chime in first? (Oh, and see also the recent discussion at WP:ANI#Difficulties at Schapelle Corby.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems like a reasonable idea at this time, but keep it short-term and put a big notice explaining why at the top of the talk page. Trebor (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

If anyone is wanting an admin who will put their name to the protection action and advice, I am prepared to do so. Not only have I no prior involvement, I am uninterested on what off site opinion pages may say about me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Check her latest blog, you are already being vilified in the unpopular unpress.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I shall take your word for it... LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• That is massively dense and detail-heavy article for what is really just a typical, Southeast Asian "but it wasn't my bag!" drug bust. The (largely localized Aussie) coverage that is typical of the media's endless remix of its missing white woman syndrome. Tarc (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, try not to stir things up further. One might acknowledge the controversy and ask for sourced quotes, rather than trying to make the article narrative carry any PoV at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we should hold fire on the protection of the article, and see what happens now that a major protagonist has been blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

86.157.75.69 (talk · contribs) was continuing the same conduct, so I've blocked them for block evasion per WP:DUCK. The personal attacks and soapboxing were blockable in their own rights anyway. Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

HIDING THE ISSUE Why is the following being deleted at every turn? Kim Bax was banned for confronting it, and now my posts are blocked and my IP is banned for articulating it. It is very serious, and you are attacking me for asking Wikipedia to investigate corruption which has already been highlighted in the media articles I linked to.

The article is and has been subject to management by government proxies, as are many others which are politically sensitive. This is the blunt truth, but it appears that you are ok with that, and wish to hide it.

THE ORIGINAL EDIT (DELETED) Well, thank you for the ban. Was it panic, or was it censorship?

No, I am not Kim Bax. I am not even in Australia. I simply watch Australia's crimninality and corruption with respect to that case from afar, and that includes their government's manipulation of Wikipedia articles by proxy (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/08/26/18443430.php and http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2007/s2014471.htm show they were rather clumsy at first).

Don't worry though, I am well aware that you act as a gang in terms of always backing each other based upon how many edits/years you have been operative. The honest ones amongst you might, behind the scenes, care to look at some of your colleagues a little more closely. Go on: I dare you.

You will find that my edit, which they repeatedly collapse, is absolutely accurate -

Why no Wikipedia investigation into the long term corruption of this article, and those who have been engaging in it?

I suggest that you go back to first principles. This article is appalling. It is a biased, propagandistic, misrepresentation of the facts, hostile to Schapelle Corby. It is a disgrace to Wikipedia's founding principles.

Further, this state of affairs has been heavily protected for some years, by a relatively small number, sometimes acting under proxy identities. You must surely be aware of this, but if you are not, I suggest that you actually start to do some research. Begin with the long term edit patterns of some of those reversions of facts which are actually core to the case (eg: human rights abuse http://www.schapelle.net/report.html). Investigate. Look at the edits, and the consistent patterns, of individuals.

In a number of cases look at their own words on the talk pages. Look at their ignorance of the case facts, the zealous nature of their editing, and their clearly hostile position with respect to Schapelle Corby.

Ask if they should be anywhere near to editing this article. And yes, I am referring to those you would consider to be experienced senior editors. It's a position they hide behind to get away with this gross abuse. It is a shield, which blinds you.

But you won’t do any of this will you? And neither will any other 'Admin'. It is far too easy to turn a blind eye, and pretend that the reality of this article is fantasy. But it isn’t, and it isn’t limited to this article either. But this article though is particularly stark, not only because the intense management of it is relatively easy to establish, but because it is so revolting in terms of the agenda is supports.

Those links posted above by the way, to the Australian government being caught red handed systematically editing and abusing Wikipedia articles - do you imagine they just simply ceased when those news reports emerged? Are you REALLY that naïve? In case you are, here is some coffee to sniff - they became more professional at it.

So are you going to do your job and establish a full investigation into the edit patterns and previous editors with respect to this article? I won't hold my breath (but whilst you dodge it, you may find that downstream someone else will do it for you, to detriment of Wikipedia as a whole).

Why is Wikipedia not interested in preventing the political abuse of this article, when it is already 100% established that Australian government officials and affiliates have engaged in this for years? Please confront the corruption and those engaging in it (and at least one has posted on this page), rather than run away from it.

Feel free to ban me again. You can shoot the messenger but the truth will eventually emerge, and through your refusal to face it you will have been complicit in some pretty disgusting stuff. 86.169.139.162 (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Bored now. -- llywrch (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact that a pathetic comment like this is the best that Wikipedia can come up with, in the face of systemic corruption, speaks volumes. 217.43.142.249 (talk) 10:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Systemic corruption of Wikipedia? That's really all that's been alleged here, and it seems to be being resolved through normal channels. (Australian government involvement has actually not been established.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

What channels are they, Arthur? I see it being brushed under the carpet. And by the way, Howard ADMITTED Wikipedia was being edited: they were caught red handed, so h ehad little choice. 217.42.154.139 (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Excuse my delay in responding; I was busy with more important things than arguing with you. My comment about being bored was an appropriate response to reading yet another repetition ad nauseum of your position. If you want snappier responses get some new material. -- llywrch (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

What an enlightened response to the serious matter of corruption. Quite incredible that such air-headed arrogance is allowed to prevail. Wikipedia? Is this what you have become? 217.42.154.139 (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

How badly wrong a BLP list can go.

The issue is now resolved. But if admins want a warning of how badly BLP lists can get (and a chuckle to boot) take a look at List of people with strabismus. Of course, every item was sourced!!!! So why did I delete it? Now, just look at the sourcing - yes all of it.

If it wasn't for the living people involved, I'd have kept this. This one deserved preserving for posterity.--Scott Mac 00:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I counted two reliable sources, but one was an unlinked reference to The New Yorker, and the other was to an article in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin that didn't quite say what the list asserted, because it never used the term "strabismus". The rest was absolute junk. Horologium (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone with a point to make because of this AFD? Heiro 00:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Unlikely. the strabismus page had been here since early 2008 and just apparently lay largely unnoticed.—Soap— 00:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Amazing. Not only was the article here for a long time, but it was edited by a substantial number of people -- and for the first month it erroneously identified strabismus as being "lazy eye". --Orlady (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, since it was already deleted, I couldn't go check on edit history. Heiro 00:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It would probably not hurt to go through Special:PrefixIndex/List_of_people_with and nominate similar pages about medical problems and the like. (X! · talk)  · @251  ·  05:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• This list was a classic example of the "coincidental cross-section of facts" as a bad reason to create a list. The referencing seems immaterial to me. One could create a List of birds species with orange tailfeathers or a List of automobiles with more than four cupholders or any of a number of other lists which have zero BLP problems, may actually be referencable to reliable sources, but still are epic fails with regards to being suitible topics for an encyclopedia article. --Jayron32 06:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • List of public art statues of film directors? Uncle G (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
    • This has got to be the silliest example. Hut 8.5 19:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
      • @Hut 8.5: That was great. I must admit, I used my magic admin powers to actually review the deleted article. Thanks for the laugh. It was great. --Jayron32 20:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
        • That one is a candidate for Wikipedia:Deleted articles with freaky titles, if it's not already there. --Orlady (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
        • What about the list of public art statues? Uncle G (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • A List of birds species with orange tailfeathers would at least help people to identify a bird they may have seen on their safari trip. But who is trying to find out the name of some person, and only knows that he or she may have a certain medical condition?  Cs32en Talk to me  20:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
    • It's the other way around, though. One knows the medical condition, and is looking for other people who had it. It is what the Institute for Propaganda Analysis would have called Testimonial. "Famous person X also had my medical problem, you know." Uncle G (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• I'm fairly sure that Abraham Lincoln is not a living person at this point. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • In this case I think it would have been better to keep the article but remove the BLPs. The list would still have seven entries in it. Hut 8.5 19:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
    • well, except that the topic is about as notable as List of people with big toes of different sizes. Resolute 20:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I also remember another silly list. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who wear fingerless gloves--76.66.180.54 (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Short-term BLP clean-up projects (Scientology)

After concerns raised here and elsewhere about Scientology-related BLPs being distorted by ideological editing, I started a short-term work-group to review related articles and to examine the extent of any problems. Wikipedia:Neutrality in Scientology. The idea was to get new eyes, without any history of Scientology related editing, to examine the articles - too many existing editors obviously had pro or anti Scientology agendas. The initiative was starting out well with a number of excellent participants. However, since then two things have happened.

Firstly, I've been attacked as a pro-Scientology editor off-site [80]. That's not a problem in itself, but it has brought SPAs into related debates - seeking to attack me and my initiative ion order to "preserve" articles they deem important to the cause. I think my track-record of being interested in BLP enforcement regardless of the ideology of the subject is good enough that experienced Wikipedians know where I'm really coming from.

Second User:Will Beback has strongly objected to any initiative outside of the existing Wikiproject, and has sought support from the Wikiproject Council for ending the independence of this short-term initiative. (Disclosure: Will and I have been in various disputes over what I see as his reckless attitude to BLPs.)

This isn't really the right venue for this - but it seemed wise to bring this to wider attention, and I was unsure where else. Should there be a rule against short-term BLP clean-up projects by people uninvolved in long-term wikiprojects? That seem to be the nub of it?--Scott Mac 01:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to protest Scott's baseless accusation that I have a reckless attitude towards BLPs. It's unproven and irrelevant, and appears to just be an ad hominem attack on another editor.

Scott created a quasi-project and insists that it may not be included in any existing projects, either Scientology or Biography. I'm happy to see broader participation in the discussion, but I urge Scott to avoid inflammatory language.   Will Beback  talk  01:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I simply noted our disagreement. As for the rest, I was simply trying to get people to improve articles and involve people not currently wishing to join a long-term Wikiproject. The are problems here that the Wikiproject has not been fixing. The categorisation bothers me less than the effectiveness of sorting problems - and a short-term drive outside of the wikiproject seemed to be working. Working is what matters.--Scott Mac 01:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Both of you have very valid argument on the issue at hand. Will made a WP:BOLD move and it was reverted thus has occurred the normal WP:BRD process. Will it was unnecessary to post at Project council, Scott is was inappropriate to accuse him of Canvassing. Go back to corners instead of Wasting every ones time here because neither of you are gonna back down from your positions nor do I see a chance reconciliation. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Seems to me that from my past experience of both Scott and Will, what they need is to spend a few minutes chatting (probably privately) and working out how they can best collaborate to improve the encyclopaedia. I am solidly convinced that, whatever the merits of this particular dispute, both are on the side of the angels and should be able to sort this out like the mature individuals they are. I suggest that the admin noticeboard is too toxic an environment for this to happen peacefully and would urge them to take it to a pub, or email if they are too far apart geographically. Guy (Help!) 02:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree with JzG above The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Will and I have communicated extensively via e-mail. I'm not about to disclose the contents, but suffice to say it went nowhere. I'm not going to be unnecessarily rude about him, but I'm uninterested in Guy's Wikihugs at the expense of things that actually matter. I'm interested in ensuring Wikipedia minimised the chances of harming living people. Will's attitude to BLP is detrimental to that goal - and I can't with honestly try to call it any other way. He's now watching my every move, and challenging my every call, because whatever his agenda is he sees my BLP-focussed one as a problem. If Will's got angels on his side, I just hope I can recruit some even heavier hitters. --Scott Mac 03:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Will Beback has a legitimate concern that the purpose of the project may be unclear to people. Personally, I view it as more of a short-lived task force which will review Scientology-related articles to ensure that our policies and guidelines have been applied, particularly as regards WP:BLP, but my hope is that similar efforts will be undertaken in other topic areas that may be in the same situation with reference to WP:BLPCAT. I note that ArbCom suggest something very like this in their WP:ARBSCI findings:

The Arbitration Committee urges that knowledgeable and non-conflicted users not previously involved in editing Scientology-related articles, especially Scientology-related biographies of living people, should carefully review them for adherence to Wikipedia policies and address any perceived or discovered deficiencies. This is not a finding that the articles are or are not satisfactory in their present form, but an urging that independent members of the community examine the matter in light of the case.

Perhaps this project should be under the aegis of ArbCom? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Uhmm No Arbcom recommended but to pretend we are Agents of Arbcom (though a kick ass name) would be silly as we have no such authority. Lets just let the WP:RM settle this and we can drop it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I understood that all admins are responsible for helping enforce arb com rulings. DGG ( talk ) 16:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

A few questions/points

• 1) If this is short-term, how short is the term, one month, one year, 10 days? Now, even if a short-term project was envisioned (whatever that is), should it not have been proposed prior to its initiation? I think it should have been. Project guidelines exist to smooth the way and help potential participants build consensus before commencement. If it had proposed first, if the guidelines on projects had been followed, perhaps none of this would have happened since consensus about such a project would have been in evidence before commencement of it. If the editors involved in this, primarily McDonald and Resident Anthropologist, are so concerned about following Wikipeida's rules and guidelines why not use those which apply to creation of any Project? I think this "project" should be deleted and a new one proposed according to the standards set forth for "Projects."

• 2) Wikipedia suggests that editors write about what they know about. So, to call for uninformed editors to work on these articles seems very odd and kind of pointless. Scientology is a large, complex subject and a newbie editor might have to spend years just coming up to speed on the basics before making useful contributions to this set of articles.

• 3) If this project was to focus on Living Persons then why does the project page call into question every single article in the Scientology template? Many of these articles have nothing to do with living persons or biographical material at all.

• 4) If someone has concerns about biographical articles about non-notable persons, there are certainly many better candidates for deletion than the edit histories of McDonald show. I would recommend he put his time toward weeding out the worst of the worst. Stubs about even somewhat notable persons in the Scientology universe seem oddly singled out here which is why, I think, his own objectivity and neutrality has been called into question.

There are other substantive issues with this "project" and how it has been started and managed. I'll leave those out for now. I find this Project to be redundant and pointless. The primary wikipedia articles on this subject happen to be some of best articles in the public sphere on the subject and consistently rank at the top of common internet searches for information about Scientology. The extensive arbitration about editing Scientology articles resulted in a rather strong consensus about how to proceed with any further articles or editing. This Project seems to threaten that consensus and will thus make a difficult subject needlessly more difficult for anyone interested in editing within this body of articles. I would, therefore, as mentioned above, propose that this Project be deleted and a new one proposed according to the very good guidelines regarding projects. Calicocat (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I am unclear what consensus you speak of, A review of Scientology content was encouraged at WP:ARBSCI#Review of articles urged. IT has taken a year and half for any one to make such a cleanup/review to start. WP:BOLD encourages such initiatives as this. Your charge of Uniformed editors being dretimental to such a clean-up is unfounded. Editors with no strong opinions either way are preferred as they are more likely to focus on Content and not their own prejudice ( whether pro or Anti CoS). Please stop assuming bad faith and casting questioning motives of me and Scott itt is this type of WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality that WP:ARCSCI attempted to put an end to. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The premise of the project seems to be that associating someone with Scientology is vaguely defamatory. Would a comparable "Neutrality in Catholicism" short-term project involve deleting references to Catholicism from bios with inadequate sources, and AFDing articles about people notable solely for their association with that church. More broadly, I think that creating ad hoc, POV-based quasi-projects on contentious topics is a poor precedent. "Neutrality in Eastern Europe"? "Neutrality in Climate Change"?

As for questioning the motives of editors, I'd urge everyone involved to assume good faith. I'm sure we all are working to improve the project; the question is how to do so best.   Will Beback  talk  23:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

None of this answers my questions. Being bold is fine at times, but does not demonstrate the best judgment for articles on this subject. How long is "short term?" Wikipedia does encourage people to edit on subjects they have knowledge of. I'm not assuming bad faith at all and I think you should refrain from making such charges. I'm not talking about "strong opinions" I'm referring to people who are informed. The project lists every article in the Scientology template, not just biographical articles. Why the focus on Scientology stubs at all? Calicocat (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Will, Catholicism is a whole different ball park entirely as there is little stigma in such a categorization. Associating some one with a deviant which many call a "cult" and one the most controversial and derisive one out there should be a concern to us with BLPs. We are going through these articles reviewing them and making condensing or AFDing them as necisicary. Several AFD have not gone as planned and have come as "keep" (or kept by default). Will may remind you that i agree with your suggestion of it being a task force of WP:SCN, I just dont feel as strongly about it either way. Frankly think this short term drive is doing no harm, I think people you two are hyping this into something its not. John Carter, Cirt, Coffeepusher, Jayen466 are mostly staying out of it. I am really the only person who has had much work in the topic area prior to this. I do not feel this invitation for previously uninvolved editors to look at it a topic area is bad idea. I would support such task similar projects in those areas you mentioned for previously uninvolved editors after such Arbcom cases. I answered your question above already Calicocat. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I've also suggested putting it under the aegis of WP:WikiProject biography, but some editors don't find that acceptable either. ResidentAnthropologist, you've been involved in a variety of cult articles, so it isn't clear that you're "uninvolved" in that topic either. How long is this "short term" projected intended to last?   Will Beback  talk  02:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree some editors are being quite disagreeable about everything including compromises. I considered since WP:ARBSCI before my time here, I considered myself meeting the letter of the law. It occurred to me after writing my above statement that I might need to withdraw from it as I may not be as impratial nor as uninvolved as I would like to think myself as. You are correct in that Will. I have no idea how long it will take... i guess the old saying "as long as it takes." Personally I dont see it going much past January but who knows how long it could take. I dont want this to be a unwieldy faction any more than you do Will. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

If it "takes as long as it takes" then that is not "short term." Also, that phrase, "it takes as long as it takes" appears as a central bit of Scientology dogma for various questions regarding how long any particular step on the Scientology bridge takes. Frankly, I think this "Project" was ill conceived and should be scraped and deleted. It got off on the wrong foot by not following the guidelines for Projects in wikidpedia. It is overly board, as it names every article in the entire Scientology template and there are far more articles on wikipedia of far less notable people. Any editor who is so concerned about BLP issues might address those. As far as the arbitration on Scientology articles go, the finding states: "This is not a finding that the articles are or are not satisfactory in their present form, but an urging that independent members of the community examine the matter in light of the case." Calicocat (talk) 07:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Calicocat, from my perspective, this is something that really shouldn't take very long, because most of the things that will be addressed by this are pretty easy to find and generally easy to fix. I doubt most of the participants really want to get involved in any in-depth work in a controversial area, but see the need to get this topic back in line with our policies and guidelines. It shouldn't take very long at all to ensure that BLP policy is met, but people are going work at their own pace and choose which articles to work on. For example, I've pointed out an obvious and easily fixed issue with List of Scientologists and List of Scientology officials, but no one has addressed it. Why not take a look for yourself? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Will Beback, while I am sure that many people would not want to have their name associated with Scientology, I do not believe that it is implied by the project that it is "vaguely defamatory" to do so. This really is no different than labelling someone as a Catholic (to use your example religion) who is not a Catholic or whose Catholicism is not relevant to their notability. WP:BLPCAT is pretty clear on this and has been largely ignored for too long (and not just in this specific subject area). What is your objection to ensuring that BLPs follow our poloicies? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to having all BLPs follow WP policies. This matter isn't about improving BLPs, it's about creating an ad hoc quasi-project to pursue a particular POV regarding a contentious topic. Many religious groups and beliefs are viewed negatively in one or another place. It is contrary to the NPOV approach to adopt one view and make edits based on that view. We should have the same standards for the Church of Scientology, the Church of Christ, the Church of Latter Day Saints, and any other church or faith. The name of the quasi-project implies that there is a neutrality problem with identifying people as Scientologists, whereas that seems more like a BLP or verifiability issue. If there isn't adequate sourcing for identifying people as Mormons would viewing it as a neutrality problem be the best way of fixing that issue?   Will Beback  talk  22:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia coverage of Scientology as I have seen is bloated and attacking in nature. A large part of it has been written by a single person? BLP and NPOV issues have already been discovered and I don't see under the circumstances an independent quasi - project as you call it wouldn't be considered totally beneficial , if some experienced users are willing to spend the time going over the articles in that field I can't see any problem with that, suggest leaving them alone and letting them get on with it. Off2riorob (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Will, I am not sure why you believe that there is any one view being adopted here or what view you think that is - can you expand on that comment? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The only view I see being expressed by that quasi-project is that connecting someone with Scientology, as opposed to other religions, is defamatory. Do you see any Scientology-positive commentary or editing there?   Will Beback  talk  05:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

So you are suggesting that the project is biased against Scientology, rather than being neutral in attempting to apply WP:BLP? Sorry if that seems like a silly question, but it is sometimes difficult to tell which "side" people are complaining about when they start claiming bias one way or another. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Is the purpose of the quasi-proeject, or whatever it should be called, to fix BLP problems or neutrality issues? The name implies the latter. But a neutral approach would say that it is not more defamatory to say someone is a member of COS than of any other religion or organization. That is not the approach being taken, so it looks like neutrality is not the goal of the quasi-project. Rather, the purpose seems to be removing mentions of Scientology from bios. That seems more like BLP project or maybe even a verifiability project, rather than neutrality. Do you endorse creating these quasi-projects for any topic where an editors thinks some improvement is possible?   Will Beback  talk  09:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe this effort was prompted in part by my efforts to reveal the POV-pushing that has been going on in the Scientology topic area for quite some time (ANI thread, request for ARBSCI enforcement and second request for ARBSCI enforcement). There is no question that this topic area needs to be reviewed for neutrality, as ArbCom recognized in their finding of WP:ARBSCI. I applaud Scott Mac for getting this going, although at this point having people who self-identify as "anti-Scientology activists" joining a project that is meant to address neutrality issues suggests that perhaps this needs to constituted a bit more formally if it is to be fully successful.

