Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:13, 22 April 2008

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead.
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

If you cannot edit this page, it may be protected. Please leave a message here instead.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All the remedies are useless

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

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

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

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

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

Missing discussion

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

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

Immediate incivility from Betacommand following arbcom case 2

He's lasted 4 days after the judgement before telling someone to shut up at a bot approval request [1]. I raised this at AN/AE but it appears not to be actionable, despite the wording of remedy 12.3.1.A, so I am bringing it here. MickMacNee (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another example anyway, [2]], a user/users are ~~'talking crap' by merely opposing~~ offering crap ideas in opposition to modified, see below beta's philosophy, the 'majority of users don't know policy/willfully disobey it', admins are scared of enforcing WP:CIVIL with respect to comments by users against him (presumably fueling the idea he is justified in replying incivily). MickMacNee (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I've modified the comment [3] for fear of anyone actually taking these accusations seriously, and to stop the detraction from the original issue. MickMacNee (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia Statistics page

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

Block review and contributor discussion: Pixelface

Pixelface (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Pixelface (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

I have enacted a 12-hour block on Pixelface, further to a aiv report, for his repeated revert warring on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Latest examples: [4], [5] (today, 19:17, 19:51); [6] (earlier example: 7 April). I would like some feedback regarding this block, and furthermore, the long-term response to Pixelface we need to take. Some formal response regarding the necessity for discussion may be necessary here; I suspect an underlying lack of understanding of the general requirement for consensus-building through discussion, rather than through forcing one's changes via reverting.

I also fear there may be underlying issues here; it may well be that Pixelface is upset, or having some RL problems. She or he may simply be angry at the project. We don't know what's going on behind the computer screen, but regardless, we need to reach out somehow. Iif we don't, further restrictions and/or an indefinite block may be up-and-coming, and we don't want to lose an editor who has made a moderate amount of article contributions. Anthøny 21:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pixelface is an established user with a couple of recent blocks. Is there a way to reach out to this person? Durova^Charge! 21:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally and as was said on his talk page I think that Pixelface is dsrupting the project to prove a point, in the past he has strongly defended some fictional articles in AFD and to me it seems like he wants to downgrade WP:PLOT from a policy such as WP:NOT to a guideline in WP:WAF in order to be able to debate how legitimate the guideline is in AFDs, this was a situation that was seen with WP:FICT before. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is instructive to read todays postings on Pixelface's talkpage, in lieu of what Caribbean H.Q. just said - the interpretation of the meaning of consensus and the removal of text is slightly alarming, but not as alarming as the threat of leaving if they don't get their way. I wonder if this is a case of burn out, and that an absence from WP may be of benefit to all concerned? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to strongly suggest that this block was inappropriate. Pixelface was not engaging in as much discussion of the issue as he should have been, but I am confident he was acting in good faith. I saw insufficient attempt to engage Pixelface in discussion (aside from reverts saying "take it to the talk page"), followed by a warning template from a user who had previously butted heads with Pixelface, and a posting by the same user to AIV, reporting Pixelface for vandalism -- which his actions were categorically not, yet resulted in a block.

Pixelface's main point as concerns the dispute -- that the passage in question does not necessarily represent "a broad consensus", as is required for policy pages -- is valid. The "downgrade" of WP:PLOT from policy to guideline status has shown a measure of support. However, Pixelface should have been making this point predominantly on the talk page, not through reverts -- but the same goes for those who reverted him.