The removal of Scientology-related categories from BLP articles where they do not belong is a simple and obvious first step. This is merely bringing the articles in line with WP:BLPCAT. I hope this spreads to other topic areas which deal with religion or ethnicity. Perhaps your issue is with the policy rather than its application? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Is a special quasi-project necessary for brining articles in line with WP:BLPCAT? Why restrict it to just one category? If I understand correctly, WP:BLPCAT applies to dozens or hundreds of categories, many of which have been contentious. Do you think we should start creating similar pages for all of those too?   Will Beback  talk  23:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Will, as I said, I think bringing things in line with WP:BLPCAT is an obvious starting point, not the sole aim of the project. And I would very much like to see this effort go on in other areas, although I can't say if there is as obvious a need anywhere else. I'm still not sure what your problem is with this project. I've tried to get you to explain in what way you think it is biased, but you haven't really responded. You seem to be saying that making sure our policies and guidelines have been properly applied is biased if the only articles under scrutiny relate to Scientology. I disagree.

Incidentally, take a look at Ethan Suplee - it was brought in line with WP:BLPCAT by removing the unsourced assertion that he is a Scientologist. User:Karppinen has just added a source which refers to Suplee as a Scientologist and re-added the "American Scientologists category (thus violating BLPCAT). I doubt this was done maliciously, since I suspect Karppinen is unaware of that policy. Regardless, are Suplee's beliefs relevant to his notability? I don't believe they are and see no reason why we should be attempting to label people as Scientologists (or Catholics, or Jews, or Animists, or anything else) unless it is part of why they are notable. Does that make me biased in some way? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

...not the sole aim of the project. First, is it a project? If not, what is it?   Will Beback  talk  01:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Are policy compliant, helpful edits being made? Beyond that, who cares? Seriously?--Scott Mac 01:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You've said it (whatever "it" is) is short term. What do you mean by that? When will it be completed and what will happen to it then?   Will Beback  talk  01:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No idea. Why don't we figure it out later? Maybe nothing at all. As long as articles don't suffer, let's live with some uncertainty. --Scott Mac 01:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

So it's of indefinite duration. It's already lasted longer than some Wikiprojects. Why the objection to calling it a Wikiproject? Is there something wrong with those?   Will Beback  talk  22:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, been here, now bored. You may have the last word.--Scott Mac 22:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Sheesh. If you make edits to a Scientology-related article, & someone accuses you of being a pro-Scientology shill, simply respond, "By Xenu, I am made these edits for this reason" -- & explain yourself. Unless Miscavige has changed "The Tech" in the last ten years, no Scientologist dare speak the name of Xenu without risk of inflicting such horrendous damage on her or himself that only hundreds of thousands of dollars of auditting will undo. Even if they have no idea who Xenu is. Or so they believe. -- llywrch (talk) 05:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Typing "ethan sup" into the Google search box in Firefox gave a helpful list of ten possible completions, #7 of which was "ethan suplee scientology", i.e. that is a frequent combination of search terms. Clicking that item quickly found a mention that Ethan Suplee was on the cover of Scientology's Celebrity magazine in 2004, and was interviewed by Scientology's Celebrity Center in 2006 here, where he says among other things:

"My decision to become a Scientologist came after I did the Purification Rundown, and it helped stop my drug cravings. I’d always been aware of Scientology, but I never had that special cognition about Scientology for myself, until I applied it with my own determinism. And it really helped me with a problem that was real for me: the problem with drugs."

It also seems to say that he got his start in acting through contact with another Scientologist. So I think it is fair to say Ethan Suplee has (at least as of 2006) self-identified as a Scientologist and felt that he benefited from it. I'd expect Celebrity is ok as sourcing for something like that, except for possible issues where someone happily self-identifies as a Scientologist for a while, then becomes disillusioned and quietly drops out. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care if Suplee is or isn't a Scientologist. I believe that he is, but that is a moot point - the question isn't "Is Ethan Suplee a Scientologist?" but "Is the category "American Scientologists" correctly applied to this BLP?". If someone is a Scientologist (or Zoroastrian or Jain or etc) and that is part of their notability, it will probably be easy enough to find reliable sources for that. WP:BLPCAT requires that the subject self-identifies as a member of the particular ethnic group or religion. In this particular case, the source of that self-identification is a Church of Scientology publication. Understand that I am not trying to suppress anything here, but due to the battleground situation around Scientology-related topics, CoS sources seem to be unacceptable for sourcing anything except membership in Scientology. I think that is a really odd situation. I don't see any reason for an encyclopedia to note Suplee's religious beliefs any more than it would note the names of his pets, but I understand that my feelings about labelling people in this way are not generally shared. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

closer needed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden

Unresolved

 – be back in a few days

It's been thirty days now since it was opened. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• He said five days ago he was preparing a response. Probably best to give him a hard deadline to do that by. Fences&Windows 02:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like we're going to let it run a few days over. I'll check back here when there is a consensus to go ahead and close. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Should this be deleted?

Not sure if this is the right place. [81] - basically this seems to have been created for an AFD, and is no longer needed. So should this be deleted? Sorry if I'm asking in wrong location. 86.178.52.148 (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really, the file is in public domain and is in Wikimedia Commons, the wiki that hosts multimedia files. Diego Grez (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks anyway! 86.178.52.148 (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Gabrielle Giffords

Gabrielle Giffords (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Death is not confirmed, please edit and freeze this page Sswonk (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

CNN & other news webiste have confirmed her death. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

At the time of my post, hospital spokesperson speaking to MSNBC live said she is not dead. Still not confirmed at 2:49 EST. Sswonk (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Latest reports are that she is in hospital, alive.[82] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, reports are she is undergoing surgery, and as I can't think why they would lie about that, I think we should accept that.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• This is also a topic on WP:ANI. Could someone please merge the two threads? NW (Talk) 20:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – My initial concern over unconfirmed reports of death have been handled as the page is currently protected. There is a discussion at Wikipedia:ANI#Gabrielle_Giffords_Debate_over_Death

per Sswonk (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons discussion about copyrightability of security camera recordings

Administrators who work with copyright issues, and lawyers, may be interested in the discussion at Commons:Commons:Village pump#Copyrightability of security camera recordings.  Sandstein  20:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Expired RfC

A naming RfC at Talk:The Gambia has expired and has been silent for well over a week. Could an uninvolved someone take look and summarize the discussion? Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. You are welcome to beat the rush & tell me now that I have mush for brains, then look at my closing decision. -- llywrch (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Sanctions appeal by User:Koavf

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

The restrictions placed upon Koavf (talk · contribs) in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Koavf and in User:Koavf/Community sanction are terminated, effective immediately. Koavf is reminded to edit in the future in full accordance with all Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

For the Arbitration Committee,
NW (Talk) 05:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Peer review

Resolved

 – Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 14:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys, I needed a peer review of an edit warring block I did of an editor. The details are here. In case any administrator wishes to change the block if I've made an inadvertent mistake, please feel free to change the same. Thanks. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 13:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Good block. That one of the parties in the edit war was an IP address is no excuse for a named editor to revert war, as was done here: [83]. Since they were previously blocked for the exact same edit war less than four days prior, it looks like a very good block. Have you blocked the IP address of his opponent as well? --Jayron32 13:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jayron. Nakon's already blocked one of the ips for two weeks. But the ip keeps changing the address; if the edit warring continues, I'll make a list of all the ips. Thanks again. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 14:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Avicenna: Need experienced admin help

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

The ethnicity of Avicenna is stated as "Persian" or "Iranian" in Encyclopedia Britannica. However, according to Encyclopedia Iranica, Avicenna was born in Afšana, a village near Bukhara (in Uzbekkistan). His father, who had moved in from Balḵ (in Afghanistan) a few years previously. Furthermore, Iranica states that The Tajiks are an Iranian people, speaking a variety of Persian, concentrated in the Oxus Basin, the Farḡāna valley (Tajikistan and parts of Uzbekistan) and on both banks of the upper Oxus, i.e., the Pamir mountains (Mountain Badaḵšān, in Tajikistan) and northeastern Afghanistan (Badaḵšān).... By the eleventh century the Turks applied this term more specifically to the Persian Muslims in the Oxus basin and Khorasan" (i.e. the homeland of Avicernna). So basically, the use of Persian or Iranian for the ethnicity of Avicenna is improper. He lived during Ghaznavid rule who were not part of Persian Empire. I believe Britannica is not a valid source for Iranian studies and a more valid source must be used which is Encyclopedia Iranica (a project from University of Coloumbia), with 4 decades research in Iranian studies. Iranica doesn't use any ethnic origin for Avicenna and only states his birthplace and the birthplace of his father.

I have requested for mediation and Mr Ruud believes that my reference to the sources is a form of WP:SYN. However, WP:SYN allows "A and B, therefore C", when a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. My reference to the definition of tajik DOES publish the same argument in the relation to the topic: Avicenna was a Persian, and Tajiks of his homeland are Persian people and therefore Avicenna was a Tajik too. I believe that the historical facts in the region must be considered too and I believe that Mr Ruud is not eligible enough to mediate and I request an experienced administrator with a good knowledge of the history of Central Asia should mediate. For further details, please refer to the Discussion page of Avicenna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and to the [request for mediation] page. Many thanks, --Artacoana (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand Ruud's insistence on the application of Goodman's Avicenna as "a reliable source". Jūzjānī (980 - 1037) is a pupil and THE biographer of Avicenna, whose citations have been used by the medieval Islamic bio-bibliographer Ebn al-Qefṭī (in Taʾrīkh al-ḥokamā) as the source of his entries on the life of Avicenna. Taʾrīkh al-ḥokamā, "The History of Learned Men", was translated by J. Lippert in 1903. NOWHERE IN THIS VERY RELIABLE SOURCE CAN BE SEEN ANY REFERENCE TO THE PERSIAN ETHNICITY OF AVICENNA. As a result, the primary sources such as Iranica and the Encyclopedia of Islam have avoided using the term Persian for the ethnicity of Avicenna. The application of the term "Persian" is unfair and leads to the unfair claim of Iranians for these scholars, as today the Persian speaking Iranians are the only ones who are unfairly called Persian in the official statistics This unfair application can lead to division and hatred among people of the region. An experienced administrator with a good knowledge of the history of Central Asia is required for mediation.--Artacoana (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II

This Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been passed:

• Communicat (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing or commenting on articles about World War II or the Aftermath of World War II. This prohibition is of indefinite duration, but may be appealed to the Committee by Communicat after six months;
• Communicat is placed under a behavioral editing restriction for a period of one year.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK [•] 15:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

User:NestleNW911

NestleNW911 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This editor is blocked as a sockpuppet, based on checkuser evidence and behavioral indicators. The editor claims, via their unblock request, that they are not a sockpuppet. The request is two days old, and I'd like to clear it from queue - is there any ongoing checkuser review of this one? Could I get another set of eyes here? Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to follow up on this some - KarenViceroy (talk · contribs) and NestleNW911 (talk · contribs) are in the same (very large) city and on the same (very busy) ISP. The technical data points to at least a  Possible match. TNXMan 17:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to say as some one who is familiar with Scientology members on Wiki, He doesn't smell like one. His edits have not been like past User:Shutterbug socks, I welcomed the user pretty early in His/her editing. I decided not to Report him/her because behavior was radically different from past socks. This could be a new shuttterbug strategy but I think not. I would endorse an unblock and would keep an eye on it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Also this is the first case I am aware of that an alleged Shutterbug sock has contested a block after an SPI. There have been one or two friendly fire blocks but never has one declared itself a Scientology member then been reported for SPI. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Editing restrictions of User:Diego Grez

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.

---

Diego Grez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Almost nine months ago (ANI discussion), Diego Grez (talk · contribs) (formerly MisterWiki (talk · contribs)) was released from an indefinite block under strict conditions, which confined him to editing only within his userspace. Just over six months ago, a discussion at AN reached consensus to loosen those restrictions to:

Diego Grez (talk · contribs) is restricted to a single account (excepting the employ of an approved bot), shall abide by all policies and guidelines, and continue to work with mentor HJ Mitchell.

Six months on, I think the mentoring has had a positive effect on both myself and Diego. Therefore, after consultation with Xeno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (the admin who closed the original unblock discussion), I think it's time to allow Diego to edit without restrictions, so I come here to ask if the community shares my assessment and if they are willing to remove Diego's name from WP:RESTRICT. Regardless of the outcome, I will continue to work with Diego on an informal basis. Any takers? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Diego has come a long way from his days as MisterWiki, and I see no need for the ongoing listing at WP:RESTRICT. –xeno^talk 00:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support – I can vouch for those who have said he has improved dramatically over the past full year. –MuZemike 01:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• This restriction is still in force? Definitely support lifting it for all the reasons above. (Of course, it should go without saying that lifting the restriction does not mean DG can stop "abiding by policies and guidelines". :) --Mkativerata (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Wait, he's still under restrictions? - He's come a long way. I think his MrWiki days are past. (this is a support, btw) (X! · talk)  · @124  ·  01:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Remove them; he's come a long way and although he makes occasional mistakes like everyone else, I can say that he's ready now. His time on Wikinews (where he is an admin) has also helped. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Per Xeno. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Per Fetchcomms. sonia♫ 04:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  Re your edit summary - non-admins and admins have equal ability to contribute to discussions regarding community editing restrictions and have their contributions taken into account. Which is why AN is a funny place to have these discussions because it's meant to be a noticeboard to get the attention of admins. But WP:BAN says it's the right venue.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Just as a point of order, what is the relationship between this request and the confusing series of usurpations and renaming accounts that went on today regarding Diego Grez? --Jayron32 06:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  he did one on s:; s:User talk:Zhaladshar#Rename request, citing privacy concerns. Cheers, Gold Hat (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• He had an off-wiki privacy issue and thought it best to change his username from his real name for the time being. The issue then resolved itself and he decided to go back to DG, which created an enormous mess with redirects, hence the usurpations, moves and deletions. There's no relationship to this request. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Cautious support, per teh Biguns high in this thread ;) Gold Hat (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support Although I do acknowledge that there have been some issues (although pretty minor), they are not serious enough to warrant continued mentoring. I've been asking this since like 2–3 months back. I see no reason not to give Diego the opportunity to create doppelgängers, nor why HJ should continue mentoring him. HeyMid (contribs) 10:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Yepp, kid's come a long way. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Can't say I'm impressed with reverting users to put back his own pictures on multiple articles and calling their edits vandalism. [84] [85] [86] [87], and responding to a civility warning with a "Meh. I don't really care about this place anymore." --Onorem♠Dil 15:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Would have to agree seeing those that I am some what troubled by them. -DJSasso (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Do I have to explain the whole problem I had off-wiki? Yes, I did respond badly, but there was no bad intention behind these reasonings. I was just angry with some other thing. Sorry. Diego Grez (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Cautious support – There were a few temper tantrums ([88], [89], [90]), but he isn't doing any harm to Wikipedia, so I don't see any problems with lifting the restrictions. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support I believe he's an established and good editor worthy of unrestricted editing. I do miss the image of his grandfather, however. Basket of Puppies 18:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support – I have seen Diego be a useful contributor on Wikipedia and other projects. There is no need for any more restrictions. —mc10 (t/c) 19:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I remember the original troubles as MisterWiki (I might have been peripherally involved too, I don't remember exactly). The impression I got was he seemed like a good kid at heart even back then, but with a bit of trouble to adapt to the serious tone of this project. Kudos both to Diego Grez and HJ Mitchell for getting this far! henrik•talk 20:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support Diego has matured a lot over the past few months and I trust him a lot more than I used to. Keep up the good work. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support per my trust in the proposer. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I recently gave a civility warning and his response was "Meh. I don't really care about this place anymore." I don't think he's changed, but we shall see. Fences&Windows 22:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Since the indefinite block? HeyMid (contribs) 15:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
    • See the above diffs by Onorem Dil. I believe there is some underlying interpersonal dispute at play there. Diego's response to F&W was suboptimal, but I don't think it warrants maintaining the listing at RESTRICT. –xeno^talk 15:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I was wondering whether Fences and windows meant that Diego is still behaving the same way as he did a year ago. HeyMid (contribs) 16:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
        • I think he meant that, and he's free to express his opinion. --Diego Grez (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Ah yes- I misread. –xeno^talk 16:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
          • No worries; anyone may misread another user's post sometimes. HeyMid (contribs) 16:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support I noticed a thread about restrictions a while ago (I believe it was lifting some of the former restrictions or unblocking or something; not sure, it's been a while), and shortly after that ran into the user in IRC. Most (but not all) of what I've seen of Diego has been through IRC rather than onwiki, but what I've seen of this user has led me to believe he's a good contributor (both on wikipedia and in IRC), and I don't think editing restrictions are necessary any longer. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support lifting the restrictions. DG has changed a lot in six months by what I've seen. Jafeluv (talk) 09:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Pile-on Support He's really changed from a year ago. The restrictions are no longer needed IMHO.--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 11:54, 10 January 2011 (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.

Need experienced admin help

Last month I speedy deleted Power Le Poer Trench as A10 as it duplicated existing article William Trench (archbishop). The speedy request seemed reasonable to me. Soon after, the original requester moved the William Trench article to the more common name of the deleted article "Power Le Poer Trench". Case closed or so I thought. Another editor complained some edits were lost and should have been merged. In the heat of the end of year holidays I forgot about this and when I archived it with the December postings the second user resurrected the issue requesting I fix it. I am willing to help but this is getting too complex. Unsure of the procedure, deleting, removing, merging, re-deleting, is an area I have not delved in and the danger of messing it up is greater for me than for somebody with more experience in this area. Can anybody take a look and fix it or give me clear instructions so it doesn't get messed up? I see both editors requests as valid and well intended. Would not do to make a mess. Thanks for any help. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves. A sysop can tell you whether the deleted revisions are worth restoring. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

1. User A created the article under the wrong name (not a 'less common name').
2. User B created a longer and better article with PD text correctly attributed.
3. User B realises what happened and informs user A
4. User A takes better text, replaces own text in "William" and requests correctly named article is deleted as A10. User C does that and User A moves it as a 'more common name'.

This has all been discussed, it is uncontroversial to restore edit history, and user B invested some time in copyediting and linking the text. User B (me) has also spent a lot of their time chasing this about now, and not inclined to waste even more peoples time, however, it is alarming simple when one realises user A and C messed up. Please restore the revision history of this article. cygnis insignis 18:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't know why this sat undone for a day, but since it has, I restored the seven or so versions, and the entire edit history is now available for all to see. Note that restoring older versions just puts them into the edit history in the timeline - it doesn't replace subsequent versions or the current version. It really is as easy as it looks. :-) KrakatoaKatie 22:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that out. cygnis insignis 17:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Undo move of Governors of Arizona

A new editor with 28 edits, Tyhlerb, has moved List of Governors of Arizona to Governors of Arizona. The Governors of Arizona is a new page created by editor Tyhlerb. The page was moved without discussion on the talk page. The page was then edited by another person, so I don't have a clue on how to undo the move. Generally there are 2 articles on Governors, List of Governors of <State> and Governor of <State>. For example, List of Governors of Kentucky and Governor of Kentucky. If there is no Governor of <State> article, it is then redirect to the list article. I believe he also moved List of Prime Ministers of Barbados to Prime Ministers of Barbados incorrectly. I will leave a notice on the user's talk page about not making moves without discussion. Bgwhite (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"Governors of Arizona" seems like a better name for the article, which is actually a true article not a list, per se. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If a move is to happen, it should be discussed on talk page first. Other moves like this have been recently shot down for lack of consensus. Examples, Talk:List of Governors of Texas#Requested move, Talk:List of Governors of Delaware#Requested move, and Talk:List of Governors of Florida#Requested move. Full disclosure... I stated I was neutral about the moves on the Delaware talk page. Bgwhite (talk) 07:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like the kind of issue where there needs to be a general RFC on the topic, maybe a discussion at WP:VPP or something, where we centralize a discussion on the general conventions for these types of articles. --Jayron32 13:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This is an article, not a list. But it is a featured list. Maybe the lower standards for featured lists when compared to featured articles are at the root of the problem? Hans Adler 14:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me for harrumphing about "lower standards", my work is of an exceptional standard. But what is the dividing line between "article" and "list"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golbez (talk • contribs) 04:49, 11 January 2011

Well, a list consists of, predominantly, a list. An article consists of mostly article-like content. In this case it is very much an article especially as it contains detailed information on the history of the governership. Suggest either a split of the article or shift it to Governer of Arizona --Errant ^(chat!) 10:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I try to limit it solely to information needed to understand the list: How you get on the list, how the list changes (succession, etc.), and the list itself. However, I agree that it could be at Governor of Arizona solely because no one has sat down and written a separate article on the powers and history of the office, which is beyond the scope of the list. (And, if it's more an article than a list, do you think FAC would want to take a look at it, or would they throw it back to FLC?) A split makes no sense; a list, IMO, must include information on how an entry gets added to said list, and 99% of the information there involves that. --Golbez (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Usercheck-short dead link

Since {{Usercheck-short}} is meta/administration-related and it's fully-protected (so an admin would have to make the edit anyway), I'm bringing this up here for lack of a better forum. The rightmost link generated by the template is to a broken toolserver tool (apparently the operator's account has expired). The link should probably either be removed or someone should attempt to get the tool back in working order again. I only noted this in passing and don't really personally care beyond my tidyness compulsion; hopefully, reporting the problem here will get it triaged more effectively. Apologies if WP:VPT would have been better. --Cybercobra (talk) 11:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a similar tool with which to replace that search link? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

We should be able to get the same effect by using regular links to WP search pages. Like, User:Foo on AN, etc. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you can have "prefix:A or prefix:B" in a MediaWiki search, so you'd have to have one link per noticeboard. Jafeluv (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hidden CSD categorization...

Resolved

Iran national football team is showing up at CAT:CSD and it obviously shouldn't be. Can someone who's good at this sort of thing find out why and fix it? Thanks! --Jayron32 04:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Found it. There was a transclusion of the now-speedily-deleted Template:Iran Squad 2011 AFC Asian Cup; the CSD tag got transcluded through with the template. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Dan K. Shane... --Jayron32 05:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Odd edit war brewing

Can someone who's better at sorting stuff like this out check out the situation at Wicocomico, Wicomico, Wicocomico people (Tidewater Virginia), and Wicocomico people. It appears that the Wicocomico people (Tidewater Virginia) and Wicocomico people articles are forks of some sort; it looks like there's two competing articles about the same subject, and both editors are using the seperate articles to push their own versions of the article. I am heading to bed soon; but thought I'd pass this off to another admin who is feeling adventurous... --Jayron32 05:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Wicocomico people and Wicocomico people (Tidewater Virginia) are two identical articles, both of which are copy-paste moves of Wicocomico (which I have restored prior to User:Pilch62's edits). I have made Wicocomico people a redirect to Wicocomico and I have restored the speedy deletion tags on the fork at Wicocomico people (Tidewater Virginia). This is a mess that merely requires a smack on the head for Pilch62. Seems simple enough.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposing indefinite block for dynamic IP hopping editor

92.8.146.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This editor was originally blocked for 55 hours at 16:35, 31 December 2010, and since then their block has been extended several times for block evasion. IPs used for block evasion include:

• 92.12.168.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 92.11.253.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 92.4.17.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Since the last entry in the block log (the one month block at 21:30, 8 January 2011) the block has again been evaded as 92.3.53.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Obviously for technical reasons we do not generally block IPs indefinitely, but I do not see this as being a reason why the editor behind the IP should not be considered indefinitely blocked? O Fenian (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

For some additional background on this editor, see in particular the edits of 92.11.253.184 linked above. As well as Irish republican related articles, they also include Bruce Jones (actor). The history of that article shows a large number of similar IPs, in particular 92.1.67.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) which edits both that aticle and point-of-view pushing on Éamon de Valera regarding his stance in WW2. That brings us neatly round to Talk:Éamon de Valera#NPOV issues and questionable Reliable Source in this context and Talk:Éamon de Valera#Missing information and the edits of this IP.

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

This editor made this edit which is wholly unacceptable, and it was followed by this from another IP.

As you can probably see, this editor has been a problem for a considerable time. O Fenian (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This editor is certainly troublesome, edit warring, pushing a particular POV, sometimes making aggressive comments, and repeatedly evading blocks. However, indefinitely blocking would not serve any purpose, as the editor just comes back with new IPs, as O Fenian's very thorough account above shows. This is, of sourse, additional to the usual reason for not making indefinite IP blocks because of collateral damage. A range block is out of the question, even for a short period, as it would have to cover 92.0.0.0/12, which is to say 1048576 IP addresses. There are many edits from this range, and on the basis of a sample of a couple of dozen fairly recent edits it seems that the vast majority of them are perfectly constructive, and probably nothing at all to do with the editor under discussion. Perhaps by "be considered indefinitely blocked" O Fenian does not mean that the IPs should actually be blocked, but that we should view the editor as permanently disallowed from editing, so that we can treat any future edits as block evasion, even if the actual blocks have run out. I'm not sure whether that is what is intended, but if it is then does that differ in any way from proposing a Community ban? I certainly would not oppose such a ban, though I'm not sure what effect it would have in practice. We would still be left having to revert and block as each new IP comes up, which is the situation we are in now. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Well at present, the block on the editor is due to expire in a month. If the editor was actually using an account, it is likely that the account would have been indefinitely blocked for persistent block evasion. Obviously as they are using IPs, that cannot be done since we do not generally block IPs indefinitely. So if people want to call it a ban that is up to them, I am just trying to find some sort of consensus that the editor is de facto indefinitely blocked that can be pointed back to at a later date. O Fenian (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

A range block is required here. As for innocent IPs? let'em create an account & sign in (it's not that difficult a task). GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

A note to those dealing with the IPs edits that are being discussed here. They fall into the range used by prolific Sock Puppeteer and banned editor HarveyCarter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I do not know if these edits fall into his pattern of editing but I thought I would make you aware of this in case it is of help. If it isn't my apologies for wasting your time. MarnetteD | Talk 20:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Rangeblock is impossible here. The range is just too wide. T. Canens (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

My IPCalc tool shows that the minimum range is 92.0.0.0/12, which is technically impossible through the Special:Block interface. (X! · talk)  · @200  ·  03:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

We do have the technical ability to block that entire range by implementing smaller /16 range blocks. But this range is highly dynamic and highly used, so long blocks on this range is not feasible. At most an hour or two. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 13:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Hundreds of /16 range blocks. (X! · talk)  · @901  ·  20:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not looking to have a range block implemented. As the editor concerned has yet again evaded the existing block (fifth or sixth time now?) as 92.8.58.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 92.12.206.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), is there a consensus for this editor being considered de facto indefinitely blocked? O Fenian (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, as a formality then, I'll support an indefinite block. We could semi-protect the pages involved also, though the article talk pages couldn't be locked for very long if at all. KrakatoaKatie 23:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the word you all are looking for is an indefinite ban. It is not possible to institute an indefinite block against these IP addresses, for one the range is way too big to institute a range block, for the second any range block over these ranges, even enacted individually would have too much collateral damage. An indefinite ban would allow certain, mostly symbolic, such as the right of any editor to instantly revert, without question, their contributions. --Jayron32 00:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

On balance I support an indefinite ban. Unlike a block, a ban does not physically prevent the editor from doing anything, but, as Jayron32 points out, it would legitimise summary reverting of the editor's edits, making it a little easier to deal with the problem. At least a couple of other editors seem to be in effect in favour of an indefinite ban (even though they use the word "block" rather than "ban"). Anyone else like to express an opinion? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The individual clearly has nothing constructive to contribute to the project and from their comments appears to be making it a goal to offend as many different racial / ethnic groups as possible. It strikes me that our only means of identifying new IP edits as being made by the same user is by the offensive nature of their edits, which already make immediate reversion appropriate, so I'm not convinced a ban is actually going to make any difference. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was largely for that reason that at first I couldn't see any point in a ban. However, it seems that some people feel happier in doing such automatic reverting if they can see that there is an official sanction for it, which is what I had in mind when I said it would "legitimise" summary reversion. As far as I am concerned it makes not the slightest difference one way or the other whether we say the user is banned, but since it seems that some people would be more comfortable with an official ban in place, I feel we may as well have one. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Possibly redundant now

HantersSpade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) would appear to link HarveyCarter to the IPs above, so Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HarveyCarter has been opened. O Fenian (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Which tool to use?

Moved to WP:HD

 – (edit conflict)More suitable for the help desk; doesn't need admin attention. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Israel

Would an admin close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Israel per the request of the debate's participants? This AfD has been relisted twice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks like someone already got to it. --Jayron32 02:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you, Courcelles. Cunard (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 23#July 1, 2005, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 25#Template:Loong, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 25#Caucasian Black Cock, and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 22#Victims of political repressions clean-up. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

AfD template

Resolved

 – fixed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

There is an broken AfD listed underneath the 'Stevenage F.C. 3–1 Newcastle United F.C.' discussion, 1 will someone kindly correct it. Thanks, Jørdan 10:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you. Jørdan 11:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Colonel Warden

Resolved

 – Closed by Jayron32.—Kww(talk) 19:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Time for an uninvolved admin to close Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden. It's apparent that no meaningful response is forthcoming, and it's well overdue for close.—Kww(talk) 15:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Fully protected templates used by Twinkle

I would like {{Documentation}} to be added to fully protected templates that are used by Twinkle so that they can be properly categorized using {{Twinkle standard installation}}. Here is a partial list.

• Template:R from alternative spelling
• Template:R from plural
• Template:R from related word
• Template:R from member
• Template:R from historic name
• Template:R to scientific name
• Template:R from alternative language
• Template:R from ASCII
• Template:R from title without diacritics

Thanks in advance. – Allen4names 18:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I've  Done these; you'll need to post a full list if you want it done comprehensively; "templates used by Twinkle" is a fairly vague criterion :D Happy‑melon 20:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have checked the remaining templates on my list and they either have {{Documentation}} or are not fully protected, but if you do find any that I missed please add that template. Thank you. – Allen4names in domus 20:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Nina Fisheva

Someone want to explain to me how Nina Fisheva is not a blatant hoax? There is no proof that a "World of Azerbaijan Magazine" exists (9 hits on Google) nor any proof that the article exists. What's more, the article claims her career started in the same year she was born. I don't want to get into an edit war with this user again... so can someone tell me how in any way this is not a blatantly obvious hoax? Because I damn sure think it is. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably because the correct spelling is "Nina Fischeva". Clear she's a real person, but definitely not passing WP:GNG. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Nina Fischeva turns up even fewer hits — so few that Google autocorrects to "Fischer" and shows only 9 results for Fischeva with a C. As I pointed out on another user's page, I was unable to find anything that wasn't a Wikipedia mirror. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The first two on that Google search both link to azer.com, which is apparently Azarbaijan Magazine - that could be the World of Azerbaijan magazine for which you're looking. Not sure about the reliability of the source, but Fischeva is mentioned as a resource for this piece. No opinion about notability, but the magazine and the person both seem real. KrakatoaKatie 06:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

OTRS

Would there be an OTRS person about who might be able to help me resolve a copyright matter? It concerns the article Mark Coreth, which I speedy deleted this afternoon. The creator says they have emailed the permissions-en address as the copyright holder of the source but haven't received a reply yet. (diff). Thanks, --Kateshortforbob _talk 16:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• See User talk:Garyskipton#Puffery. We're missing the forest for the trees, here. Uncle G (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • As it is I'm not finding an OTRS ticket for the author or using key words. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks for looking, David Fuchs. I realise the content added was not suitable for an article, but I've been playing around with using it as a basis for a hopefully npov article, although I can't save my draft because of the copyvio issue :-) The subject has some coverage, but any thoughts re notability etc. gratefully received (possibly on my talk page?) --Kateshortforbob _talk 17:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I did have a very quick shoofti, not nearly as thorough as I usually do, to see whether there was anything I could suggest straight off the bat to Garyskipton. All that I found turned out to be a press release. But then I was including the purported year of birth as a keyword in my searches. A slightly more in depth look around finds some things that are at least pointers, if not always the most in-depth of sources:
        • Martin, Arthur (2007-02-19). "As garden ornaments go, it's a bit of a white elephant..." The Daily Mail. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
        • Evans, Michael (2007-06-15). "The Falklands: 25 years since the Iron Lady won her war". The Times. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
        • Field, Roger (2008-01-03). "Roger Field meets sculptor Mark Coreth". Country Life. {{cite magazine}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
        • Jones, Sarah (2009-11-30). "Ice Polar Bear in London's Trafalgar Square". BBC News. BBC. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
      • If you are going to build something here, it looks like you are going to have to work through a lot of little sources on each individual sculpture. Uncle G (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

212.41.203.164

212.41.203.164 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a long-term infrequent-edit SPA in Switzerland that has been editing Allergy (journal) and European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (publisher of the journal), without citations and in all appearance in COI. Repeated warnings have gone unheeded. The contributions in all probability are accurate, but they still violate several policies. I'm unsure how to proceed. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

DRV is backlogged

Resolved

WP:DRV is backlogged again. Can someone close WP:DRV#Phillip Greaves, WP:DRV#Timothy Ball and WP:DRV#iPad 2? Thanks. T. Canens (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

 All closed HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK Queue empty

Resolved

you have 5 hours or "everybody scream!". Just saying... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I filled four queues, so the world won't end for another 27 hours and 23 minutes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Logo switch

Resolved

If someone will be up at 1100 UTC today (I know I won't), please replace File:Wiki.png with the old Wikipedia globe logo. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 09:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm on it... and I guess I won't be the only one. — Edokter • Talk — 10:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested moves is very backlogged and that's causing problems

This page has a huge backlog and could really do with some admin attention. Some moves have been there unclosed for about two months now and are starting to cause problems with moves just being made as people are fed up waiting for a proper close. Some admins to help clear the backlog would be a great help - I'm clearing the obvious (and some not so obvious) ones as non-admin closures but there are many there that really need an admin closure and there aren't enough admins doing closures at the moment to make a dent in the backlog. Dpmuk (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Have I violated an article probation?

I added the article Colony High School (Alaska) to my watchlist about a year ago, when I removed a bunch of copyvio from it, to make sure that the copyvio was not reinserted. Since that time, several people have added a "Notable alumni" entry to the article that I have repeatedly removed because (1) the person is nonnotable, (2) the person is a minor, and (3) the entry gives location information about the minor. (Admittedly, the fact of the person's attendance at this school can be found elsewhere, but I see no reason for us to repeat it.) Poking around on the matter, I've just become aware (since it's not a topic I've ever worked on) of this probation. Have I unwittingly been violating it? Should I be blocked? Deor (talk) 12:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

What is the connection between the school and Sarah Palin, other than Alaska? Seems to me to be too broad a construement here. I doubt an editor would be sanctioned for trying to uphol WP:BLP. Mjroots (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Look at the article's recent history, particularly Cmaverickforprez's contributions. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. In which case the article does fall under that article probation. That said, I don't think that Deor needs to be sanctioned. I will drop Cmaverickforprez a note suggesting that this addition needs consensus before it can be made, and that such consensus should be gained via the talk page of the school article. Mjroots (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I've made the situation clear to Cmaverickforprez. Warned not to re-add the info without consensus and asked to discuss at talk page of the school article. Mjroots (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal That Template:Editnotices/Page/Sarah Palin be copied over to create a new page notice for the article on the school. Mjroots (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I put a generic page notice on saying "Do not add the names of minors who are not independently notable to this page." It could be tidied up a bit (or of course changed/deleted, whatever). But we shouldn't be advertising in the edit notice that which we do not wish to advertise. Rich Farmbrough, 17:15, 16th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Ahh, a WP:BEANS issue. Sounds good to me. Mjroots2 (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Mass edits by user Mhiji

Resolved

Following a discussion at WP:ANI#Mass pruning of redirects by User:Mhiji I have blocked Mhiji (talk · contribs) who has been causing disruption by automated or semi-automated mass "tidying" edits. Please comment there rather than here, I do not want to start a parallel discussion, but I am posting here for two reasons:

• There is consensus that a mass rollback is needed of a series of over 300 edits to redirects that Mhiji carried out between 19:28 and 20:37 on 15 January: how can that be arranged?
• I invite suggestions on what would be suitable conditions for unblock, perhaps involving restrictions on numbers of edits per minute, or prior agreement before undertaking mass changes. I think we have had situations like this before - what worked?

JohnCD (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I can do that rollback reasonably quickly, but I would want to sample the edits myself to see if it's worth it. Rich Farmbrough, 15:58, 16th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Oh.. removing cats form redirects... guess they hadn't come across that before. Having said that I can recall finding the entire article left under a redirect a number of times. Rich Farmbrough, 16:02, 16th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Thanks, Rich! JohnCD (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Need admins willing to serve as clerks for recall

Resolved

 – call answered. Jclemens (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

When I did my RFA I said that I would be open to recall using the process specified in user:MBisanz/Recall, but I've been a bit lax in setting it up. Since I have recently taken an action that some editors consider abusive, I think it is important I keep my word about this. I have now set up the process with one exception: the MBisanz page lists four admins who can be selected as clerks for the process. I don't think it is right for me to assume that the same people would be willing to do it for me, so I would like to ask here whether there are two or three admins who would be willing to be listed. The process does not involve any real decision-making, just a modest amount of bureaucracy -- posting notices and ensuring that editors who sign meet the requirements. (In thumbnail, the MBisanz process says that any editor in "good standing" can initiate a recall, and it succeeds if five admins in good standing agree to it.) Looie496 (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you can list me if you wish, although I do not think you should list ANI as a page to post a notice to, and would probably also post to WP:BN, and possibly WT:RFA (just so you know). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I can be listed if you want. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I can be listed. Send me an email if a request gets going and needs clerking. Protonk (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that should be sufficient. Thanks, y'all. Looie496 (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody take a look at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention?

Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention seems to be backlogged. Corvus cornix_talk 05:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/October/8#United States film biography stubs

For SfDs, would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/October/8#United States film biography stubs, Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/November/10#Maharashtra geography stubs sub cats, and Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/December/1#Template:Multiple stub?

For categories, would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 20#Speedy hyphen changes with objection and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 31#Category:United States communities with African American majority populations? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Struck Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 31#Category:United States communities with African American majority populations, which was closed by Courcelles (thank you). The other discussions are still open. Cunard (talk) 09:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Trying to defuse a problem with NFCC#10c removals

Note that I am trying to defuse a problem by gaining clarification, not expecting action.

Recently, Δ (talk · contribs) has been running through many articles via a semi-automated script with his own review of the changes (not a bot) to find non-free images that lack rationales for the articles they are used in, and remove the unrationaled uses per WP:NFCC#10c. However, many recent hits are images that are, for example, used only in article X, with a rationale only for article Y, and the difference is due to page Y being moved to X without a redirect behind it (likely to make way for something else). (A case in point is File:MatchCut.JPG, used in 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) but only rationaled to 2001: A Space Odyssey).