Pixelface's choice to "leave Wikipedia" is representative of anger at being blocked for reasons which I must agree were inappropriate. This is of benefit to no one.--Father Goose (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it had been one or two reverts, I'd have agreed with you, but look at the history of WP:NOT - he'd unilaterally removed that clause SIX times, being reverted by four different users, three of whom were admins. I don't believe that he genuinely doesn't understand the concept that you need actual consensus to alter existing policy (not just "a lack of conensus for it to stay the same") - it's been explained to him multiple times - which only leaves the option that he's being disruptive. Perhaps a good idea would've been a conditional unblock on the condition that he doesn't edit policy pages, but that's moot now as the block has expired. Black Kite 09:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I count five reverts over the course of three weeks, plus the initial removal, which doesn't count as a revert. That's an edit war, but a slow and low-grade one, and the block strikes me as much more punitive than preventive. I feel it would have been much better if Pixelface had been warned by an uninvolved admin (AGK or anyone else) than blocked abruptly. Sceptre's template-scold toward an established user he was already in conflict with hardly counts. At least some attempt to communicate with Pixelface about the reverts would have been far more appropriate than jumping right to a block.--Father Goose (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user who "reported" Pixelface to AIV is now exulting over this outcome: [7]. I do hope that I am not the only one who finds this entire incident disquieting.--Father Goose (talk) 07:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt Pixelface was being GF; he's been edit warring in this scope for a long long' time. Sceptre ^(talk) 07:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Pixelface has been generally disruptive in this whole domain of fictioncruft. Endorse block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh) here we go again..everyone line up on opposing sides again....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, he's been rather disruptive. His actions caused the Episodes and characters 2 case. (Specifically, edit warring on Scrubs episode articles). Him saying there's no consensus for PLOT is just wrong - only he agrees that it should be removed. Sceptre ^(talk) 08:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"His actions caused the Episodes and characters 2 case." - this is unfair. it takes more than one person to edit war, and other people engaged in that conflict and helped bring it to the level where arbitration was needed. Sceptre, how would you describe your role in the events that led up to that case? From what I can see, you don't seem entirely objective here. Carcharoth (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Scrubs articles already had a consensus to merge. Reverting them all and knowingly violating the consensus was the action that spilled to AN, then to ARB. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block is appropriate. Pixelface has a history of peculiar behaviour in addition to that on display on WP:NOT. I vividly remember him trying to suggest merging all of our articles on Haydn's symphonies into one list in a classic case of WP:POINT - largely because I was the one who rolled back all the merge tags. Moreschi2 (talk) 09:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was wrong of Pixelface to edit war. It was wrong to report it to WP:AIV which is for clear-cut unquestionable vandalism, and not edit disputes. It was wrong of Sceptre to gloat over Pixelface's departure with a "Good News" headline. This is not the first case I have seen the term "vandalism" been thrown out liberally, and I seriously think ArbCom ought to consider whether their admonition in the last E&C is being heeded. In my view, people on both sides (perhaps mostly on the pro-fiction side) have been guilty of edit warring, and people have been guilty of stupid vandalism accusations. This has got to stop. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only said "good news" because I thought TTN would see it that way. Besides, it's appropriate to call the edits vandalism; he'd been warned several times that removing the section would be edit-warring-if-not-vandalism without a clear consensus. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre, you, like me, was an admin once, and people who hold or have held that position are expected, if not required to know what vandalism is and especially what it is not. Straight from the vandalism policy, we can see the excessive stubbornness is not vandalism. "Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable—you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such." Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at the "removing content for no reason", not "stubbornness". Sceptre ^(talk) 11:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He had a reason. You may not agree with that reason, and he may be wrong, but he still had a reason. It wasn't "vandalism", that is a term that should not be thrown around inappropriately, especially at established users. And your gloating over his leaving is absolutely unacceptable. the wub "?!" 11:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A user who puts "is gay" on a BLP and saying "adding a fact" isn't adding a fact. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, unless the subject is gay and has said they are? You could ask for a reference, but without the reference it should be removed. Does that count as vandalism, though? Surely that depends on whether or not a reference can be found. If not, then it probably was. If yes, then it was adding unreferenced material to a BLP. Is that in the vandalism definition? Carcharoth (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's Wikipedia for you: use a common example of vandalism as an example and you get people asking if it really is. And yes, BLP vios are covered by vandalism. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Define BLP vio. Carcharoth (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced/poorly sourced contentious material about a living person. Besides, even were it not a BLP vio, it's silly vandalism. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't be contentious on Ian McKellan would it? It would be poorly sourced, but surely not contentious? Unless you view all poorly sourced material as contentious (and there are good arguments for doing that on BLPs). Carcharoth (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. McKellan's homosexuality is quite well known. Besides, second sentence of my last post "if not a BLP vio, it's silly vandalism". Sceptre ^(talk) 15:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see the worst of the problem as the message. Yes, the ed. it was sent to might well have thought it good news, (and apparently did [8]) but WP user pages aren't private--sending a message like that might give reasons to suspect something in the nature of a joint concerted effort at trying to get an opponent to leave WP. Perhaps he needed a short block--he did not need being insulted in such a way as to make him feel the best course was to leave the project. We're not supposed to be enemies here, only opponents over particular issues, & when it does degenerate into personal enmity, we should at least have the decency to keep it private. Following the thread there, though, the subsequent discussion did seem much more appropriate. Sceptre, you might helpfully ask TTN to refactor. DGG (talk)

Whether the block itself was appropriate or not, calling what happened "vandalism" in the edit summary is certainly inaccurate, and that bothers me more so than the block itself. Wizardman 03:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, after reviewing some others' actions post-block, I change my stance to one admonishing the block. Bad move. Wizardman 04:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This should never have been reported to WP:AIV in the first place, as the board is for reporting instances of obvious vandalism. A dispute over policy may be many things, but this was not a case of vandalism. Pixelface should not have been blocked by labeling it as such. R. Baley (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pixelface is a good faith editor and an asset to our project who made both my list of wise Wikipedians and my list of nice Wikipedians. We should encouage him to return. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, maybe. He also wasted prodigious amounts of everyone's time fighting over spoiler warnings. Guy (Help!) 20:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We might also note that Pixelface engaged in a silly campaign to merge together the Haydn compositions, probably due to the fact the Eusebeus has contributed in that area. That was some time ago though. The main point here is that in this dispute, the vandalism process were used inappropriately on what amounted to an editorial and policy dispute. Pixelface has been argumentative, but he has also contributed to article content, and I believe we should be very patient and tolerant towards those who contribute to articles. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Template:PD

Do you think that Grawp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is notable enough to have imitators?