Several editors have complained to Δ on his talk page about this, and he's tried to explain that the rationale fails #10c. But at the same time, some have argued the fix to correct the image rationale is trivial that it would be expected that Δ do it himself. Δ has stated he believes he is "required to fix nothing" [91], and a few NFCC enforcers agree with this stance -if this was a bot doing this, we wouldn't expect the bot to do that. But, at the same time, unless I've missed something Δ is still under community restrictions, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2#Community-imposed restrictions, which includes this second point: Betacommand must manually, carefully, individually review the changed content of each edit before it is made. Such review requires checking the actual content that will be saved, and verifying that the changes have not created any problems that a careful editor would be expected to detect. I highlight the last point because I can argue one way that if I were reviewing the rationales of certain types of cases, I would see that problem and fix it. Note that I am only talking about very easy and obvious case, and specifically cases where an image has only one present use and a rationale for only one use, but the article and rationale don't match up and are only off by a (disambig) or other title change that takes all of 5-10 seconds to fix. I've mentioned to Δ that this should be a case that his script can detect and highlight, but I got no response back from him on that. There are cases that would be more complex that I don't expect anyone outside of the image uploader and resuers to know how to resolve - basically any case where there are N uses, M rationals, N > M > 1.

So the point of this here is to stem off more heated Δ debates and to establish a baseline for NFCC#10c removal cases: if we are still imposing the restrictions on Δ, to what degree to we expect Δ to correct broken rationales, if at all, via his semi-automated editing? --MASEM (t) 15:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest that Δ removing the image is a prompt to the article editors to fix the redirect problem. EDIT: Something I just fixed for you.... --Errant ^(chat!) 15:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There's more to the problem than that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course, but I was gently chastising Masem for coming to AN and the talk page before even addressing the issue... --Errant ^(chat!) 15:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Note that I started this after seeing BB comment on the talk page (after seeing several other reports in the last few days), and realizing that addressing this would be prudent. I'm not trying to argue for or against Delta's action, only to help establish what we're expecting of him. --MASEM (t) 17:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• If one can't be bothered to spend a few seconds fixing a problem and bettering Wikipedia, one shouldn't bother spending a few minutes removing its content. This has always been my view. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh good... here we go again with Beta. I guess a leopard really can't change his spots. If an image has no valid FUR or is not used in an article at all, that is one thing. But I do not buy that an article that was moved to a new title invalidates the FUR, especially given the article link in the FUR will redirect to the new title. Edits such as this are lazy and destructive, nothing more. He knows better, and he needs to be smarter about it or stop dealing with images altogether. The community wasted far too much time on him over crap like this in the past, and I've no mind to put up with it for very long in the future. Resolute 15:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Edits like that are entirely within policy, and Δ acted correctly. Barring some presentation of evidence that Δ actually did something not in line with policy, enough with the renewed witch hunt for his head. I've performed more than 1500 WP:NFCC #10c enforcements essentially the same as Δ (Examples:[92][93][94]). If you're calling for his head on a platter, you'd better call for mine too. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• No, because you actually notify the uploaders. B/D was too lazy to do so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• If you had a similar history of being combative and destructive like Beta/Delta, then yeah, I'd probably be going after you too. As to your three examples, your first link I'm not sure what went on there, the second had no FUR at all for its target, and I would say the fact that the third fails NFCC #8 is of greater concern. I don't see any of those as being comparable. Keep in mind that I am referring to obvious fixes caused by simple redirects, not the type of cleanups that you mention in your examples. If Beta/Delta was as careful in all of his removals, and if he could be bothered to place notices, there wouldn't be an issue. Resolute 16:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'm one of the most unpopular editors on the project. Frankly, I don't care, but there's plenty of people who'd like to see me stop 10c enforcement too. Placing notices would exponentially increase the workload in performing 10c enforcement. Even discerning who is responsible for a given error would take several minutes per edit. Your suggestion effectively makes 10c enforcement impossible. Nobody would do it. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• I realize the time costs of notifications would be high, and thinking on it, the uploader should be notified anyway if the image itself faces deletion as a result of removal. So I'll mostly drop that complaint. The remainder of my point stands, however. Reasonable care must be taken, and I do not buy his "not my problem" attitude FURs that are simple to fix. If there is a reasonable claim that it is not easy for a 10c reviewer to fix, that is a different story. However, I would suggest both he, and you, take the time to find and notify editors or projects if you judge there is a potential historic significance to an image. If it is a logo, big deal, as we can always re-upload later. Resolute 16:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• I agree; if an image is placed for deletion via, say, being orphaned then the uploader should be notified. There's a notification template for that. And Δ does such notifications. Examples: [95][96][97] (and many more). As to simple to fix FURs, I agree. But it frequently isn't so simple. The 2001 and Yankee examples cited in this thread aren't simple. I will not be notifying editors of 10c removals. It's just too onerous on time requirements. If I mark something for deletion, I have and will continue to notify uploaders. But, figuring out WHO placed an image wrongfully on an article just takes way too much time and makes 10c enforcement impossible. Baring a change in policy/guideline, I won't be doing it. Sorry. With respect, if you conducted a few hundred of these removals you would have a feel for how onerous the task your asking of me is. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• I can see your argument on that example, but if a script comes up with an image FUR with a (album) disambig while the article is at (Band album), that is a seriously easy fix, and it is pure laziness to remove the image and claim it is someone else's problem to fix. As far as making an effort at notifying someone who can save what may be a valuable image on an article, well, if you refuse to make that effort out of laziness, your inaction becomes a detriment to the project. Resolute 20:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Concur with ErrantX. To expand; the case in point highlighted by Masem above isn't so easy to resolve as one might think at first pass. Within that universe, there's a film, a novel, a score, and even comics. To 'fix' this usage, it isn't so simple as to just change the title of the rationale to point to the 'correct' article. That IS the correct action, but determining that requires some work. At the time this thread began [98], the rationale pointed (via redirect) to 2001: A Space Odyssey. One can see there's a redirect. So what was moved? Was the image originally on 2001 A Space Odyssey and moved to 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) without the rationale being updated? So, now you have to check the history of the former. Doing that, we find it was moved in 2002. Ok, so back to the image; when was it uploaded? After that? Yeah, it wasn't uploaded until November of 2010. Ok, so the problem wasn't the article move. Ok, where's the problem? Was the image intended for 2001: A Space Odyssey or somewhere else in Category:Space Odyssey series? How do we know? It's a guess it's intended for film because the purpose of use indicates film, but there's no guarantee. What did the uploader intend? Well, he uploaded it in November of 2010, so let's go look at his edits back then and see what he did immediately after he uploaded it; what article did he put it on? Ok, 5 clicks later we arrive here, and see he was editing 2001: A Space Odyssey (film), so he was probably adding the image there, and got the image rationale wrong. So now, several minutes later we arrive at the truth behind the matter; the uploader screwed up, it's a fixable screwup, but a screwup nonetheless. And thus the problem: If we expect WP:NFCC #10c editors to fix problems with rationales in attempting to find out the truth behind the screwup, you dramatically increase the workload on people enforcing this problem. "Obvious" cases aren't so obvious. Unraveling even seemingly simple problems takes considerable time. If you require WP:NFCC #10c enforcers to do this work, you might as well pull the plug on WP:NFCC #10c enforcement, and strip it from policy as unenforceable. No, the onus is on the uploader to get things right. When they don't get it right, and an image ends up orphaned they are informed, via deletion templates to their talk pages, that their image is orphaned and needs to be fixed. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • In the case of the two items at Yankee Stadium (1923), there were two different uploaders, and I'm not seeing where either one was notified. I only caught it because that article is on my watchlist. As noted above, he also buried that deletion in amongst a bunch of apparently ill-advised syntax changes. So, as usual, Beta/Delta's approach has an "F.U." attitude. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, those other changes are fairly unnecessary and just create a confusing diff, I'd suggest Δ should avoid doing them in the future as they are non-essential. The point of notifying uploaders is potentially reasonable - but similarly they might not be responsible for the usage on that page. So perhaps a talk page note suggesting the image be checked? --Errant ^(chat!) 15:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Since B/D never listens to anyone here, I wouldn't bet the family jewels on the likelihood of success. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
        • I have no intention of doing such notifications either BB. Trying to figure out who placed the image into the potentially wrong article, or didn't fix the rationale, or who did a page move without fixing a rationale, etc. just to find out WHO to notify exponentially increases the amount of work WP:NFCC #10c enforcers have to do. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
          • How is the uploader supposed to know about it if no one tells him? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
            • How is the 10c enforcer supposed to untangle the mess left behind others in order to make such notifications and still do 10c enforcement? What you're asking for is impossible, while still enforcing 10c. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
              • Yet you and others manage to do notifications. Why is that? I'll tell you why. Because B/D doesn't give a hoot in hell about anything here, except for the joy he gets from deleting stuff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
                • I don't do such notifications. Would you please provide diffs showing 10c enforcers making such notifications please? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
                  • It wasn't you, it was a different "Hammer" user. I apologize for giving you too much credit for consideration of your fellow editors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
                    • And the 'other' editor you claimed was doing a 10c removal notification...didn't do a 10c removal notification. By the way, are you implying I'm inconsiderate? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• And discerning which article the uploader(s) intended File:ALE-NYY-YankeeStadium.PNG for is reading tea leaves. Δ properly removed the image from Yankee Stadium (1923) because it had a rationale for Yankee Stadium, which is a different article. You wrongfully reverted him, claiming there was a rationale for the usage [99], a problem you didn't fix until two days later [100]. Asking WP:NFCC #10c enforcers to do this work is wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• So it seems the point of contention is that if an article is moved to a new title, whose responsibility is it to ensure that any non-free image rationales are updated? IMO it should fall on people who performed the move, participated in the discussion, etc... Tarc (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Either way, failing to notify the uploader is inexcusable, and is just another example of Beta/Delta's incompetence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Failing to notify the uploader is certainly unfortunate, but Hammersoft has explained quite clearly why it is sometimes easier said than done, and to simply describe it as "inexcusable" and "incompetence" is not very constructive. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• BB, seriously, it sounds a lot like you have issues with Δ. Such language is not useful, civil or helpful to your point :) Maybe tone it down a bit? --Errant ^(chat!) 16:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Seriously, his incompetence has been demonstrated in this very thread. You guys banned him for like a year and it made not one iota of difference in his approach. I thought I could avoid that clown, but it's nearly impossible. He's a ravenous wolf who won't let anything, included the advice of well-meaning admins, stand in the way of his insatiable desire to delete stuff. I for one am glad he's back. Because somewhere down the road the ban will become permanent. Meanwhile, you've got him. Ain't you lucky. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Would you please provide evidence that Δ's removals were against policy? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• As soon as you provide evidence that he's not incompetent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• I did already. His removals were entirely within policy. Or, do I have to prove that every edit of his is competent? If so, you're incompetent because your reinstatement of File:ALE-NYY-YankeeStadium.PNG to Yankee Stadium (1923) was against policy, a problem you didn't fix until two days later. So you're incompetent too? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• It had a fair use rationale for the original article. They renamed the article and didn't think to re-label the fair-use rationale. If B/D had even one grain of competence or care, he could have observed that fact, instead of both chopping it without any kind of notification, and burying it amongst a bunch of useless edits. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• And just how do you know the uploader is the one responsible for the error? Is the uploader the same as the mover? We don't know. Is there even a move? We don't know. Maybe someone changed the rationale, pointed it to a different place, heaven only knows. Untangling all of that is onerous and it is absurd to expect WP:NFCC #10c enforcers to figure that all out every time they do such enforcement. You claim incompetence, yet what Δ was perfectly in line with policy. Enough screaming for his head, and enough of the rhetoric. The issue ISN'T Δ. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• He didn't bother notifying ANYONE!!!! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Didn't "bother" notifying anyone? In the light of the explanations above as to why doing so can sometimes take a disproportionate amount of work I find that wording questionable. You may, perhaps, take the view that the editor should take all that time and trouble, at the expense of having less time to spend on other work, and if so you are free to say so. However, to dismiss the opinions of those who think otherwise in such a summary manner is not very helpful. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Because notifying anyone while doing 10c enforcement dramatically increases the workload. Do you not see that? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Yet you and others manage to do notifications. Why is that? I'll tell you why. Because B/D doesn't give a hoot in hell about anything here, except for the joy he gets from deleting stuff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• And again you claim I do such notifications. I don't. Maybe you can provide diffs that others do? If an image is orphaned from my work and I mark it as such (I don't always), then yes I notify. If it's not orphaned, I don't. I don't do 10c enforcement notifications unless someone is reverting the removals (as you wrongfully did at Yankee Stadium (1923)). --Hammersoft (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• My apologies for giving you too much credit for being considerate. It was a different "Hammer".[101] And on my talk page right now are examples of users notifying me about upcoming deletions. The differenc is that those users actually care about something besides satisfying their deletionist appetites. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• That's not a notification of 10c removal. That's a notification of pending deletion. That's entirely different. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The uploader is the one who claimed that the image has a place on Wikipedia and if it's removed from any article, then it's almost certain that the uploader placed it there in the first place. Since such removals carry the risk of orphaning the image and then deletion, they should be notified of such removals. You might be able to claim that by reading the letter of NFCC#10c that Delta is correct to do such removals and (probably more correctly) argue that with the spirit of the policy he should try to fix rationales when the solution is blatant and obvious to anyone but that's a separate question from whether he should notify people and I don't think one can argue that not notifying people is really in the spirit of a project that is based on collaboration. Regards SoWhy 16:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• If you're going to insist that people doing 10c removals perform notifications, I know I'll quit doing 10c removals. It's impossible to figure out who did what usage when with what purpose on what article in any reasonable timeframe. I've done (I just recounted) nearly 2000 of these removals myself. Your claim that it's almost always the uploader who placed the image is false. Initial placement, yes, but even trying to figure out what the initial uploader was intending to do is terribly time consuming, as I demonstrated above with the 2001 stuff. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• If an editor is not going to bother looking at what he's deleting, he ought not be deleting it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• 10c removal isn't deletion. Δ isn't even an admin, and he can't delete images. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• I must again ask, when B/D or you or some other deletionist clobbers an item, How am I supposed to know? Why is deletion more important than consideration towards other editors? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• And how is a "deletionist" expected to do 10c enforcement while spending exponentially greater time figuring out who to notify? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• It's a matter of priorities. What's more important to you? Working together to make wikipedia better? Or blindly deleting stuff? Never mind, you've already given your answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• You have your way of improving the project, I have mine. I strongly believe I am working very hard towards improving the project. You don't agree. You're welcome to your opinion. I'm welcome to mine. Your opinion doesn't carry weight any more than mine does. Policy and guideline do. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Tell me another one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• (ec) There are obviously less easy cases, and no one is being unreasonable here by expecting detective work or "tea leaf" reading. It would be one thing if he noticed the problem and then decided that the NFUR would be too much bother for him to fix, but he never made that judgment here. And he never makes that judgment because, as he has said, he doesn't pay attention to anything else other than what his script spits out.

  As I commented on his talk page about the album cover image removal, the fact that it was an album cover image, first of all, should have given him pause because that is such a standardized use. It took me a trivial amount of time to look at the image description page and figure out what had happened, and to fix it. The main problem as I see it is that he doesn't care; according to his own explanations, he just looks at one variable that his script spits out and then removes the image without any further thought or judgment, as if he were a bot. This is unacceptable. I don't buy the "policy enforcement" explanation, because we don't have "policy enforcers," we have volunteer editors, and every edit should be to make the encyclopedia better. I enforced policy by fixing the NFUR article title so that it pointed to the correct article, because that was the best–and easiest–solution in that circumstance. Removing an image that belonged in the article because of a technical violation (not even the fault of the uploader) that was easily correctable is not an acceptable way to address the problem. Claiming that you're not responsible for the consequences of your actions because those consequences aren't something you pay attention to is not acceptable. Anyone who is unwilling to exercise any judgment as to what the best solution is in a given circumstance should not be "policy enforcing", let alone running some kind of automated script that further removes the need to actually look at what you're editing. postdlf (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, this is going to turn into a drama-fest, I can see, unless we head it off. There are some issues to address here. But first: BaseBall Bugs, calm down, there is no need to be fraught over this, it is not going to help matters. So, there seems to be a few matters here:

• Δ's removal of the images; the removals are fine & fully within policy per se which leads to...
• Should Δ be responsible for fixing errors such as the one that started this; really, I think there is no reason to demand he (or anyone) does so. It does strike me as adding to the 10c workload. On the other hand letting editors looking after the relevant articles fix malformed FUR issues is a better solution to my mind as they are likely to be able to do it quicker and with the right reasoning. If we do agree this is something he should be doing I'd argue that, actually, such an onus exists as much with those that moved the page - so crack the whip at them too ;)
• Then there is the problem of all the minor extra edits; I agree these are distracting and should stop
• Finally we have the issue of notification; good points have been raised. I don't think notifying the image uploader is necessary - if this is the only article the image is used on they will soon get a deletion notification that serves the purpose. In addition they might not be the one responsible to the images use (if it is used on multiple articles, say). Unpicking that mess could be complicated. Instead I suggest that a good approach would be to subst a simple template message on the article talk explaining the reason for removal and requesting a review of the FUR for fixable issues. This will also be beneficial in explaining the removal and possible avoid reverts by those with no understand of NFCC.

I don't think being hysterical about this will help. Instead I think we should agree a consensus on how Δ should be doing this work and then ask him nicely to do it. I can't comment on his attitude (except to say I have seen him being very abrupt, and when you work in a contentious area that is not a good attitude to bring to the table). --Errant ^(chat!) 16:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

"Consensus" WON'T MATTER. He will continue to do what he wants to do, until or if he is permanently banned. You had him banned, and you let him go. Good night and good luck. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• I concur with you Errant in all respects except the template notification on an article's talk page where an image has been removed. That effectively doubles the workload of 10c enforcement. I manage this by including an edit summary indicating why the image was removed. So does Δ. Though his edit summary is different than mine, it covers the same ground. That's why we HAVE edit summaries; to describe what is being done and why. We don't need to double workloads to do that. If you want a template to be placed on article talk pages indicating why the images were removed, then I suggest returning to the bot to do this work. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I do not think there is any huge rush to get through the workload. It is my understanding he uses a semi-automated tool, so surely a notification could be automated. However, you have a point - I'd propose another (and perhaps better) solution is to write an essay WP:Fixing FUR issues and require linking to that in the edit summaries (perhaps "can you fix this issue?" or something). --Errant ^(chat!) 16:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• I would not be at all surprised if the number of 10c violations was in excess of 50k or even 100k. It's rampant. Your suggestion about an essay to be linked to is a good one. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• The fact that a bot is not unleashed on those should tell us something; that the community wants more careful consideration of each case than automated processing could provide. So neither should humans pretend to be bots.

  The point shouldn't be only whether there's a violation; none of us are traffic cops. The point should be how to resolve that with a mind for preserving valid content. So focusing on NFCC 10c yay or nay to the exclusion of all other considerations is wrongheaded; it seems like that approach is not considering the most efficient use of all editors' time, but only whomever has taken it upon himself to look (only) at NFCC 10c. The article title move should illustrate that well: the final result should not have been the removal of the image, but the updating of the NFUR title. Removing it meant someone then had to not only fix the NFUR but then replace the image in the article (not a trivial task if the original article image tag and caption is hidden in an otherwise long edit), and someone else then wasted their time tagging the image as an orphan...which also meant that if the NFUR wasn't corrected in time, someone else would then have to undelete the image. So any approach, system, or automated script, that fails to take all of that into account is not acceptable. postdlf (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I would have to agree with the original editor who brought this here per Betacommand must manually, carefully, individually review the changed content of each edit before it is made. Such review requires checking the actual content that will be saved, and verifying that the changes have not created any problems that a careful editor would be expected to detect. This very much falls into the category where a reasonable careful editor would be expected to make the fix instead of outright removal. To remove without trying to fix is very much a bad thing. And to comment that notifying would increase workload...so? There is no deadline. By working in a more co-operative atmosphere you are likely to gain more help in your chosen task and the workload for dealing with the images will go down. But to basically slap editors in the face by removing images when clearly all that needs to be changed is the title of the page in the FUR you are only going ot add more work for yourself. -DJSasso (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• I suggest you get WP:NFC updated to reflect that intent. My own experience has been that such removals do educate. Hell, it's one of the reasons I do the removals. Fixing it doesn't help others learn. It teaches them to be complacent. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

  • • And not notifying doesn't teach anything either - except that certain users care about nothing except deleting stuff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

      • BB, I'm done dealing with you on this. I don't care about your equivocations about your actual intent. Regardless, your seething hatred is apparent and is adding nothing. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

  It's called common sense, fixing is always preferred over removing content on wikipedia. Any editor who isn't aware of that is either lying or probably shouldn't be editting. Any loss of relevant, notable information is a harm to the wiki. As someone else mentioned, if the community just wanted the images removed we would have a bot do it, but clearly the community wants a human to judge and fix where able and remove only when necessary. By not even notifying sure you have saved some time for yourself but you have increased the workload of a number of others editors...the ones who have to tag it orphan....the ones who have to delete it....the ones who have to reupload it...the ones who have to reput it on the article. So in short removing without trying to fix is a much greater harm than the existance of the image on an article for a few more minutes. -DJSasso (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• What you call common sense isn't common to everyone. Fixing something isn't necessarily done by adding or fixing rationales. That's a false presumption. It doesn't even get to the underlying core problem; editors unable or unwilling (either willfully or not) to comply with our policies. I call adding fair use images all over the place without providing rationales harmful to the project. That's my common sense. I haven't increased the workload for anyone. The workload, the onus, exists on the person attempting to use non-free content. This is outlined in WP:NFCC policy; "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale". The onus is clear. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

And this conversation has nothing to do with people who don't add rationals at all, its about rationals where the title of the article is wrong due to a page move. The valid rational exists, its just linking to a redirect instead of directly to the page. Any reasonable editor would fix that, not just blindly remove it. -DJSasso (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• The supposedly simple case used to start this thread wasn't simple. It did NOT involve a page move. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Either way its still a simple fix, if you see that the image is used on only one page and the title on the fair use is as close as it was in this case, clearly the original editor made a minor mistake. The very obviously meant to link it to the one its being used on. -DJSasso (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Convenience break

• This conversation has deteriorated quickly. Setting up false dichotomies between noble editors who "improve" the wiki and evil deletionists who just remove content (known as editing in some parts of the world!) is less than useless. It is inflammatory and clouds a debate about specific action with identity and wikipolitics issues. Don't do it. Protonk (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• I agree. Honestly, I think including Δ in this discussion is polarizing by itself. The issue really isn't his edits, but how WP:NFCC #10c enforcement is handled. There are plenty of people who do this sort of editing. The best way to go about that sort of editing doesn't require Δ as a focus of that discussion. I'd be happy to restart the discussion, removing Δ from it entirely as a topic unless he wants to participate in the discussion of his own free will. The abstract issue should be the focus, not a particular editor. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue here, noted by several people, is the exact same issue why Betacommand was put under editing restrictions before. Not even a little different, not a variation on it, but the exact same problem. When you do the same actions, you get the same response. I have no problem with the cleaning up the NFCC problem in a timely manner. I do have a problem when the desire to clean up the NFCC problem is used as an excuse to ignore the concerns of others, not fix the problems that one's own edits create, and generally act like, because one is doing some bit of work which is somehow more important than the work that anyone else does at Wikipedia, that it isn't one's own responsibility to get it right. This problem goes away when Betacommand (and those that defend him) clean up the false positives when they are made aware of them. Being a bot operator, or someone doing NFCC cleanup, does not absolve one from the same expectations that exist for all the rest of us. --Jayron32 17:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, its 100% exactly what he was doing that the community put the restrictions on him for. -DJSasso (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Another comment. All of this bitching and moaning about how ß/d needs to add rationales instead of removing images for 10c problems (a dubious assertion) and still NO ONE has added a rationale for File:MatchCut.JPG--the exemplar of the original complaint here. Protonk (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe someone got to it just before I looked but there is one there... -DJSasso (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• It was fixed after this discussion began. Regardless, the rationale is exceptionally weak; "Illustrate most famous match cut in film history", a claim not supported with cites in the article nor even discussed in the article. I.e., a completely POV claim. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I fixed the article reference after I first caught this section (it has been fixed for ages). And then, after taking a look at the article opened a talk page discussion to note that there might be some issues with the FUR and start a discussion. Hammersoft: there is cited critical discussion elsewhere in the article so it should be moved there - but I was waiting for more input --Errant ^(chat!) 17:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Without comment on the wider issue; it should be noted that there is also File:2001 match cut.jpg in use at Match cut. I don't do much work with images, but these two uses (1/2) should probably be combined to use a single file, at the least. –xeno^talk 17:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Bhlimit.jpg is the image removal that caused me to complain to him; it was an album cover image in use in an article on that album that had a valid NFUR for years. The NFUR became "invalid" only because someone moved the article to a new title and the NFUR hadn't been updated yet to reflect that. postdlf (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• That case is more clear, but still not clear cut. The redirect it pointed to takes us to Sky's the Limit. That's a disambig page, but trying to figure out where the image should have ended up isn't easy. Yes, we can discern it's for Blackhawk, but as an abstract illustration of a problematic 10c removal; this isn't it. I was thinking more along the lines of when an article is moved to another title, and the old title is a redirect to the new title, rather than a disambig. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• It is clear cut, seeing that its pointing to a disambig page and seeing that its used on one of the articles on that disambig page, the fix is a no brainer. -DJSasso (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Well, abstractly speaking, I'd have to stay I don't have a brain then. :) Seriously; looking at the disambig page when I hit the target article rationale, I didn't immediately see where this image was supposed to be. I figured it out by (a) seeing the album cover had "Blackhawk" on it, and (b) the rationale noted it happened to be a Blackhawk album (which is rarely the case; the template FUR users don't do this usually, they rely on the article title for that). So, the album cover is being used on a Blackhawk album, but that doesn't mean it IS a Blackhawk album. I've run into a number of images where the person/thing being depicted with non-free media ISN'T that thing. Without the cover and the prior edits to the rationale, I'd have no way of being certain of that. So to me, it's not so simple as you suggest. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• But you're really straining to make an issue seem more complicated than it is. The issue wasn't whether the image wasn't what it purported to be, and it wasn't removed on that basis. It was removed because the NFUR didn't match the article that used it, no other reason. And the edit history of the title the NFUR pointed to clearly showed that the article was just moved to a new title.[102] So there was no question here what happened. postdlf (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• I wonder if there's anyone available to write a bot to 1) monitor pagemoves 2) check for nfcc image use on the page and 3) update the FUR to reflect the new title. –xeno^talk 18:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• I am surprised we don't have one - have the bot alerted to page moves, wait a few hours (a day maybe) to not get involved in move-warring or admin actions, and then run through and update all links to all affected pages (not just NFC). --MASEM (t) 18:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps someone familiar with the intricacies of NFCC image work could post a request at WP:BOTREQ. –xeno^talk 19:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow. This is just stunning. It's exactly why I argued against his return. We let him back in, he's quiet for awhile and then returns to exactly the same thing which started it all before. I don't know what it is about image work that seems to get people riled up, but he is also not the only one I've seen making a lot of people upset over this kind of work, but I have seen plenty who can do it without doing so.--Crossmr (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Back to the core issue

What I was hoping this discussion would give is answers to this:

• Do we expect Δ to correct "obvious" #10c rationales under his community restrictions (given all other actions follow community approval)?

  If yes, then what is defined as "obvious"? If we expect him to fix and don't define this edge, then I can see a vicious circle where what we expect keeps expanding and expanding as more complaints pile up.

  If no, then what can we reasonably expect Δ to do to remove the number of complaints when he does these removal?

The better we define what the issue is, the better we can resolve the situation. I know Δ does not have a fan base on WP, but he does work few other editors want to get their hands dirty in, and does it efficiently; lets find a solution that allows this to happen. --MASEM (t) 17:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Defining "simple" has to be done. The examples identified so far aren't simple. What I personally find simple is when a rationale points to something, and that 'something' is a redirect to an article where the image is used. When I run across that, I don't do a removal. I just walk away from it, counting it as a valid rationale. Anyone doing removals based on a redirect link provided rather than the destination title; that's wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • And it should be noted that Δ's script does follow redirects in rationales, so that shouldn't be an issue here. --MASEM (t) 17:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Ok, should there therefore be an presumption that if an image has a rationale that points to a disambig, it is incumbent on the 10c enforcer to determine the appropriate destination for that rationale, and modify the image's rationale to that destination? Or, is this onus on the person wanting to use the non-free content at the destination? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Who is this hypothetical person "wanting to use non-free content"? The community wants to use non-free content, and articles suffer when it is incorrectly removed. Everyone is "responsible" for whatever they decide to take on. I'd agree with looking to the uploader to do everything right when an image is first uploaded. But the more time passes, the more likelihood that the uploader has left the project or intervening changes such as a page move have undone what the uploader did right, and he doesn't own the image or the article anyway. So if you're suggesting that the uploader continues to be responsible for maintaining that image and its NFUR even years later, that's unrealistic. If you mean whomever moved the page to a new title, well, that's not unreasonable, but mistakes can be made, or he gets called to supper or whatever right after doing it, and has to rejoin the real world before he can follow up. So shit happens. So when a "Policy Enforcer" steps in and decides to enforce some policy, then they've interjected themselves into the issue and have assumed the responsibility to deal with it sensibly, not to value their time above all others, and not to prioritize one consideration above all others. That the page mover didn't do it is not a valid excuse for the "Policy Enforcer" to also not do it but to further do the wrong thing by choosing the least constructive solution. postdlf (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
        • The person who edits an article and adds an image is the person wanting to use non-free content. Your second sentence needs a definition to "incorrectly removed". How we define that is crucial. There's a divide here. The people who are involved in a particular article and see an image removed, and the people doing 10c enforcement. In either case, what is 'reasonable' is heavily subjective based on the viewpoint. There may not be a 'right' way; only a way that makes sense, depending on the view you're coming from. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• The core issue is where whether the use of automation or semiautomation, in whatever form it takes, creates a different set of expectations for the user of those tools. If someone is using no program, tool, or process more complex than IE and a mouse and keyboard, it takes no more time, keystrokes, or mouseclicks to fix a broken redirect or correct a post-move title than it does to remove the image from the article and tag it for deletion. The claim is that bots and/or whatever (semi)-automated script/process/whatever that Betacommand is using makes it so that updating to the correct link would take MORE effort than letting the bot just remove the image somehow that is an excuse is the core problem. Why does Betacommand not have to clean up after his own false-positives when, if I was doing this by hand, with no help from any tools at all, I would is beyond me. --Jayron32 18:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree completely. postdlf (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• • NFCC#10c is one of the few machine readable aspects we need to meet the Foundation's resolution for non-free media usage. Thus, one can argue it can be run by a bot (in fact, that's what BCB used to do). So here's a completely fair question: if I created a bot to do the same task - removing images without #10c rationales, what is difference between what my bot is doing and what Δ is doing now? Or, another way, what would one likely expect my bot do to when it finds a #10c problem, as one of the requirements in the allowance to run that bot? We should not expect Δ to do any more work that we would expect to have programmed into a bot. (Stipulating that I know he has a history, and thus we have him under more scrutiny than a bot).
  • So my argument is here: if this were all automated bot actions, what should we expect the bot to do? What of these can we translate to Δ and his work? Or if it is the case that the bot comparison is a problem, we then need to set the bounds, otherwise we'll be back here in a few months or so. Or maybe we need to divest Δ of this activity and put it on a bot, after we have created that bot and tested it. --MASEM (t) 18:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
    • We would expect bot operators to be exactly as responsible for the edits committed under the user accounts they operate as ever other editor at Wikipedia: No more, no less. Bots may be used to speed up otherwise redundant or onerous tasks, but they cannot be an excuse to hide behind when their edits come under scrutiny. A bot operator is under the exact same set of standards as the rest of us, period. If I screw up, and someone tells me I screwed up, I fix it. If a bot operator screws up, we get told "It would take too long to make the bot do it right" or some other excuse why they don't have to clean up after the mess. That is unacceptable. --Jayron32 18:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
      • But this isn't a screwup; the rationale fails #10c and that's a black-or-white answer. Our policies allow for removal of images without valid rationales, so this is all technically allowable actions. In a cooperative sense, yes, there's problems, which we would expect the bot owner to account for.
      • What is at issue is whether we expect a bot to handle "simple" or "obvious" fixes, or to perform some other action like notification when they remove an image from an article. And if this should also be the same terms that Δ should handle #10c violations under. --MASEM (t) 18:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
        • But what isn't a black-or-white answer is whether "the rationale fails #10c" means "...and the image should be removed" or "...and the rationale should be corrected" is the better solution, even just judging it in the short term. Removing an image because the NFUR article title is incorrect only due to an intervening page move is a screw up. postdlf (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
          • And neither myself nor Δ has committed such a screw up, so far as I know. By the way, WP:NFCC policy provides for either option; removal or repair. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
            • • ??? Yes, he did: File:Bhlimit.jpg. You were involved in the discussion about that on his talk page and on yours, and above. That same screw up, in which he removed an image from an article only because the NFUR article title was incorrect only due to an intervening page move. postdlf (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
                • Not a screwup. Enforcing #10c goes "Does the image have a rationale to be used on the article with the given name". This is machine readable so it has to be an exact match (or through redirects). If not, it can be removed.
                • What is being asking for is a less mechanical evaluation of this. Not applying any more analysis or rationale thought is not a mistake or error, it is simply an issue of not doing any extra work that the community typically would appreciate, but not required in the task. Every complaint on an image remove is a result of such removals seemingly to be against how the community typically expects notification or actions, but is not spelled out as a requirement in policy, nor a specific requirement in Δ's sanctions. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
            • Are you not paying attention? Beta/Delta made the same screwup, twice, with the Yankee Stadium (1923) article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
              • Oh I am paying attention. You're not. As I noted, his removals were perfectly in line with policy. Your first reinsertion was not. Your second was, only after you fixed the problem. Fixing the problem wasn't as easy as determining there was a page move that resulted in a redirect. Two articles existed; not a redirect the rationale was pointing to and an article. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
                • It all goes back to B/D paying no attention to what he was doing, and that's a screwup. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
                  • So, to clarify, we should condemn Beta for removing an image with an invalid rationale but applaud you for replacing it with the invalid rationale unchanged? And Beta should be expected to make the non-obvious fix with no knowledge of the article history (even the move log doesn't show the move) but it was fine for you to replace it unfixed, even though you knew exactly what had caused the error? Would this be your position? CIreland (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
                    • The rationale was not invalid, it was simply on the wrong article thanks to the article rename. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
                      • And you didn't fix it when you restored the image because....? Or maybe you just screwed up. Which is fine, unless of course you are demanding someone else never make an error. CIreland (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
                        • I assigned it to the right article, since Beta/Delta was too lazy to fix it himself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
                          • You restored it on 9/1/11 unfixed until it was removed again on 11/1/11. It's fine. Just a mistake. Not a big deal, surely? I have no axe to grind or vendetta to pursue. CIreland (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
                            • What, pray tell, are you talking about? I just now went back to check, and I did indeed have it right.[103] B/D said, "image(s) does not have a Non-free use rationale FOR THIS ARTICLE". He didn't say the rationale was incorrect, only that it didn't specify this article. So I fixed that, as B/D couldn't be bothered with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
                              • I'll show you on your talk page rather than clutter this with a bunch of diffs. CIreland (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
                                • No, you've got it wrong. The items on the 9th and the 11th were different pictures that both required the same fix. Silly me, I thought he was going article-by-article. It didn't occur to me he would hit the same article twice... and with the same "up yours" attitude about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
                                  • OK, I see - he made two changes on the 9th, and I only caught one of them, thanks to his having buried them in a hundred useless other edits. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
        • I think we could expect a bot to fix a rationale target when that target is a redirect to another article where the image is used. I don't think we should expect a human to fix the rationale (we can't force a volunteer to do more work than they want to do), but certainly we should expect a human to not take action in this case. I think we could expect a bot to notify an article's talk page about a removal that was conducted under 10c, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect a human to do that. Not everything a bot can reasonably do can be reasonably done by a human; that's one of the reasons we have bots. In this case, asking a bot to double its workload by way of notifying of 10c removals on an article's talk page is not asking much. Asking an editor to double their workload to perform a task their edit summary should be doing (which it does for me and others) isn't reasonable. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
          • I think, like others above, that mandatory article talk page notices would solve many of these problems. When an image is removed, if an explanatory notice is left at the article talk page it would solve many problems, as it would allow someone other than the bot operator to quickly fix the problem. Hammersoft, you argue above that this would represent an increase in workload, however I don't find that a problem. Transparency is the thing that allows us to fix problems when they arise. If you can't be bothered to check if a moved or split or renamed article is the source of the incorrect rationale, the least you could do is leave a notice on the article talk page where the image was removed so someone that does care can fix it. I frankly don't care if this "adds to the workload". So doesn't using edit summaries, and notifying people of ANI discussions about them, and all sorts of other stuff we do here. We do it because its the right thing to do. If we make that change, if we make it mandatory for talk page notification, then it solves most, if not all, of the problems noted here. --Jayron32 19:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
            • Then get that requirement codified somewhere (perhaps WP:NFC). I will not be making such notifications. That's what edit summaries are for, which I appropriately use. When I'm reverted anyway, I discuss either on the article talk page or (more often) the user's talk page. There is nothing wrong in conducting my edits in this way, and I will not be making these notifications as you insist I should. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
              • Of course not, because that would inhibit your zeal for deletion. Stop griping about how burdensome the work is. No one's making you do that work, you're choosing to. If you aren't willing to do that work in a considerate fashion, you ought not be doing it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Here's my take on your bot question, as a BAG member. First, if you were to be running such a fully-automated bot, it would have to be approved. That's strike one against comparing a script-assisted human editor with a bot. If you requested approval for such a bot now, it would not be approved without a clear plan to avoid doing these removals; if you had managed to get approval before because no one had considered this problem, you would be asked to stop the bot until such a plan was formulated and implemented, and if you refused your bot approval would be revoked and the bot blocked. You would be expected to take an active role in working out the plan to address the issues, not just sit back and wait for the community to tell you how to do it. Anomie⚔ 21:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• I think this is deteriorating again. Are we going to decide by fiat that removing an image from a page is "deletion" requiring notification of the original editor (whatever that means) or some good faith effort to add some justification for the image? what about removing a line of text? What about adding a line of text which contains evidence which contradicts another line? Surely there we are contributing to the diminution of another sentence and must avoid that or notify interested parties. Protonk (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Is it too much to expect deletionists to treat wikipedia editors with some courtesy instead of treating us like garbage? Or would that be "against policy"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Or perhaps people could try reading the policies before plastering non-free images everywhere. For every NFCC violation I remove, half of those edits are reverted, despite the fact I always reference the relevant policy in my edit summaries and/or notify the user. Removing violationg material is not "deletionism", it's ensuring we follow policy. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
      • It was valid when it was uploaded. Perhaps there needs to be a bot to modify the images when articles are renamed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
    • BB you're smarter than that. You aren't answering my question. Rather than hurling around epithets just try and focus on what the core objectionable behavior might be and justify why you feel is unacceptable. This isn't about testing the limits of policy (on either side) this is (hopefully) about a specific issue. Transforming it into some larger battle will ruin what limited discourse we already have and subject the complaints to the critique that we are somehow magically privileging some edits over others. Protonk (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
      • No, it's exactly that. The deletionists don't care about anything besides deleting stuff. That has been demonstrated over and over and over again. And I stopped fighting it long ago, and hoped I would never cross paths with their ilk again. Then this absurdity happens with the Yankee Stadium article. D/B's behavior is every bit as obnoxious as it was when he got banned, and no one's willing to do anything about it. It's hopeless. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Nothing is being deleted. Let's get over that rhetoric. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
          • Not true. It was blindly deleted from the article, buried among a hundred useless little text edits. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
        • SIGH I guess if we want to get into the time machine and go back to the notability/deletion wars of 2005-2007 we can, but I think it is a waste of fucking time. Protonk (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
          • You only need to go back to March 2008 to see this farce having come up before. Same issues, same actors, same excuses, same likely outcome. MickMacNee (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
            • I wasn't suggesting that the issues were old but that the climate of hurling slurs about deletion or inclusion rather than having a conversation smacks of the notability wars of yore. If otherwise smart and sensible people want to engage in that kind of bullshit, they can, but it seems like a waste. Protonk (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment tag removal