I recently filed an abuse report on all of the IPs listed as sockpuppets of Grawp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but according to the user who is handling the report, they cover multiple ranges. Do you think that this means that Grawp has imitators? Grawp doesn't seem like a very notable vandal to me.--Urban Rose 09:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he does, or at least folks here label some vandals as Grawp who are not, which amounts to the same thing. Thatcher 10:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree he probably does. After seeing one of his attacks live the other day. But is could just be him using proxys e.t.c. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 11:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proxy, probably. He's notable, but not enough to have that many sheep. Rudget 15:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to get too far into the beans, but I think that one of Grawp's methods is message board posting with a link asking people to click the link and save the page. That could explain why a great number of ranges would be involved. --Onorem ♠Dil 15:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You guys,Grawp is proboly a group of people set out to mess with Wikipedia.They are proboly just a group of teens with no lives.I honestly think that we have nothing to worry about.If we don't get so worked up then they won't be having as much fun.People like this only want one thing, and that is reaction.They feed off of us getting angry with them.That is his/her/their sole purpose in this whole thing.Mr. Green^chat 16:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible. 4chan would be one of those places that these meatpuppets might originate from. — scetoaux (T|C) 05:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable? Seems an odd application of the term. :p Grawp is arguably an imitator of other vandals, depending on how you look at it. Checkuser and similar business aside, it doesn't seem to matter much whether it's one person or several when it comes to on-wiki response: just revert, block, ignore, and deny recognition a bit while we're at it. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find the case of Headstrust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of interest, where all sockpuppets that were not blocked a year ago suddenly became active again. Either it is the same person - or a copycat using his old accounts again, or some other beanish explanation which should lead us to think what we do with old socking vandals. Agathoclea (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last night, I retconned an account believing it was he. Now that you bring that case up, Aga...

In any circumstance, I have an idea. Rather than going up in arms whenever crap like this happens again, how about we simply move-protect all affected pages hit (including talk pages; he's/they've been moving protected pages by moving their associated talk page) and delete all the move targets without any fanfare? I've done so last night with several user pages hit (I will not say which ones, except to say that he's now moved past D&D/Pokémon editors to the general population); it should work. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 19:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Jéské. We need to move-protect the pages.But we also need to not make such a big deal about it.That's just what they want.They want us to get mad about it. Mr. Green^chat 16:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent vandalism at Mustafa Kemal Ataturk

There is a blocked user who keeps creating sock puppets in order to vandalize the Ataturk page. In the past three days, this user has mainfested as User:Rustypipe, User:Magnetizer88, User:ChocolatePain and User:Murlocs. He (or she) was previously making similar posts to the talk page under the IP address 128.226.160.187. Is it possible to block new accounts coming from this IP? I've reported this user more than once at AIV, but he just creates new accounts.

Also, please let me know if here is the right place to report this, or if this post should have been made somewhere else. Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick review of 128.226.160.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (I thought this looked familiar) indicates that little collateral damage would be done if this address was blocked with account creation disabled for a month or so. Any socks not already dealt with will be quickly exhausted. If this proves succesful the ip block with account creation disabled could be applied in a future scenario. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see the sock accounts were created before the April 11 block. Hopefully he'll run out of them soon. Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the ip for a month, per my suggestion above. I shall watch the ip page, in case a legit prospective editor needs help. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought, but perhaps account creation is (or could be) tagged with the original IP address? In a case such as this the entire collection of sock accounts could be pulled up, manually reviewed (to avoid hitting an innocent bystander coming from the same address), and either placed on watch or immediately banned. Alsee (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User pages deletions

Can someone please explain to me the mass deletion of my personal use pages by JzG (talk · contribs)?

~~User:Jaakobou/Temp2~~ <- checked, material was initially edit warred out of Battle of Jenin, requires full discussion when I have the time. For the meantime moved to User:Jaakobou/Other controversies - no objection to deletion of User:Jaakobou/Temp2. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Jaakobou/Battle of Jenin
~~User:Jaakobou/Battle of Jenin~~ <- checked, see comment.
~~User:Jaakobou/Celebrations~~ <- checked.
User:Jaakobou/WarCriminalCharges
User:Jaakobou/Arbitration Background
~~User:Jaakobou/1929 Hebron Massacre~~ <- checked, number of sources waiting for translation and insertion into 1929 Hebron Massacre - see comment. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There might be others that I've missed, I can't see deleted pages in his contributions.

I could also use an explanation to this WP:NPA/WP:AGF comment by User:Sceptre in response to my request that JzG undo his page deletion.