On a somewhat separate issue, buried in the midst of Δ's long image removal/syntax edits, have been the complete removal of all comment tags within articles, such as in this edit and this edit. I don't know about the value or community opinion of the Wikiproject comment tag in the second edit, but the ones indicating that an archive link or ref title was "bot generated" concern me...I haven't read any guideline on this, but I would assume that those should remain in an article at least until someone manually checks that the bot filled in the right information. Given the speed of the edits, I have a hard time believing that happened here. postdlf (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• I think it is a separate issue, and have separated it out in this discussion for that reason. That said, this issue hasn't risen to the level necessary for this forum. The issue has been raised Δ's talk page (this thread). It's appropriate to keep it there, for now. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Of course it didn't happen. B/D's history shows that he will always do whatever he feels like doing, and won't listen to anyone. The only solution ultimately will be a permanent and unqualified ban. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• BB, your seething hatred of Δ is well known. We know you hate him, and want him banned from the project. We get it. We really do. Now, please, enough of the rhetoric? It's not adding any light to the subject, only heat. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• I don't hate B/D. I don't even know him. I just know his behavior. I was hoping to never have to encounter that guy again. But there's no escaping it. His "work" is all over wikipedia, like a flu epidemic. That was known when he was banned. But someone decided to un-ban him. Beautiful. You all are stuck with him, and you deserve it. But I don't see why the rest of wikipedia should have to suffer from his bull-headed incompetence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it all possible to ask nicely that the editors whose shouting has dominated this thread both step back? Let other people talk, let come consensus form, please. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You will discover that B/D cares not one iota about "consensus". You all have let him out of the cage, and now he's yours. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Well if consensus winds up saying "do X", and Beta pulls a "do !x", then all the caring in the world won't get him around a block. Let's chill and see what happens. Tarc (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

And it will take another year before anyone actually does anything, as with last time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• ...and we still understand you want his head on a platter. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• No, I want him to act like something else matters besides deleting stuff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this issue is part and parcel of the above, and is timely regardless because the issue of whether his automated editing is adequately reviewed is a longstanding one. So does anyone have any thoughts on this comment tag issue? postdlf (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see any reason why the 10c removals can't be done separately. I also don't see this is an issue that merits the attention of this board; he's been asked to do so. If he doesn't, and that continuance causes disruption, we can deal with it then. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • As noted in various places above, he has resumed doing exactly what he was previously banned for doing, and is already being disruptive. There needs to be an investigation as to why the ban was allowed to expire. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
    • You want to start an investigation because of edits of his that were inline with policy??? I do these sorts of removals all the time. You'd better see a ban for me too. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I want to know why his ban was lifted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Then do the footwork necessary to find out why it was. This thread really has almost nothing to do with him, but the abstract issue of 10c enforcement. If you think he should be banned from the project, or some other sanction placed on him, then for God's sake start a discussion about it somewhere. Hijacking this thread by me or by you isn't helping things. Drop the attacks on Δ here. This isn't the place for it. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
          • There was already a discussion, and he was banned. My guess is that whoever unbanned him didn't bother to look into the history. And if you're really so concerned about images, why don't you just clobber all of them and let the editors start over? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
            • If you have an issue with my edits, this also is not the appropriate thread for such a discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
              • You have no authority to be giving me orders as to what's appropriate or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
                • And you need to wind your rhetoric in. Also, if you believe Beta's work is "incompetent", you need to do some homework, before you make any more comments on a subject you're clearly clueless about. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
                  • The comments by his various apologists on this page only confirm what I've been complaining about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
                    • Trying to blame someone else for the fact that your posts above don't show you in the best light isn't the best idea either. Ditto the use of "apologists". I would seriously consider dropping your little vendetta at this point, BB. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
                      • I wasn't the one who banned him last year or whenever it was. In any case, I see what the problem was. He deleted 2 items on the 9th, along with making a brazillion other edits, and I fixed just the one problem I saw and reverted the whole thing. What he should do when he's on one of his deletion binges is to focus only on deletions and not bury them within a hundred other edits. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
                        • Unfortunately, it tends to be that one quite often finds NFCC issues when you're looking at something completely different. I do have the occasional NFCC spree - I might decide to clear out a month from Category:Articles with improper non-free content, for example, but most of the stuff I fix is buried amongst edits that aren't relevant to it. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
        • See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 4#Provisional suspension of community ban: Betacommand. –xeno^talk 19:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x2 (Outdent) Someone mentioned a bot tackling this in the way BetacommandBot used to do. Couldn't we code the bot to also look for Fair Use rationales that link to articles that have been renamed (and hence, redirected) and simply update the rationale heading? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No, because that would make sense and solve the problem. --Jayron32 19:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts on the initial subject

"Betacommand must manually, carefully, individually review the changed content of each edit before it is made. Such review requires checking the actual content that will be saved, and verifying that the changes have not created any problems that a careful editor would be expected to detect."

I think it is pretty clear cut that his edits have indeed created problems (this discussion alone indicates that there is significant consternation on the subject). Hammersoft is indeed correct that he has not violated policy, but he has violated this additional community imposed restriction. As such it should be enforced appropriately and annotated (I'll leave that up to an uninvolved admin to implement).

The bigger question is whether it is appropriate for anyone to delete/propose deletion of material that violates NFCC#10c due to a minor problems that can easily be fixed. I think that discussion belongs elsewhere. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Two comments from a passerby: (1) this suggestion to create a "how to fix" essay that edit summaries link to is a quite good one; I'll write one today if no one else does. (2) I can find no policy justification for removing <!--WP:COMMENTS--> from articles without explanation; that ought to stop immediately unless some rationale is presented for continuing to do it. 28bytes (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Does NFCC need to modified?

BQZip brings up a fair question, and one that I've tried to get to. Take Δ out of the equation, and say it was a respected WP editor that saw a 10c violation and removed the picture without checking to see what the history of the image was and correct simple mistakes (like a moved paged). Are we still doing to be having the same issue?

If the answer is yes, then we need to discuss how NFC needs to be modified to describe required actions per removal of images from pages (but not deletion). However, I caution that this would be against many other similar policies where we have recommended but not required actions like WP:BEFORE.

If the answer is no, then let's figure out how to guide Δ under the community restrictions to help do what he wants to do better. And no, this does not call for an attack on his character. Let's build consensus of what we expect, ask him to do it (adding to his community restrictions) and if he doesn't, then further action is needed. Right now, how his restriction apply to his #10c are vague at best, so this is where I would expect reasonable discussion of how to remedy this. --MASEM (t) 19:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

He's not following his restrictions now. Why do you expect that to change? He patiently sat it out for a year and went right back to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Dude, I agree with you, but you really really need to stop and calm down. We heard you the first 20 times. -DJSasso (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. We know what you feel about ΔBB, but please comment on his actions, not his person. --MASEM (t) 19:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I am commenting on actions. Y'all keep talking about "hate". It's not "hate", it's "anger". And, no, no one has heard it - because they won't do anything about it. Correction. They did do something about it, but they un-did it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, the problem is we've sorta stopped listening to you. I know your aim is to get this addressed, but the constant hammering will only get it ignored as a case "OMG here we go again the with drama". There is a lot to be said for calm discussion when making your point --Errant ^(chat!) 22:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Errant is right. I actually agree with you Bugs, but you're completely undermining your own argument with this constant fuming. I argued against Beta being unbanned, but folks were willing to give him a second chance. If you want to let him hang himself with his own rope again, I suggest stepping away from this debate entirely. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he was given a second chance and look where we are. This behaviour alone should be grounds for an immediate ban with no n^th chance again. This is exactly where we were all that time ago. Masem even admits on Δ's talk page that what he's doing is likely violating his editing restrictions, and we're sitting here humming and hawing over it.--Crossmr (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is he doing to violate his restrictions? The point I brought up in the original is a point of debate and not a clear cut line when it comes to handling NFCC#10c violations, as this discussion shows. There's a reason I'm at AN and not AN/I to discuss this.

But again, I stress: say this was one of our top respected editors like Uncle G that started doing this. Would there be the same vitriol against the editor or the process. I'm 99% sure that the answer is that people don't like this process, and that's something that can be resolved irrespective of the editor. That's what this discussion is missing because we're putting Δ under a huge spotlight and not considered the specific situation of just the edits. --MASEM (t) 01:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I had no idea who Δ is/was when I engaged in the thread on his talk page about the image removal. I only found out afterward about the prior username, the arbcom restrictions, the bot being banned. So I only had my complaints about his current edits, and his responses to those complaints, to go by in judging this situation. postdlf (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• If there's a consensus to remove all images immediately from all articles if those uses are presently in violation of NFCC, regardless of whether those violations are technical errors in posted NFURs that are easily correctable, then unleash a bot on it and stop having humans waste their time. I don't think there is a consensus for that at present (and the bot that used to do that has been blocked for whatever reason), so that means at least some modicum of human judgment is expected in NFCC compliance reviews. The NFCC reviewer should actually bother to look at the image description page and manually compare it to the article use, not just obey a script output. Scripts can be useful to identify or triage potential problems, but human judgment, and sometimes investigation of more than just one variable, should be expected. We expect admins clearing out the speedy deletion workload to be aware of whether the article histories contain any valid content rather than just looking at the present version of the article; we do not expect them to do that perfectly, but it's a common sense request that shouldn't have been necessary to spell out at WP:CSD.

  If we do need some language added, then try this: "Those reviewing image uses for compliance with NFCC should not remove images from articles when there is a NFUR present that is only in violation of NFCC due to a technical and easily correctable error, such as an article title that is misspelled or incorrect due to a page move." No one can be compelled to fix things, but it's not too much to ask that they stay their hand if it looks like, at the end of the day, this image use is valid. postdlf (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I think that's the key here; its whether good faith mistakes (such as a spelling error) or unforseen issues (like the moved page issue) should be punished or penalized because people who do NFCC work find their work too important to be slowed down by actually checking themselves. We want NFCC work to be done. But is it too much to ask that it be done right? And the arguement that it is being done right is patently not valid here; if it were right, it wouldn't be so objectionable to so many people. All I ask is that these problems are dealt with appropriately, either by more careful attention to ones work, or by handling them before someone brings it to ANI. --Jayron32 20:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Could this not be considered akin to, say, marked one's edits all as minor (when they all clearly are not), not using edit summaries, or other actions that are spelled out as "should"s in policy/guidelines, but otherwise are not explicitly required? In which case we deal with them via looking at the contributor and not so much the policy behind it? Such that in this case with Δ, he is expected to act more in good faith on these change and thus he alone may be required to do more to validate 10c removals compared to say, myself or Black Kite, to name names.
    • The one thing with the spelled out language from Postdlf is that what is defined as an "easily correctable error"? "Name" being moved to "Name (film)" is probably relatively easy, but if it was "Name" moved to "Completely Different Name That Fans Immediately Recognize But Only Mentioned Buried in the Body of the Article"  ? A fan would insist the change was "obvious" and the complaints would fly. This is why many policy's don't specific specific actions only suggested ones. --MASEM (t) 20:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
      • As I recall, the article was moved from Yankee Stadium to Yankee Stadium (1923), and the article previously called New Yankee Stadium or some such was moved to Yankee Stadium. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
      • @ Masem: Well obviously there is a distinct difference there in your examples. I think that if any reasonable person could spot the fact that a move had been done, or a typo had occured, the typo should be fixed instead of removing the image from the article. If, in fact, it is obfuscated by the fact that the titles in no way match, then remove the image. Hammersoft seems to be arguing that it is not his responsibility to fix spelling errors or correct page move issues. He's correct, but it is ALSO not his responsibility to remove NFCC images from articles. Insofar as he voluntarily chooses to do so, that voluntary act carries with it the additional responsibility of checking to see if he could have just fixed the FUR template. Look, if I edit an article and make a fix, I am responsible for also making sure my fix doesn't generate any problems with other parts of the article. Its the same situation here. We can't just go blindly making mass edits to articles without considering each edit, and if there is a better course of action on each one. If he chooses to fix NFCC problems, he should fix them the best way possible for each individual problem. The one-size-fits-all solution of "remove it every time and fuck em all if I get it wrong" isn't working. --Jayron32 20:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Do we really need to explicitly spell out every aspect of "reasonable editor", which in reality means nothing will ever be concluded? Or can we just use a little common sense and WP:AGF, and point to WP:WikiLawyering if someone tries to claim "Completely Different Name That Fans Immediately Recognize But Only Mentioned Buried in the Body of the Article" is really so similar? Anomie⚔ 22:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Postdlf has hit the nail on the head. My position in this matter is that fair use images should not be thrown out over technicalities like the one Masem found in his original post, the one somewhere up there; Wikipedia grew in importance & coverage because we ignored the wording & embraced the spirit of intent. Editting by hand forces the editor to consider technicalities, while automated edits allows that editor to ignore these seemingly small, yet potentially important, details. Further, automating edits to Wikipedia is not a right, but a privilege: if a bot can't be coded to make decisions in an edit that everyone is happy with, then don't use a bot. If an editor using AWB won't stop pushing buttons & make a change by hand because it slows her/him down, then that editor shouldn't be using AWB. -- llywrch (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I myself have been making the same arguement over and over. Note, however, that this also applies to careless bot-free manual editing. Hammersoft has indicated above that he edits manually, but will not be slowed down by actually checking his own work, or leaving notifications when he has done something potentially controversial. The issue is the attitude that ones own work is too important to open it to scrutiny or to slow down enough to ensure that errors don't occur. And then to give the "its not a bug, it's a feature" defense when people find those errors. --Jayron32 20:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
      • This, I'll agree with. A situation like this isn't fully automation-friendly, and that means editors have to take some time to investigate before simply removing the images. Fixing minor errors should be encouraged. And people who misuse it (ie. the "Minor edits for everything" example, or using AWB to blow through edits carelessly) can be dealt with via WP:DISRUPT. If anyone feels that's too much of a burden, they can step away from these types of edits. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
      • And these are the kinds of users that need to be topic banned and or banned entirely. If an editor is going to wilfully admit that they're going to ignore other good faith editors and the community at large, we simply don't need them doing that work or need them at all. There is absolutely nothing they are doing that someone else who is willing to work with the community can't do.--Crossmr (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • More to the point the proper role for a bot would be to scan non-free images for fair use justification links to redirect pages (likely move sources), check if the image is used at the target and if it is modify the image description page to reflect the new target. If it isn't *and* is not used anywhere else, then you can start the clock for a deletion queue (assuming the move was far enough in the past). The first and the second job are totally distinct, so we could authorize a bot for the (relatively) uncontroversial first task and demure the second task. Protonk (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
    • A better idea might be to have the bot follow behind the move log and check the rationales for all non-free images used in the moved article. Your method would have problems in cases such as "Move 'foo' to 'foo (something)' so we can put 'foo (disambiguation)' at 'foo' instead". Anomie⚔ 22:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Yeah I thought about that as I was walking the dog. Though another job checking for redirects might catch pseudo cut and paste moves or selective merges as well. Doing both might lead to a more complete measure of titles not matching rationales. Protonk (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
        • I have put a bot request in for catching page moves w/o redirects and to fix image rationales at WP:BOTREQ. No bites yet, but its only bee a few hours. --MASEM (t) 00:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Δ's thoughts

This is a large scale issue that few people want to address, there are just a few of us who actually patrol non-free content. I'll break it down in bullet points to make my points easier, feel free to ask for explanations/expanding of subject.

1. NFC policy is crystal clear about the requirement for valid rationales for each usage of an item, and that a rationale must include the correct article name.

2. All my removals have been 110% within policy

3. I do fix some of the rationales I come across that are fairly easy to fix [104] yet when things like this happen I tend to say why the fuck should I bother fixing them? people blindly revert without looking at the edits.

4. Fixing rationales can be fairly time consuming for someone not familiar with an article, best case we are looking at about 2-5 minutes per image to do background research, review information and adjust rationale.

5. For someone involved in an article it would take less than a minute normally

6. This is a large scale problem, I have a list of over 4,000 articles that contain non-free media that does not have a valid rationale for it, and about 500 of those contain multiple pieces of non-free media.

7. Unless the message about ensuring proper non-free media usage is sent out widely users will continue to use non-free media improperly, just take a look at tools:~betacommand/nfcc9 which is a record generated daily since July 2009, which shows that there are currently 41 non-articles that contain non-free media. (a violation of NFCC 9) and there was a max of 4,300 uses at one point.

8. For the most part I am not proposing images for deletion, due to not having rationales. What I am doing is taking care of the violation, letting those involved in the article know that there are issues with the media that they are using. (which is a double edged, it informs more users about our non-free media policy, and leads to issues being fixed) most people involved with an article will have it on their watchlist, however most do not add every image used in the articles to their watchlists.

9. My removal of junk html comments came from being annoyed with a flood of bot generated comments when editing articles. 99% of these comments are ignored or never read and are kept in articles for years for no real reason.

Feel free to comment and let me know your thoughts? ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 22:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Regarding #3: The correct response is not to say "Fuck it", but since you are in the right, instead tell them why you fixed it, and if they persist, bring them to the attention of others. You know, like people do to you all the time, even though you are 110% right? --Jayron32 22:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I do that and then I get yelled at, and for the most part the other person is ignored. This has happened on ANI already. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 23:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
      • You told this person, this time, that their reversion was a mistake, and then they refused to listen and reverted you again, and then you brought this event this time to the attention of others, and then you got yelled at? I am confused? I don't see where it happened the way you describe for this revert youc ited above. Look, the rest of us deal with that kind of shit ALL the time, all day long. But we deal with every individual instance of it like it never happened before, and we work through it with the other editor. Why? Because perhaps the other editor hadn't dealt with it before, made a mistake, whatever. That it is the "same old shit" for you doesn't mean it is for the other editor. That means taking the time to deal with other people with courtesy and patience, and when they show themselves not to be worthy of that courtesy, you escalate to the proper authorities. You are not exempt from this sort of thing. --Jayron32 23:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Not that specific case but there have been two cases that have been taken to ANI recently where that was the case. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 23:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
          • Delta, I frequently patrol WP:CSD and delete many, many articles. I frequently catch as much shit as you do regarding this, often from users that don't understand Wikipedia policies and believe they are being treated unfairly. Seriously, you are not unique in dealing with people who don't understand Wikipedia policy and act indignant when you try to clean up their mess. It is seriously nonstop; about every other article I delete for A7 or copyvio or G11-Spam, someone shows up at my talk page bitching about it. And you know what? How often have I been dragged to ANI to defend the way I interact with these users? I'll wait while you look... The deal is, you are not the only person who deals with users that do not understand policy. Some of us spend the time to patiently explain policy to these users. Every time. It comes part and parcel with doing the thankless work of keeping Wikipedia a quality work, I do understand the thankless nature of it, and what you do working with NFCC. I really do. So when you claim that its tedious to have to deal with all of the users who, over and over again, don't seem to "get it", I have no sympathy. Because lots of us do similar work, and yet still find the time to work with users that revert us incorrectly, or complain that we are ruining wikipedia, or claim to be treated unfairly by us. Why are you special that you don't have to do this? --Jayron32 02:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
            • I think we are missing a connection, I have and will continue to try and explain NFCC to users. My point three was in regards to a "I'm dammed if I do, and I'm dammed if I don't" situation. When enforcing NFC there two primary options, remove the image or fix the rationale's, either method works in regards to policy. I have tried both removing and fixing ratioanles, and in doing so I have been reverted. Its a lot simpler not to bother trying to fix rationales and instead remove the images and show the users the policy and how they can fix the rationales. I will always try to inform users about the NFC policy and what it requires, however my point was in regards to which option I use to do so. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
              • I think my point is that you are going to be reverted even though you should not be. That doesn't mean you should become despirited or change your tactics; it is still the right thing to do to fix the rationales (or remove the image) as appropriate. The issue is throwing up your hands and giving in on what is the right behavior by you merely because you have caught shit for it. You admit that you recognize when the best action is to fix the rationale rather than remove the image from the article. You also admit that some users will revert your fix without comment. Your response to this seems to be to get despirited and give up on the "right" behavior; THAT was the point of my comments above. You are not alone in the level of resistance you meet when trying to do this work. It happens to all of us that do similar work. Yet we keep doing it the right way, and don't give up. With regard to the fact that you seem to get a bad response when you have, on occasion, tried to escalate issues, please don't take this the wrong way, but that's a bed you made long ago, and you still kinda have to lie in it. It totally sucks that that happens to you. If you are refering to the last thread that happened, you'll note that I completely defended your actions, and said that you were 100% in the right. However, you don't exist as a tabula rasa, and your reputation sadly precedes you. When you catch shit from experienced editors its because people have long memories and you are less likely to get the benefit of the doubt than other editors with different reputations will. You build a different reputation by changing; it takes a long time, but if you consistantly continue to apply policy the right way, consistantly deal with editors who don't understand the right way, it will turn around. I've seen it happen. So please, don't get despirited when you fix a rationale, and someone reverts you. Explain to them what you are doing, ask someone to back you up (regarding situations like the one above, or the one from a few days ago, ask ME and I will have your back), and help avoid shitstorms like the current one. --Jayron32 02:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Δ, you & I disagree on a lot of stuff, but I'm willing to hear you out on this one. I know images don't necessarily always lend themselves to cordial discussion, so could you specify what two instances are you talking about? Perhaps there may be more to this situation than meets the eye. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• • • • If you want people to remotely forgive any mistakes you make you might want to do the same for others. Who knows why he reverted that, he may not have known the page had been redirected, but I don't see any evidence you tried to engage him in conversation after to explain what happened. If you're tired of the work, don't do it. In your opening you've highlighted the problem there are just a few of us who actually patrol non-free content, this is completely irrelevant but if you want to bring that up as some kind of defence or justification then please, stop doing the work. You're going down the exact same path which lead to your ban last time.--Crossmr (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Crossmr actions are correct and follow policy exactly, if you dont like it, either get the policy changed or dont say anything. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 23:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Concur with Jayron32 here. Fix an editor's mistake and you will keep fixing the next ones he'll commit. Tell him how to avoid them and you will have prevented any further issues (or at least left a trace that will help identify those who don't want to learn). Point in case, Delta's example #3 above. MLauba ^(Talk) 23:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
        1. What Jayron stated was exactly my thoughts when I read this. Show me the context of your defense (mentioned above) and perhaps I'll change my mind.
        2. When I read #2 I also see a problem there (math notwithstanding...). I agree that they are within policy, but they are not within many guidelines (such as WP:BITE and WP:AGF) and, as stated before, not within your community imposed sanctions. Those sanctions were imposed because of previous behavior and still stand; you need to follow those sanctions as well. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
        • In no way am I intending to BITE or assume bad faith, and there have been several cases recently where I have attempted to explain and have been ignored http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=407371643#Non-free_images and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%CE%94/20110101#Conservatism over one recent case. There have been others but I cant seem locate the discussion links. As for my restrictions, every single one of my edits I have reviewed, If you would like you can have a CU perform a check and compare my user-agents for all my edits. Yes my edits are assisted, but my image removal functions are not perfect and there are many pages that I skip due to problems with that, and I leave for future review. If people think I come across as assuming bad faith or BITEing please let me know of examples and suggestions for avoiding appearing that way. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
          • Delta, I am absolutely certain that you meant no violation of said guidelines, but I think the general tenor of what has been said here shows the problems. WP:AGF has been violated when you made the assumption that people upload images without proper documentation and you assume the problems are unfixable and therefore deletion is the preferred option. In fact, if pages "can be improved, [issues] should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." I believe you to be applying policy overzealously. You've also affected several images from relatively new users. I believe education, rather than a no-discussion, deletion nomination would be the preferred option. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
            • Please dont take my actions out of context, you made the assumption that people upload images without proper documentation and you assume the problems are unfixable and therefore deletion is the preferred option is a completely wrong. I have never made an assumption about uploaders, nor that the issues are not fixable, nor that deletion is preferred. I have stated that we have over 4,000 articles with non-free content that have issues with their rationale's. I have scanned 189747 non-free media usages, of that we have 4864 cases where the rationales are either missing or invalid, across 4240 articles. At last check there where 402640 uses of non-free media, That means that I have scanned 47.1% of the uses, of that 2.5% of them have an issue. Those numbers are hard fact. I have made no assumption of intent on their usage, I often see an uploader use a piece of media on one page, and someone else use it somewhere else, I am not assuming anything negative about the intents of either person, I know to write a good rationale for an article that one is not familiar with takes at least 10 minutes and sometimes hours of research, (lets take a cookie cutter example of a logo on the primary subject that might only take 5). However someone familiar with a given article may be able to take what would have been a two hour research project and instead turn it into a 2 minute rationale because they are familiar with the subject. (my only assumption, which is known to be fairly accurate, is that those involved in an article can write rationales for their article a lot easier than a third party could). Also I do not think that the issues are unfixable, quite the opposite most of the time, there are a few cases where that may be true but I dont often tag the media for deletion. All Im doing is addressing the issue until such time as the media usage can pass NFCC standards. That is why you will note that I am not deleting nor am I pushing for media deletion. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• • • • • • • Point of fact: removing an image from a page because it is an additional instance of an image with an extant proper instance (e.g. a non-free image used in the Star Trek article properly and improperly used in an article on the USS Enterprise) is regular editing and not deletion. I hate to resort to pedantry but the distinction is very important. Protonk (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

              No problem protonk. I agree with your point as well. That is NOT the instance I'm talking about. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Look, as a fresh (non-admin) voice here, I'll say that I essentially agree with user:Hammersoft and User:Δ: the current wp:NFCC policy is perfectly clear in this case: "A file with a valid non-free-use rationale for some (but not all) articles it is used in will not be deleted. Instead, the file should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added.". There are two choices when a photo doesn't have a valid Fair Use Rationale for a given article: remove the photo, or add (or correct) a Fair Use Rationale. I'm the first person to say that I prefer for content to be improved rather than removed. However, I also realize that removing content that does not comply with policy is always acceptable. Like many of you, I would prefer that Delta would fix the Fair Use Rationales that were easily fixable. But he is not required to do so. If you would like to require him to do so, or to require him to leave a template on the talk page, or to require him to notify the uploader, you should get on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content and try to get consensus to change the guideline. Until that happens though, editors should never be punished for acting within guidelines, which Delta is clearly doing. Buddy431 (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

1. "editors should never be punished for acting within guidelines" As I agreed above, he is within policy, but that is not the issue. The issue is that he does not appear to be within community imposed restrictions.
2. "...the file should be removed...or a suitable rationale added." There is an option here and delta consistently chooses the former and only rarely chooses the latter even when it is an obvious typo or simple fix, so, instead of making a simple, 6-letter addition to a rationale, he opts to spend more effort to remove the justification and nominate the image for deletion the images rather than fix them; in cases where these are image sole uses, . This causes more work for other people when it all could have been solved by adding "(film)" to a rationale. The simple/easy solution is negated to push an agenda. As this editor has community-imposed sanctions, he must ALSO act within them as well as policy. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

1. You need to actually review my edits and stop blowing smoke, opts to spend more effort to remove the justification and nominate the image for deletion is an outright lie. I do not remove justifications, I do not tag those images for deletion. My primary and only action is to remove the violation from the article with a edit summary which clearly states why the image was removed. You need to quit assuming I have some hidden agenda and stop the axe grinding, you consistently have been in-correct about my actions, I have attempted to correct you, but you seem oblivious, so either take some time and check your facts, or leave this conversation. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 05:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

   Delta, you are absolutely correct. I was in error. My statement should have been that you are removing images from articles (the vast majority properly so). You should get credit where credit is due. I simply believe, that a little more care in such removals and a little more communication with other users will mitigate most of the issus involved here. Again, my apologies. — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

"2-5 minutes per image to do background research, review information and adjust rationale"... Δ you've hit many pages in my watchlist but no images i have uploaded. It took me more than 2 -5 minutes to read all of this to know just how much bigger this issue is than i had believed it to be when i only was basing my frustrations on the actions appearing in my watchlist. Vandalise a FUR and hopefully Δ will be along momentarily to remove the image from the article and then a bot will tag it orphaned and then a few days later an admin deletes it. From what i have seen, Δ, you are setting yourself up to be played by every image vandal out there who changes a FUR to Your Mother or Yank me Stadium or Blue Mountain Slut (Blue Mountain State being the proper name of the show). Is this massive gigantic thread on AN better than taking those 2 - 5 minutes to update a link when needed? If his hadn't been happening here i am sure you could have gone through all of that list you have by now. There is no rule that you have to do things in this matter but there is just common sense and courtesy to guide people. Not checking the reason why a FUR is presently invalid is equal to blindly hitting the rollback button on every edit not whitelisted by huggle. If DVD cover art can't be in the article about the respective season of a show then i don't know what you would use it for; the infobox even has place for that cover art image to be used :P delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 03:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The impossible remains impossible.

"It seems impossible to prevent yet another lengthy Betacommand-and-non-free-images discussion like so many that have gone before.", I wrote, a scant five days ago on the administrators' noticeboard for incidents. The impossible remains impossible, it appears. Could you all at least take it to the /Betacommand sub-noticeboard of this noticeboard, so that this noticeboard isn't swamped by a Betacommand-and-non-free-images discussion yet again? There's a handy area for these discussions, and many of you have participated there before. This discussion, which hasn't even run for 12 hours yet, already comprises 106KiB (72%) of a 147KiB page. Uncle G (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

UncleG, I respectfully disagree. This is the place for such a discussion, not a page that most people haven't heard of. The entire point of a centralized discussion page is that everything comes here instead of being scattered around WP. Since it is a heated topic, it will garner a lot of feedback. It's healthy and apropos. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hence exactly why AN and ANI should be renamed the "Community forum". –MuZemike 02:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with User:Uncle G that this discussion, like almost every time we enter into this breach, has blown out beyond managable proportions. This is disruption, and is in part why the previous restrictions came into being. This restrictions have expired but this seems an appropiate venue to consider if the sanctions need to be re-instated. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, the community-imposed restrictions you've linked are still in effect. –xeno^talk 02:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not 100% Δ's fault - no one has really answered if he is acting against either his restrictions or policy with his editors. There's certainly a decorum that people have stressed, but the reason this has blown up is that some people want to see Δ banned forever. Once you've separated out the comments that start with bad faith, there's useful discussion here and directions where we should assert clarification on what's expected. Otherwise, we'll spin our wheels everytime. --MASEM (t) 03:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Wanting Δ Delta banned forever, as the community originally decided and then had him thrust upon us again, doesn't automatically assume bad faith. We don't assume good faith blindly and with excessive evidence to the contrary. Were he a new user, it might be assuming bad faith, but as he is Δ, and this has been a repeated, long term issue which lead to him being banned in the first place, it is not remotely bad faith to suggest we return to that status quo. Trying to toss around labels to dismiss people's comments is what leads to the breakdowns of these discussions.--Crossmr (talk) 04:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't really know Beta that well: but "semi-automated" deletions are worrisome to me at times. Here's the recent edit that I'm not a huge fan of. The article was clearly named in the FU rationale, it had been there for years: and now the image is gone from there (with other edits "made" within the orphaning of the image). Why was this particular image removed from the article? Because a certain "criterion" was not met? Which one? The history of the article and image leaves me at a total loss as to why it was made an orphan. Maybe I'm off on this one example: but I don't like seeing moves toward deletion like this... Doc talk 05:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to give you some clarity, the image in question is File:Album Still Waters.jpg which does have a rationale, but for the wrong page, it is used on Still Waters (Bee Gees album) but the rationale is for Still Waters which is a separate article. Please note that my image removals do not delete the image, once the issues with rationales are addressed the images may be re-inserted. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 05:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the "clarity". It's up for deletion now because you orphaned it. Is that the best way to go? I don't agree that it is. Doc talk 05:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

As soon as the rationale is fixed, the image may be re-added to the article, and the orphan deletion tag can be removed. (this applies with almost every removal that I have done). ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 05:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you know it was the wrong article before you orphaned it? Because you clearly know why now. You're making extra work for others when you could have fixed it (if you indeed knew why you were orphaning it to begin with). Doc talk 05:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

And I'm not suggesting you should check each image before you nominate it for deletion. But you know why you orphaned it, and all that had to be done was correcting the article. Considering all the trouble your 10c deletions have caused you, you might either want to re-think your approach to it or move on to one of the many vast areas of WP that will cause all of us less grief. Doc talk 05:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Whomever moved the page without updating links created the problem (when you move a page, you're given advice to update all links to the old page); if a bot was doing this job, it still would still have been orphaned. Now, having Δ fix it would be desirable, but by no means required. --MASEM (t) 05:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I do understand the reasoning behind 10c, and it's for a good reason. But Beta seems to have made quite a reputation for himself, and I don't see any bot catching quite as much "shite" for it. Maybe a bot should do it. Doc talk 05:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

And the question becomes, if we had a bot, and it did the same edits as Δ had done (without fixing rationales), would the community accept that? If they do, then this entire problem is biased by people not assuming good faith about Δ's actions today because of his past. If community wouldn't accept the bot, then that's a different story. --MASEM (t) 05:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's not exactly a fair way to put it. While I think that Delta should be given the opportunity to build a better reputation, he made his bed and he needs to lie in it. The fact that there exists a pattern of behavior cannot be ignored when analyzing the situation. Until he shows that he has changed his behavior his past behavior is quite relevent. Also, this isn't an AGF issue. He can have good faith and still have bad results. No one doubts he means well. Personally, I don't support any ban at this point; however I also don't think that every day an editor arrives at Wikipedia as though they are as good as a brand new editor. Delta's past is very relevent to this discussion. --Jayron32 06:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

@Masem: Please give up on the "if a bot was doing this job" argument, it doesn't hold water. If a bot really were doing this job, it would either have been modified to skip or fix that sort of case or it would have had its approval revoked by now due to the fact that the community doesn't support removal in that case. Anomie⚔ 13:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, because of all the NFCC options, #10c is one of the few that can be read and evaluated by a machine (per the Foundation resolution). The reason I compare Δ's actions to a hypothetical bot that has gone through an approval process to monitor #10c is because, presently, people are asking more from Δ than they would from this bot, above and beyond what I think is good faith reasonable given his sanctions. But I think most would agree that a bot that simply just removed broken #10c's without doing anything else would never clear BAG because either the lack of fixing or the lack of notification. If we believe that we would be satisfied with a hypothetical bot thatwere to remove and then notify the article page, then that would be the same type of actions we would expect Δ to do and inaction to do so would lead to banning. But we have not determined what we would expect a normal editor or a bot to do minimally in addition to the removal, so that there's no present way we can expect Δ to do the same. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"Read and evaluated by a machine" is not the same as "blindly enforced by a machine", especially when this level of human error is involved in generating and maintaining the machine-readable data. I can't speak for all BAG members, but my post above reflects exactly what I would decide in this situation were Δ a bot with a valid WP:BRFA. And since your hypothetical bot would be shut down, your argument based on "Δ should be allowed to continue because a hypothetical bot would do the same thing" is baseless.

There is also the fact that human editors are expected to use human judgement, not blindly edit as a bot would, so even if your argument were not already invalid it would still be invalid because Δ is in fact not a bot. Or are you really advocating the view that it is entirely reasonable and non-disruptive for a human editor to remove files from articles under 10c when it's obvious that the FUR link is just outdated or incorrectly disambiguated? Anomie⚔ 17:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It is very hard to read through what some responders have said and not separate out their desire to see Δ banned and useful discussion. And yes, this seems to happen every time. While he is under editing restrictions and has a history that we cannot ignore, there is a witch hunt going on here. If we're expecting him to do what any other editor would do in that same circumstance, then we need to be defining what we expect other editors would do, and because this actually isn't spelled out anywhere, people are saying "well, he should be doing this and this". How can Δ know what he's expected to do if there's no guidance for it. Which is why I'm trying to figure out if we need to define what that guidance is for everyone so that he can edit to that norm. And if we spell that out and Δ continues to ignore it, hey, then ban him, but you can't do it before the line actually has been set. --MASEM (t) 05:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It's called a "topic ban". I don't know him enough to agree with his being site-banned, and I wouldn't agree with that at this time: but I would easily support a broadly construed topic ban of his using 10c rationale to orphan images. Period. A bot is easier to correct... Doc talk 05:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly how would a bot be any easier to correct? The same result would happen - image removed from the page, now with no human checking. I know we have to consider Δ's actions under the microscope of the community restrictions, but there's also something about common sense here. --MASEM (t) 06:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

A bot can be shut down. In his case, a bot (or, ideally, other editors) would cause less commotion in this region of the wiki. There's lots of other things for him to do here: referencing, disambiguating, fighting the vandal hordes. Improving articles in many other ways. Too much trouble for Beta here, methinks. Doc talk 06:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Masem, the problem discussing Delta's behavior while keeping out the urge to ban him is Delta himself. I doubt many people who have a good-faith concern with his behavior could read his response above & not become at least a little angry. Sheesh, his response above amounts to, "I'm right, no matter what you say. If I do what you want, it'll slow me down -- which I don't want to do. I don't have to listen to you -- so I won't." This is a guy who could be given the job of handing out $100 bills in a mall, & not only make enemies doing it but complain about how badly he was treated. How does one reach someone like that? -- llywrch (talk) 06:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I would say the problem is more the people who don't have a good-faith concern with his behaviour, and assume he is in the wrong purely because it's Delta. Do you think there would have been a discussion even 10% as long as this if it had been myself, Hammersoft, J Milburn or one of the other NFCC patrollers making exactly the same edits? Black Kite (t) (c) 07:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember encountering Hammersoft before, but I've worked with you and J Milburn before, I believe. And... you're correct that your activities wouldn't warrant even 10% of the discussion, because you're doing a far better job of it. A truly good butcher needs training - a Filet mignon is not a cube steak. ;> Doc talk 08:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If we can quantify what "a far better job is", in terms of actions these editors take towards #10c, and hold Δ to the same standard, maybe we can get somewhere in terms of what we expect him to be doing per the community sanctions. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Black Kite, would you kindly provide a list of all of these "people who don't have a good-faith concern with his behaviour, and assume he is in the wrong purely because it's Delta'? I couldn't find very many. I went back over this thread, & once I screened out Baseball Bugs (especially the stretches where he & Hammersoft get to arguing -- someone probably should collapse the first & larger stretch), I had a difficult time identifying anyone who was calling for Delta to be banned. There was Resolute who said with his "leopard can't change his spots" -- one could score this as a maybe -- & Crossmr stating that he argued against Delta's return -- special pleading could score this as a maybe too -- but no one is calling for sanctions here. However, I did find a lot of people accusing unnamed others of wanting to get Delta. This seems to me to be avoiding the primary point of this thread: if someone enforcing this bit of policy finds a technical -- & easily fixable -- violation, should she or he fix it instead of delinking it? Those who have decided to enforce this policy repeatedly claim that they don't have to do this -- which strikes the rest of us as being arrogant & disrespectful of our opinions on the matter. That Delta somehow always manages to find a way to express this claim that brings more heat & less light to the matter, this provides an excuse for people to avoid discussing the dispute itself. -- llywrch (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my point exactly was that if you removed BB's posts the thread would be half as long ( and you missed MickMcNee by the way, but that was only one post, but I'll let you off that). Having said that, the discussion below has probably rendered the above obsolete now, so we'll see how it goes. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I had no idea what username Delta used to have when I first posted the complaint about the image removal on his talk page, nor even if I had would I have known or remembered any of the past problems associated with this user. So for my part, my judgment of his handling of these matters, and his attitude towards editing generally, was entirely based on current practice. Finding out that this is part of a long and oft-sanctioned history just confirms my judgment. Masem keeps saying we're holding Delta to a higher standard than a bot. Well, I'm not; if a bot did the same thing, I would complain to its owner. But as I've commented repeatedly before, a bot isn't doing this anyway apparently because the community doesn't want a bot to be doing it. And that is so because the community wants human eyes and human judgment, which means more than just a "does this title equal that? no? remove image" automated processing.