"Don't; I've dealt with Jaakobou before, and he's got a problem with POV." - Sceptre, 18:29, 18 April 2008.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC) fix user links. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC) another 21:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-08 Saeb Erekat. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While cleaning up links to an inappropriate copyvio-riddled polemical user-edited source, I found a few userspace pages that seemed to be sandboxes from period of protection on pages which currently exist in mainspace. They had not been edited in a while, any of them, so I nuked them. There's no reason not to work on the content in mainspace, userspace forks only make life more complex in dealing with contentious subjects, and some users had more than one copy of a given page, other pages were in more than one user space. This was just janitorial work. There really is no reason Jaakobou should not edit the articles in mainspace, although looking at the history it does look rather as if the edits he has tried to make, have been rejected. That would, of course, make them WP:POVFORKs instead of just sandboxes, but I assumed good faith. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ongoing discussion currently on #wikipedia-en. Mⁱc_rochip ⁰⁸ 22:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from IRC #Wikipedia-en:
"(REMOVED - No public logging! Mⁱc_rochip ⁰⁸ [non-admin] 12:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I request JzK's deletions reverted. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:USER#Copies_of_other_pages? Shell ^babelfish 22:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take this to DRV, but in general, some of these pages were holding dispute related content, some of them were new copys that i was intending to work on and some were a little older but still contained some changes from the previously copied version, changes which i intended to integrate into articles once i get around to it... I'm currently in the middle of 3 disputes that might require arbcom. one of them is already on MEDCOM. As of now, I want those pages back so I can maybe review them and decide which is necessary and which isn't. The POV charges, only make this deletion situation seem far more about something personal than a sincere attempt to clean up wikipedia from dead pages. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The POV problems means that deletion probably was best here. But don't forget to consider the option of blanking userspace articles. There are articles in my user space I haven't edited for months, but no-one worries about them and they don't turn up on search engines, because I've blanked them. See User:Carcharoth/Gracia Fay Ellwood (search) and User:Carcharoth/Middle-earth in popular culture (search) for examples. I think the latter still appears in searches either because of the title, or because I only blanked it 6 days ago and the Google cache hasn't updated yet - I checked the cached version). Articles or pages that I intend to or am working on, or that are suitable for public consumption (ie. OK to appear in search engines, and they do appear in search engines) are not blanked (examples: [9], [10]). Carcharoth (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a POV problem on these pages. This is why I'm pretty miffed about the whole thing. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I should have checked that myself first instead of taking the word of others. Carcharoth (talk) 06:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I've been working on a few articles (Israeli-Palestinian conflict) and a few problematic situations keep popping up on material you think is neutral and finished with (sample: current 7 month dispute over a previous compromise version which lasted a full year). After work on several articles turned into a "let's revert Jaakobou" battle, I've taken them to my userspace and progressed the material and upon insertion to articles, it usually stayed (Sample: [11]). However, articles like Battle of Jenin needed the creation of side articles (in the works) and also a few corrections to current articles, which on some occasions also turned into long term disputes. In general, I'm not sure I HAVE to have all of these user pages, certainly once I inspect what changes I've made in comparison to current articles, I may be able to get along by just copying the material in or keeping it off-site. However, a speedy deletion of some serious editing dabbled with a bad faith assumption and POV and copy-vio claims (on all of these pages?) seem improper and are certainly a hinder to my contributions to the site.
Certainly, JzG could have noted me about his concerns and we would have worked it out. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC) clarification of topic area. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The pages exist in mainspace and are not protected. They have talk pages. The way we update content is to talk about it on talk pages and then update mainspace. We don't write new articles which better reflect our POV and then move text in wholesale, and none of these was under active development anyway. Guy (Help!) 10:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As Jaakobou's mentor I'd like to offer a few words. He brought this thread to my attention tonight, and perhaps there's room to reconsider. Yes, it's rare to find worthwhile draft articles in the user space of post-arbitration-ethnic-dispute editors. It's equally rare for such an editor to start contributing his first featured content after arbitration, which is what Jaakobou has done. He's one of the reasons Israel got featured, he restored the featured pictures Image:17th century Central Tibeten thanka of Guhyasamaja Akshobhyavajra, Rubin Museum of Art2.png and Image:Three chiefs Piegan p.39 horizontal.png, and wrote the recent DYK Bli Sodot. Clearly, he's capable of doing solid mainspace work. He tells me he had put a lot of work into those draft articles - finding references etc. - and I'm unable to confirm this because I wasn't aware that these pages existed until after this thread began. Yet his record arguably merits enough good faith for a second look. Would an admin please compare the citations for the deleted draft articles against the current live versions, and if the draft versions are indeed more extensively referenced (which I think they are) then please provide him with copies of the deleted pages, rather than force him without warning to recreate hours of research from scratch. Durova^Charge! 10:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some if not all of those fit that criteria. There was certainly no reason for deletion (see ANI for a thread on the subject) Viridae ^Talk 10:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per consensus here and the authors request, I have restored those pages which are articles. I didn't restore some material from an old arbitration case and a redirect resulting from a move. If the arb stuff is needed that will have to go through DRV. Viridae ^Talk 11:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely fail to see any consensus for this action. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per absolutely self-evident lack of consensus here and it's pre-existing agenda against me, Viridae has indeed wheel-warred and undeleted the user pages. I'd be interested in knowing why Jaakobou needs two separate copies of battle of Jenin in his userspace when the main article is still editable, but he can answer that at MfD where those articles are now listed. I'm also astonished at the level oiof interest he expresses in forks that he had not edited since last year. Guy (Help!) 11:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's possible to sidestep politics here (both the on-wiki version and the real life sort), my first advice to Jaakobou when I found out about this was that I wished he had kept drafts and research in a text file on his own computer. In such a contentious situation things are prone to misinterpretation. That said--and I have no opinion on the MFD proposals--all I ask is that he get the chance any other editor would have to save a copy of his work on his own system for later reference. That's a reasonable request for an editor who has a good history of sourcing his work. Yes, he's got a strong POV. It's also a notable POV and he provides reliable sources for it. Durova^Charge! 11:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, and had he asked me to email the contents I'd have done so there and then. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think we're all intending to do the right thing and just haven't done the best job of communication. Tough subject, flawed human beings. Durova^Charge! 18:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note:
I've now had the chance to review the material/changes in User:Jaakobou/Celebrations and wouldn't mind the deletion of this page. I am very busy at the moment and it will take me about a week to finish examining all the articles - please refresh them all and avoid a speedy deletion of multiple user-pages of my material in the future without previous notice.
A week would be fine - a 5 page MfD is a tad much without any discussions. I'll probably agree the majority of them being deleted once I get a chance to review them.
With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. some of the changes are very wiki-oriented and a review from a text file is a disaster. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that you can copy/paste from a text file into a wiki edit window, make your changes and hit Preview to be sure it all works right, then copy the new version back into the text file on your own computer. It's a little more cumbersome, but you don't actually have to save the page on wiki. Franamax (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a nice amount of user pages on wiki. With all the POV POV POV!!! accusations, I can't take this mass deletion and following commentary about my supposed intentions with as much good faith as I would have, had I been approached. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've went over 3 pages and believe 2 of them should stay in some form. Would appreciate comment from the community if they believe it is necessary that I remove the material off my own wiki user-space and into my own 'on computer' text file. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking around the wiki to find comparisons that justify your own actions is really not a good way to go, we're all going to end up with Britney Spears and Pokemon on our user pages, just to be equal ;) I can imagine it's not nice to feel you're being accused of things you aren't actually trying to do, but that's where the simpler solution comes into play - if you keep it all on your own local disk, you can still preview it all on wiki, no search engine will ever find it, and no curious Wikipedian will ever see it and wonder why it's there. It will be yours and yours alone, until you're ready to put it into the mainspace. No-one can accuse you of doing anything wrong with your own property, in your own house, but when you want to store it on the wiki servers, we all get to see it, comment on it, change it, remove it. It's a wiki. If you keep it private, it's all yours. Franamax (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jaakobu has the right to create draft texts in his userspace, unless those pages are clearly extremely disruptive.
Some people prefer to directly edit wiki pages, some prefer talk page discussion, some prefer to draft in userspace first. If everyone were to enforce their personal preference with admin tools, it would be impossible to edit the wiki altogether. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New pages
Newpagers, when "patrolling" new pages, I often come across a page that someone's had a look at and added a tag about notability etc, but they've not marked it as patrolled. Can we stiffen our resolve on this? Can we make clear that patrolled is patrolled and that if you've added a tag then you've patrolled it...AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Why not address it with the editor's who are doing it? Sometimes they might forget but you could always mark it yourself. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware they don't have to mark them as patrolled aren't you? Viridae ^Talk 03:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Patrolling is not mandatory. And, IMO, worthless. Corvus cornix_talk 05:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not worthless, I had a look and it tells people if the article has been looked at, so others don't waste time checking. Yu don't have to do it though...--Jaeger123 10:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If someone has tagged a page as possibly non-notable, they may choose not to mark as patrolled so that someone else can take a look and perhaps nominate it for deletion. I am aware that some people use {{notability}} to mean 'probably needs deleting, but I don't want to be the one to get it done'. J Milburn (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen far too many cases of vandalism, nonsense pages and personal attacks "patrolled" without the patroller bothering to do anything about the malicious edits. In my opinion, that makes patrolling worthless. Corvus cornix_talk 20:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it's not mandatory is neither here nor there. It's basic courtesy to avoid causing other people un-necessary work, and it's polite, therefore, to mark patrolled pages patrolled. —TreasuryTag—t—c 14:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to point out (and correct me if I'm wrong) that an editor can only mark a page as patrolled if they arrive at the page via Special:Newpages. If you get there via Special:RecentChanges or new user contribs, as I often do, it can't be marked. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mark as patrolled seems to be a rarely-used feature. I think it might make more sense if someone clicked on a new page and edited it, and then the article would be automatically marked as patrolled. That might actually be more effective; false positives might increase, but at least there wouldn't be an insane backlog that deters users from even bothering to mark pages as patrolled. Gary King (talk) 05:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Patrol marking was a very useful screen for unnoticed new pages in the first few weeks after it was introduced. It is becoming gradually worthless as people aren't continuing to do it. automatic marking does I believe hold for admin edits. The point of not doing it otherwise is that a person might see it add a tag, but still deliberately want someone else to look at it. We remain now, as before, faced with the problem of catching the problems which go off the first screen where most NPPatrollers work. In my opinion, that;s why people are tempted to over-quickly place speedy tags and afds--there is the not unreasonable concern that it it's not caught immediately, it will escape notice entirely. Can't all the programmers around ere think of a way to do it--to keep perhaps a list for a few weeks, of new pages per day. DGG (talk) 05:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple identity syndrome
Formerly indef-blocked User:EBDCM apparently was unblocked and reincarnated as User:CorticoSpinal. I have no objection to a good-faith unblock, but the rename makes it difficult or impossible to reconcile the two identities. In particular, there's no association of the block log for User:EBDCM with User:CorticoSpinal. There are some indications that User:CorticoSpinal is beginning to resume the same sort of practices that got him into trouble in the first place so this could be a matter of practical concern fairly soon. But there's a broader issue of what happens when a user takes on a new identity. I'm not familiar with the process of merging histories and so on, so would appreciate comments from someone who knows the ins and outs. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? This was a standard renaming and the block log migrated as normal.[12] Vassyana (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the editing history also migrated normally.[13][14] Vassyana (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I see. I was wondering where everything went for User:EBDCM but it's all been transferred to User:CorticoSpinal. As mentioned I'm not familiar with how these things work so thanks for the clarification. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was also changed recently - formerly the block log would not move. --Random832 (contribs) 16:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to the Username Policy regarding confusing usernames