I think part of the problem is a sort of culture sometimes associated with NFCC "enforcement." The very word "enforcement" is contrary to the spirit of editing Wikipedia, because it directs actions towards punishment rather than ensuring compliance in the broadest sense in the manner best for the project as a whole. If an article title in an NFUR doesn't match the article using it, removing the image "enforces" NFCC "against" the image, its uploader, whomever. But unless the image ultimately should be deleted (i.e., the existing NFUR cannot be fixed), that doesn't achieve compliance, and it doesn't improve the project, because now we just have a non-compliant orphaned non-free image being hosted and an article lacking a needed image. And all of the wasted time by others associated with dealing with that... As I said, none of my complaints with this method have been personally related to Delta; if that is how any other editors work, then they are wrong too in my view, under even how current guidelines and policies are written.

"My actions are not contrary to policy" is a cop-out because not everything that is bad, or less good, is expressly forbidden. It is wikilawyering to insist that there's no problem with what you're doing unless there's a written rule telling you exactly not to. "Not contrary to policy" is not the same as "constructive, careful, and reasonable." Everything Wikipedia is about tells us not to just do what we can get away with, and not to rely on the literal wording of a policy or guideline to defend something contrary to its spirit.

I once noticed that another editor (who hasn't participated in this thread) was tagging images for deletion at FFD because he disputed the NFUR. In the process of adding the deletion tag to the image caption, he was overwriting the existing caption. I notified him of this, and explained that until there is a judgment at FFD that the image is deleted, it's part of the article along with its caption, and should remain in place; and the image caption is part of the commentary on the image and so is necessary to evaluate whether it should be deleted. He responded by blaming the automated editing tool (it was caused by a bug), and said no, he wouldn't stop using it because it was too time-consuming to do it manually. And he said, I have shown him no policy that forbade him from continuing to use an automated tool in such a way that overwrote existing image captions, so I couldn't tell him to stop. Luckily the editor who ran the automated tool was more understanding and disabled it for that function, so the problem was resolved. Again, this was another editor, but the same excuses.

So Delta is not the only one who handles NFCC compliance in this way, but that just means there is a larger problem, not that his editing is not a problem. It is a problem to decide at the outset that you are only going to look at one variable or factor when you have chosen to address and edit content regarding a single issue. It is a problem to value your time more than others. It is a problem to judge that enforcing violations takes priority over curing violations. No policy or guideline commands this approach, and everything about it is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. And all of that is true even without taking into account Delta's prior history. postdlf (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There are only two places on WP where the Foundation has asked us to be vigilant on problems: BLP and NFC. Those are the only two places where "enforcement" is discussed, and hence why they are heated argument areas, because yes, "enforcement" is contrary to "consensus". There are areas of consensus (and several parts of meeting the NFCC depend on if the consensus agrees to that), but some are simply failing to meet the black-and-white requirements and enforcement is needed. Of course, how we enforce is critical too, and that's the core issue here, not such much that we actually do enforcement. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue here is whether we operate with an axe when a scalpel is called for. One side seems to claim that the axe is sufficient, while others note clear instances where the scalpel would have provided a better result. It does matter how we enforce our polices, even those that exist because of Foundation decree. It's not a question of enforcing or not enforcing, it is a question of doing it the right way, with the right tools, and getting the right result. --Jayron32 15:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Even worse; one side is acknowledging that a scalpel will often achieve full enforcement/compliance, yet still insisting that they always use an axe because it's easier and quicker (for them). postdlf (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

So let me suggest that there are at least three non-exclusive remedies that can be realized without making this about Δ alone:

1. Get a bot to patrol and handle these.
2. When reviewing a NFC image for #10c, editors should make good faith efforts to correct "off-by-one" errors or moved articles
3. When removing an image for #10c violation, editors should good faith communicate this somewhere outside of just the edit summary (such as leaving a message on the article's talk page explaining the removal with possibly a link to an essay of "how to fix common NFC issues"; creating a category for such changes so that others can review, etc.)

(And here, when I say "should" and "good faith" I except some human flaws: if I remove 100 images by #10c and only communicate that for 99 of them, that's not a problem. It's when I do it 100 times and warn, say, only 1-2 times, then that's a behavioral issue to be addressed.)

We get consensus on how #10c should be handled, then we can make sure Δ's aware of that, and proceed to then have issues should he fail to meet that community standard. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

#2 is basically all I've been asking for, and #3 would help as well. I think in 9 times out of 10 an article talk page notice is the most helpful place to communicate issues with images that article uses. A link to the image in the edit summary removing it would also help follow-up (or at least the filename, even if not wikilinked). postdlf (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

As a related thought to #3 above, I just confirmed by trial-&-error that links to images, whether or not the image is embedded in a page, do show up with the "Special:Whatlinkshere" tool. If an image is removed from a page because it is believed to violate NFCC, then a note should be left on the talk page. That way, if it orphans the alleged NFCC violation, & another editor wants to fix it, this would greatly simplify that effort, & make the entire process more efficient. (And if the original editor forgets to notify someone about the problem, this provides a useful fallback.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Masem, I like all of the above. 2 & 3 can be implemented immediately. #1 can be implemented as soon as someone makes a bot to handle them. I would like to propose that, perhaps, the move process needs to be updated to edit FURs as well (as long as we use standard templates for FURs, this should be a simple "lookup X & replace X with Y" operation during a page move). — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Programming question

When a move is done, there's some behind-the-screens program that accomplishes that task. What would it take to have that program also scan descriptions of images in the article and somehow post a notification somewhere cautioning that it contains fair-use images, or maybe even just include that caution in the "moved" notice somehow? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I've already pinged WP:BOTREQ to see if a "fix images when page is moved" bot is possible. That would solve most of the future problems. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it would. If the developers don't want to go to that effort, or if it would take awhile, there's a possibly cheaper and quicker alternative. In looking at the "Move" tab, it says, "Using the form below will rename a page, moving all of its history to the new name. The old title will become a redirect page to the new title. Links to the old page title will not be changed." I must tell you that in the lengthy discussion about what to do with the Yankee Stadium articles, I don't recall the images issue ever coming up, even once. In fact, I don't recall that issue coming up in any move discussion. The focus is always on the "proper" name of an article (that kind of wrangling is a whole other story). Presumably the bolded part is intended as a reminder, but it needs to be more explicit, as it seems to be simply about links from other articles. Maybe that cautionary message should also include, in big RED letters, "Images with fair use rationales will need to be redirected to the new article name", or something like that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

But here lies the crux of the issue, redirects on rationales are allowed within policy. The problem occurs after its been moved the redirect is then turned into something else, thus breaking all the actual links to the original article. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Then maybe shouldn't just limit to page moves without redirects, but all page moves, such that even though the redirects will match right after the move, you avoid long-term changes to a redirect page.

Another possibility is that for page moves is to simply populate a maint. category of "page moves needing image attention" so that humans can manually go and fix that. I doubt the numbers of moves per day are very high. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hell I could whip up a script that does that in about 30 minutes, if anyone is interested. Hell I could also do the move redirect fix bot too, but my current restrictions prevent me from taking on a lot of projects that I want to do. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There is already a note about that on MediaWiki:Movepage-moved which is the message displayed after moving a page. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 14:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it in BIG, BOLD RED? (FYI, it was not I that moved the Yankee Stadium article. I seldom do article moves.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

What you see on the link mw message is the exact same thing users see except that $# are replaced with parameter values. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If this kind of problem is happening frequently, it needs to be highlighted in big bold orange or red or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Something like this? [105] Rd232 ^talk 16:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That would make it jump out a bit more. I had been thinking in terms of the orange text box that shows up when you hit "edit" on this page we're on right now. Needless to say, I'll remember this, but other users might need an attention-grabber. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

A way forward ?

Am I right in thinking this entire discussion relates to cases where because of a long-ago page move or other reasons there is a file that doesn't have a rationale for its current location, but which has a surplus rationale for a location where it is no longer used?

If that is the case, could Beta not just offer, out of the goodness of his heart, to keep an eye out for such situations; and if the page history of the current page shows that it was created as the result of such a move, or if for any other reason it appears to him on the face of it that the surplus rationale should actually be pointing to the current location, then he will simply make the fix, and move on?

Seems to me that that assurance would put an end to this storm in a teacup, and then we could all get on with something more useful. Jheald (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a majority of cases, but not all of them. It would be helpful if he could program his script to search for page moves and flag his interface that the rationale exists for the article before and correct if appropriate. This doesn't solve all problems but clearly is a right step. --MASEM (t) 17:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

So what are the other cases people are concerned about? Can you summarise? It's become such a long thread, I thought the issue was as simple as set out above: that there was a rationale, but it's no longer pointing to the right place (either because of a page move, and the original page location being turned into a dab; or because of a cut-and-paste move of a section per WP:SUMMARY, or some other reason). Doesn't that cover what we're talking about here? And if Beta says he's now aware of it and will look out for it, couldn't we all go home? Jheald (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That was the kind of case that made me first complain to him, which cascaded into this AN thread, but it's symptomatic of his attitude and editing approach. I don't know exactly what he sees when he runs his script, but he's suggested that it doesn't tell him anything more than what articles use images that don't have NFURs with titles that match those articles. Particularly given his editing restrictions and associated history, it's not too much to ask that he use his script to do no more than flag image uses for further follow up. He shouldn't be acting on the script output without actually looking at the use in the article and the image description page with his own eyes, and then acting "out of the goodness of his heart" as Jheald suggests. So ideas for improving his script should not be viewed as the whole solution. I would like to see his answer to Jheald's offer. postdlf (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If the image is only used once, and only present with one rationale, tracking page moves would remove most of these cases barring vandalism and typos. The problem starts to weigh down if the image is used multiple times and has multiple - but insufficient - rationales. There should be a one-to-one usage, but that's not always easy to resolve even if page moves are tracked, particularly if images are added to articles without an additional rationale, and then get moved around to other articles without being checked. So we can deal with most of the cases with move tracking, and then consider that other cases should at worst drop a note at the articles to say why images are being removed. --MASEM (t) 19:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the multiple uses/multiple NFURs situation is really relevant unless all of the NFURs are invalid and it isn't clear which one is supposed to relate to what article. And let's not just focus on the page move aspect too.

Part of what I found unreasonable about these removals was that they further involved a use that is completely standard and unambiguous—an album cover image in an article on that album (and the only album cover image too; not additional alternative covers or anything more complicated like that). This should have raised a red flag at the very least to take a second look, just like any of the most straightforward of the WP:NFCI examples: album covers on album articles, book covers on book articles, artwork in articles on that artwork. In a way, these are presumptively valid, and the NFURs only vary within such categories of uses by the article title. postdlf (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "standard" non-free image use - album and other articles are not required to have a cover image; currently we allow that as a use (though that's being argued in an RFC right now, but that's not part of this). We can't assume every album, book, etc. has an image, and thus in complex examples it may be difficult to figure out what the right intent was. The move cases would take care of , say, 80% of the problems for certain, and thus adding some type of notification for #10c removal on a talk page would only be necessary for the rest. --MASEM (t) 22:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, those are standard image uses. The semi-automated way to do this is that before removing an image from a page about a book, album, film, etc., one goes to the image file itself to look for book, album, film, etc., use rationale, and lists all of the pages covered by those rationales. You could generalize it, and simply list the names of the pages covered in all use rationales against use rationales. It would take a second or two to eyeball this - if the page in question is xoxoxox (album), and there is a use rationale for xoxoxox, then that's a sign that the rationale is mis-linked. A slightly more involved way is to look at the use rationales themselves against the name of the article. If you had them side by side on your screen it would take perhaps 15 seconds of skimming per instance, tops, to figure it out. That turns it into a 1,000 minute question, which is probably less than the collective time we've spent discussing this. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yet two more easily-implemented solutions

I've provided three not-mutually exclusive ideas above (bot to handle this; expect #10c editors to fix simple problems; expect #10c editors to leave notifications), but a fourth option has been pointed out to me that would be a path of least resistance and greater communication.

1. As mentioned above, someone suggested writing an essay on how to determine and fix why your image was removed, including exact naming of #10c. Given that those that manually patrol find the extra step of notification difficult, if we requested that when removing #10c images, these 1) should be the only edits made in that diff, and 2) the edit summary should clearly summary the reason for removal and link to that essay, then we would have at least decent communication of the problem to page watches. It's not perfect, but in lieu of a bot that drops automatic messages on talk pages, at least it's more than what is being done now.
2. Right now, NFC suggests that #10c images are to be removed immediately on discovery, while other image problems have 2 or 7 days to be corrected (these last two are in line with the Foundation's minimal requirements). Now, what if we were to create a template that could be wrapped around an image, similar to what is used for image XFD, to announce that in 2 days, if the rationale is not fixed, the image will be removed (NOT NECESSARILY DELETED). This gets us the benefit of 1) having the warning right on the page, making it more visible (combine with the essay-in-edit-summary above to enhance that more) and 2) the use of the template can be used to automatically dump images into a maintenance category that could be patrolled for corrections, when possible.

Again, we're trying to balance communication and expectations here to avoid this being a problem. --MASEM (t) 18:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I like the general concept, but, given that this is a clerical task and not something directly related to the subjects of articles, perhaps it would be better to post the notice on the talk page(s) (that IS where discussion is supposed to happen, right?). A red box around an image with words "We'll remove this in 5 days if you don't do something!!!" don't exactly inspire confidence in the articles within WP. However, if this is what the community wants, I won't stand in the way and would support its implementation ASAP. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's no real "discussion" about #10c - either there's a rationale or not, with the case being there's a rationale intended for that use but with the wrong article name. It's not like FFD over a disputed rationale if it is sufficient or not. --MASEM (t) 19:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, not the best example, but I think you get my point. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Recommend redirecting this to WT:NFC

Unless anyone has any specific complaints about how Δ is approaching #10c removals per his editing restrictions that would otherwise not be expected of others of doing #10c removals, I suggest we relocate this discussion to WT:NFC to discuss if we need to change how #10c removals are to be dealt with by all editors.

My judgement of this situation (which is by no means final) is that this is not "Δ's actions vs those that have their articles/images affected" but instead "NFCC#10c enforcement vs those that have their articles/images affected"; it's just that Δ is quite visible as a scapegoat for the group of enforcers. Assuming we gain consensus on WT:NFC for how #10c should be handled, I don't think anything should come of the recent Δ discussions, but should Δ not abide by the consensus (what that may become), then we can talk specific actions against him. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusion. This discussion went off the tangent and blown completely out of proportion because of Δ's involvement. Had this been done by another editor, the discussion would not have resulted in name calling, arguing over minor details, or resort to using ad hominem evidences. It's time to move forward. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no. The greater discussion about what to do with images, yes. What to do with Delta? No. As black kite said above if you took out Delta's posts this discussion would have been a lot tinier. He might have been tossed in the end for automated edits among other things, but one of the things that really got the ball rolling against him was how he interacted with other users. I first learned about him by the constant threads that were appearing on AN/I from new users feeling he was being "bitey", and his general disagreeableness with how he interacted with others. llywrch summed it up well above "I'm right, no matter what you say. If I do what you want, it'll slow me down -- which I don't want to do. I don't have to listen to you -- so I won't." This kind of behaviour contributed to the problems we had before and I can't help but feel we're just repeating history here.--Crossmr (talk) 13:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

As flattered as I am whenever someone agrees with me, I have to agree that this discussion would be better continued at WT:NFC (per what the original poster wanted), & discussions on Delta & his behavior would be best at WP:AN/I/Betacommand -- or whatever its called now. -- llywrch (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That's more or less exactly what I said. My point was we probably shouldn't stop having the discussion about Delta right now. Moving it to his sub-board is not a good idea, most of the community will miss that unless there is a big notice put somewhere. I'm seeing far too many red flags to just end the discussion now.--Crossmr (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Has Beta/Delta changed their approach? If so perhaps I missed it. If not, I think this is about fact that they're jumping into the fray yet again with a similar approach as before. Would we treat any other editor the same if they did that? That's hard to say, because Beta/Delta is pretty unique, and it's hard to avoid the history. I haven't looked at the topic ban, but if this kind of thing isn't covered by the topic ban, it should be. In addition to the hasty image removals, there's also the matter of very clumsy and misleading edit summaries, and piling on so many changes in a single edit that it's hard to figure out what's going on or to make a correction without reverting the whole thing. It's very clever and useful stuff, but also poorly thought through and done without (and perhaps with disdain for) community consent ... which is perhaps one of the reasons there's been so much fuss over the years. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

On the topic of "clumsy and misleading edit summaries," even assuming these removals were ultimately correct, he wasn't removing images, he was removing sound files. postdlf (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

"Would we treat any other editor the same if they did that?" No, we probably wouldn't, but this is BC we are talking about here. He was allowed back to WP (under a new name at that) with additional restrictions on his editing. As noted above, he is not engaging in discussion with users, but is instead just removing things. I'm not saying the removal is wrong, but with no actual explanation, no discussion, and a confusing edit summary, he is unnecessarily angering WP users. A cop can justifiably pull someone over for speeding, but he can still be completely unprofessional about the situation. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

If it wasn't BC, he probably would have been banned again already. It's only his cheerleaders that enable this to go on and on and try and excuse away his disruptive behaviour until everyone tires of the discussion. Another part of the reason this went on so long before was due to a group of editors who thought he could do no wrong and walk on water, until he eventually burned most of them as well. All I'm really seeing here is history repeating itself and perhaps we could do the community a favor and speed to the inevitable conclusion.--Crossmr (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No, if you read through the *entire* discussion, then you can see that it's bad policy at fault. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Ohana, that's being a bit disingenuous (at best). Parts of what were discussed involved policy issues. Others involved general civility issues with Betacommand/Delta (why did we allow him to choose a new name in the first place?). While the issues overlap, there is genuine concern with regards to the behavior of BC/D (biting the newbies, making changes with misleading/incorrect summaries, not taking care when removing images, etc). — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, it's these kinds of comments that created part of the problem before. Bad policy is one thing. If there is a policy issue it doesn't give you license to bite, make misleading edit summaries, etc. Those behaviours are on Delta and no one else. They are the same thing that started this so long ago. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive146#Proposed_community_ban_of_Betacommand he was previously placed on civility patrol (just one of the times it was brought up)--Crossmr (talk) 07:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I will be starting a threat at WT:NFC on what, if any, changes we need to make on #10c notification.

But I really really implore people that thing Δ started this himself to look at the present situation: the only written current advice about handling #10c violations is "they can be removed on sight". I recognize there's global advice akin to WP:BEFORE to fix things yourself that applies to most edits on WP, but there is no specific instructions or advice for this case. There is no expectation yet for better handling of #10c violation. That is what we can try to fix at WT:NFC, but to expect Δ to have to follow something unwritten and unenforced is pretty much an assumption of bad faith. I know that his response above is by no means a shining example and certainly that once' any changes to how #10c removals are handles, if he continues with that position contrary to the changes, there's a problem particularly in light of the restrictions. But the way that editors have replied in this thread suggest that if I brought this forward with Hammersoft or Black Kite, it would get nowhere near the same attention this has simply because Δ involved. --MASEM (t) 05:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That's why it's a poor choice for Betacommand to start doing NFCC work again, and he should know that and do something else. At least the edit restriction [106] is still in place to keep him to 4 edits per minute. Now the question is, could someone find a link to the discussion on VPR that he is required to initiate before undertaking a series of 25 or more edits? I'm surprised there was consensus for him to do this. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That I can't back Δ on. I've searched his WP space contributions and while he requests large scale work on doing some IP address/domain matching back in October or abouts, I'm not seeing one for NFCC. Particularly with the other problems that people have pointed out with his "do all script" (such as removing comments), there is a problem. Of course, I could be missing it, but I've checked both Δ and BetaCommand to make sure it didn't go under the radar. --MASEM (t) 05:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll ask him on his talk page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about that. It's hard to hold hammersoft up as an example. I was sure I'd come across him before, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive571#User:Hammersoft and I was right. He's had his own civility issues.--Crossmr (talk) 07:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• If you understood not just that thread, but everything that's gone on between myself and the editor who brought that concern, you wouldn't be raising that thread...especially from more than a year ago. If you have an issue with me and my edits then state it. Nebulous comments about my civility or ability to perform these edits in an appropriate manner is out of line, barring presentation of evidence that I have actually done something wrong. I could just as easily besmirch you and your character with nebulous out of date comments about you being blocked four years ago for civility issues. There's no connection to this discussion, and it's out of place for me to be bring it just as it is out of place for you to be raising year+ old issues about which you know little. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)