Recently a number of editors had a discussion on the talk page of the username policy which resulted in a change of policy that was not widely publicized to the administrator community. Their discussion here resulted in this change which added the phrase "...a confusing username cannot be so inappropriate on its own that it requires a block." to WP:U. This needs to be brought to the attention of the community so that they are aware of the change and able to provide input on whether the change should be kept because of the relatively low level of attention the discussion received. Regards, Malinaccier (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How does "a confusing username cannot be so inappropriate on its own that it requires a block" make sense? Does this mean that accounts of a long set of random characters and numbers are now acceptable? KnightLago (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably we should now welcome our new random-typing username overlords... -- The Anome (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I parse it, I think it means we're supposed to wait until they vandalize or otherwise disrupt the project. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So if they don't vandalize something, a username of lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll is acceptable now? KnightLago (talk) 02:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's evidently disruptive. But a username of "KnightlyLego" would be OK, for as long as they didn't sign as you or act like you. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is that evidently disruptive? WP:U classifies disruptive usernames as outright trolling or personal attacks, or otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia. How would my example fit within any of those categories assuming no vandalism? KnightLago (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
based on the username alone - it's not disruptive and is allowed. Dan Beale-Cocks 17:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I Have decided not to comply with this change to the policy and implement it into TW, as for the moment, it's too confusing (third para is in conflict with the first for example). _→AzaToth 16:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's shame. People reporting "confusing" usernames to UAA using twinkle are doing so counter to the big bolded warning in the red box at the top of UAA telling them not to do so. This might have an effect on their RFA. I've certainly used it in opposes. Dan Beale-Cocks 17:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AzaToth, as a result of your decision, TWINKLE users on UAA appear irresponsible. Is that what you want? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh man, another watering down of the policy? I don't think this, as it binds our hands even further; if a username is so confusing that you even think that it should be blocked, than it likely should be (not saying it should be a "shoot first, ask questions later" situation; I'm just noting that, generally speaking, that gut reaction is going to be right); it's not the sort of thing that a new user is likely to completely flirt with. Maybe have a different way of handling similarly-named editors than other WP:U violators, but other than that, I don't see why we need to have another little acquiescence to the paranoia of pissing new editors off. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Geez. The username policy is already a mere shell of its former self and is already essentially useless. We may as well scrap it altogether. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discretion and common sense should the be the most powerful tools when coming across 'prohibited' usernames. Blocking those that are considered disruptive by multiple administrators (as is the case when a username is reported to UAA) is already covered by the policy, with these new changes, I can't see much different apart from the use the {{username concern}} template instead of the {{uw-ublock}} one. Rudget 17:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UAA doesn't count "multiple admins", any editor can report there, only one admin is needed to block. Since editors often use an automated script to report confusing names, even though the page they're reporting to clearly tells them not to report confusing names, there is a lot of stuff going to UAA that shouldn't. Dan Beale-Cocks 17:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was trying to say. Multiple admins often comment on UAA reports, sorry if it wasn't clear before. Rudget 18:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay, thanks. In that case: UAA is for blatant violations that need immediate blocking, anything else should go to RfCU, no? I think there's a bit of discussion about what needs instant blocking. Dan Beale-Cocks 18:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. If there is any doubt at all if should be brought to RfCU. The only thing wrong with that however, is, that hardly anybody is aware of it. If it were more visible on the page, maybe we might get more borderline cases there, which will root out any unnecessary blocks. Rudget 18:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a simple policy - a user with a name of "wibniwbib" is not disruptive just because their name is "wibniwbib". This follows on from users with name in non-latin character sets, which WP has to allow with unified login. It's daft to allow someone with a (for example) name in a Japanese character set and not allow "wibniwbib". If "wibniwbib" (which seemed to be the main argument against such names 'theyre only used by vandals') they'll be blocked pretty quickly. Dan Beale-Cocks 17:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The new policy contradicts itself and idea that lllllllllllllllllllllllllll does not warrant a block is crazy. I am not going to follow the changes either. KnightLago (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the holding pen says:
"This page is for listing usernames that are promotional, confusing or excessively long and warnings have been issued to the user asking them to change their username. If the user listed has changed their username, please remove it from the list, if they had continued editing and ignored the concerns, an administrator may block the account after an appropriate length of time. If there are no further edits then the username may be removed after 7 days with no further action taken, without prejudice to a future relisting."
Which doesn't jive with the new policy that says "...a confusing username cannot be so inappropriate on its own that it requires a block." Someone explain this contradiction to me? KnightLago (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A username, on it's own, is not confusing. It needs something else to be confused with. Thus, "lllllllllllllllllllllllllll" is not confusing, but if another editor then registers "llllllllllllllllllllllll" that is confusing (it's too similar to "lllllllllllllllllllllllllll") and thus blockable. An editor spamming WP gets quickly blocked. The holding pen and RfCU are to give less spammy editors, or gently promotional or role account editors more help with why what they're doing is wrong, before they get blocked. "RoleAccount" could re-register with individuals names, declare COI, and make useful talk-page contribs, but at the moment they get very quickly bblocked nd the project loses useful contribs. Dan Beale-Cocks 19:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

lllllllllllllllllllllll is blatantly confusing and deserves a block as such. However, according to the first paragraph of the confusing section, you can not block it. Then reading the third paragraph and the holding pen rules, it says you can block this as disruption, you just have to leave a note and wait a few days. According to U, a disruptive username includes "outright trolling or personal attacks, or otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia." So how can llllllllllllllllll be blocked as disruptive if he is contributing constructively? This is a convoluted, contradictory mess, and should not have been changed without community consensus. KnightLago (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contributing constructively is the opposite of disruptive. If they're contributing constructively, they're not disruptive. Also, you're referring to text that's on the UAA holding pen page, which has little to do with the username policy that you claim to be arguing against. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone explain to me why a user should be blocked just because someone, anyone, found their username confusing in-and-of itself? Especially when UL means we would effectively have to except non-latin usernames? If the names tend to be used by vandals, block them for their vandalism. A number of users in the discussion reported experiencing good-faith contributors with such names, and experience has taught us that new users don't feel that it's "just the name that's blocked, not the user", they feel bitten. SamBC(talk) 20:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't readily block a username like 1111111111111, considering that it's not particularly long to be disruptive. However, I'm going to report 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111, for example, and if a username is "apsodifjapoiefpaoihepodihapoishfpoh" for example, that only falls under confusing usernames, but is disruptive enough to be blocked. Using the change as rationale for oppose in current RfA reports is not particularly fair, considering the policy changed recently, and I certainly didn't learn about the change until a few days ago. —  scetoaux (T|C) 20:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The real problem is that people are reporting, and blocking, names that are just a bit confusing, or confusing in their opinion. And really, is the problem with the two you say you would block actually that they're confusing? Maybe what's needed is to identify what the problem actually is, rather than giving people a brush that's much wider than they need. SamBC(talk) 20:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean to say that these usernames are inappropriate for other reasons, i.e. unacceptable length? I'm wondering what you mean by that. —  scetoaux (T|C) 20:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that most people would recognise those names as bad, but we can't put our finger on why; we ought to be trying to put our finger on why, not claiming that the reason is something that would also cause problems for other names that people wouldn't all agree on. SamBC(talk) 20:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the problem is 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 under the 1st paragraph on the new policy could not be blocked for being confusing. It is black letter that it cannot be done. The 3rd paragraph then says it can be done, but for disruption. Well, looking at disruption at WP:U, gives examples that include "outright trolling or personal attacks, or otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia." If this editor was contributing constructively, there would be no reason to block there either. So under current policy, if it were to be followed, the above should not be blocked. As for the RFA comment, don't worry about. Most people would ask when the hell did the username policy change? KnightLago (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And what I'm saying is that the reason that people would agree on blocking that isn't really that it's confusing, that's just the easy answer; this is evidenced by the good arguments made that there are perfectly valid names that are also "confusing". SamBC(talk) 20:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it is legitimate to report these usernames as disruptive, due to their length? A long username would be fine. A long username that was obviously generated as the result of repeated collisions of keyboard and hand at great velocity in my opinion is disruptive. —  scetoaux (T|C) 20:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused, so perhaps you two can help me. There's a couple of ways WP deals with "bad" usernames. One is to report to UAA and then follow with an instant permanent block. Another is to template the user, followed with a discussion at RfCU, followed with a block or not block. Another is to talk to the user and find out if their name means anything or is random. When faced with *new* editors who've made no or few edits, names like MCB or scetoaux seem like role accounts or "nonsense". That's not just me saying it, check UAA history for a few months ago, names like that do get reported and blocked. So, you're faced with a user that has a long, random, username and no contribs, or a few not-great but good faith edits. why do you want to instantly (because that's what UAA is about) permanently block that user? If your answer is "that seems bitey, I wouldn't do that" then you'll probably like the new policy. I really don't know what is being disrupted by a long username, what is being damaged by "lllllllllllllllllllllllllllll"? Finally, why should "iuwiwhiuwfhiaej" face an instant permanent block when "উইকিপিডিয়াত কিসাদেউইকিপিডিয়াত কিসাদে" wouldn't? Why would you block "llllllllllllllllllllllllllll" if you wouldn't block "lllllllllllll"? Dan Beale-Cocks 11:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I would go so far as to suggest that there was no real consensus for the policy change; there was a small discussion with few participants, and then someone went and changed the language of WP:U. Since then there has been quite a bit of confusion, additional instruction creep, the establishment of a "holding pen" page that is used by very few people, and it's sort of a mess. I would like to just revert to the status quo ante of pre-April 4, which, to my mind, was not broken and didn't need fixing. --MCB (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. —  scetoaux (T|C) 21:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, revert. KnightLago (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this change and others like it have been under discussion at WT:U for quite a long time. The truth is, WP:U is extremely bitey and there is no reason to treat users who don't give a lot of thought to their username like disruptive vandals when they don't behave like one. Confusing usernames are still disallowed; this change is just so that we take a softer approach to dealing with such users -- ie, we warn them rather than blocking them outright. See User talk:Ggggggggggggggg12; losing one valuable contributor because of an overly harsh policy is much more damaging than any damage that could be done by not blocking any such username instantly. Mango juice^talk 04:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there have been bits of this discussion in various threads in WT:U for quite a while, but with little agreement, and certainly no consensus to change policy from what it had been. --MCB (talk) 07:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. First, to clear up a couple of misconceptions:
This change wasn't rushed through. It's been discussed since last August.

WP:UAA is not the policy page, WP:U is. If you only watched UAA, the change may have appeared sudden for that reason. Even so, I have attempted to keep people informed of those discussions on WT:UAA.

There's a lot of back-and-forth higher up about what the policy says which could be resolved just by reading it. In particular, we can still block users just for their confusing username, even if they're not doing anything else wrong (a situation I find improbable, but this edge case apparently worries a lot of people). All it requires is an attempt at communication with the user first -- it's a lot like vandalism blocks that way. The only change is that these blocks can no longer be made instantly, without discussion using UAA, because those kind of blocks were catching obscene numbers of good-faith users.

Some people are complaining about the new UAA "holding pen" as a proxy for complaining about the policy. This makes no sense. The holding pen isn't part of the policy, it's a subpage of UAA that some people set up because they consider it useful.
For anyone who thinks the policy should be changed back, by all means, join the discussion on WT:U and state your case for why we need instant blocks for confusing usernames. However, I'd prefer to avoid unnecessarily repeating the discussion of the last ten months, so read some archives first.
The new policy is a vast improvement; I have seen that people on UAA are now actually addressing problems instead of assuming that softblocks fix all problems. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not the Wikipedia Weekly
A few weeks ago there was a controversy when another Not the Wikipedia Weekly host recorded an episode that had a panel of banned users. The episode got nominated for deletion and speedily kept. Today I recorded a session that had one banned editor in the discussion. The discussion had several Wikipedians in good standing along with three invited guests to talk about Wikipedia and the media: David Shankbone of Wikinews, Seth Finkelstein of The Guardian, and Matt Sanchez of World Net Daily. Mr. Sanchez is banned from English Wikipedia as Bluemarine, but is an editor in good standing at Wikimedia Commons where the episode will be hosted. So would there be strong objections if I posted an audio link to the episode from the Not the Wikipedia Weekly page? Durova^Charge! 00:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that we host an article about Mr Sanchez, it would very poor form to censor his opinions. He's not editing, so there should be no problem.--Doc^g 00:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I agree. That's fine. WODUP 01:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the swift feedback. I expect to upload later tonight or tomorrow morning (California time here). So that leaves a little more time for input if there are conflicting opinions. I was afraid this might be controversial and wanted to respect community input to minimize drama. :) Durova^Charge! 01:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I haven't heard the recording we're talking about, but from what I know of the people running NTWW, I'm more than willing to assume good faith. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it still needs to be edited and converted to .ogg format. Should be a challenge; my first time doing this. Durova^Charge! 02:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lacking appropriately grand words to express my indignation about a climate where you even need to ask that question at the moment, all I can say that yes, of course I would consider this acceptable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like others have pointed out, he's not actually editing, so I don't see a problem with it. Not a bad question to ask, though. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Post it, absolutely, and put a link at Talk:Matt Sanchez. Aleta ^Sing 00:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not an issue, IMO - Alison ^❤ 06:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like exactly the same issue as in the previous case, and the consensus there was overwhelming. I think that can safely be taken as a precedent that things like this are ok. --Tango (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DanTD and unfree images
This is not the first time I'm coming here with similar problems with this user. He is removing the "replaceable fair use" template from Image:1950 Vets Highway Map.JPG, which can be replaced with a self-drawn map. --NE2 03:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of fighting on that image, at the very least, start a dialogue on the image talk page. If nothing else, take it to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images with a note that the uploader has been fighting its removal. Is there other particular images that are a concern? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just blocked DanTD for 24 hours for breach of WP:3RR, since he has had a warning. Repeated removal of FUR query templates is not the way to contest image usage. If any admin thinks this is inappropriate, fine, but if he as a history of this sort of thing.... --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually warned him after his fourth revert. --NE2 03:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was another one a while ago that was deleted; I don't recall the name but it was a similar map that could have been created by anyone. --NE2 03:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I started a comment at Image talk:1950 Vets Highway Map.JPG but just list it as unfree images if there isn't a protocol from the WikiProject. I'd suggest listing Image:NY 347 Hauppauge Spur Map(1967).JPG which is very similar. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive129#Replaceable fair use help needed --NE2 03:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't realised I'd commented on that also, but that was over a month ago. I would have thought he'd have got the message by now. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I'm unblocked, I can freely use my time to say that NE2 is lying, and that these images are irreplaceable. Even if there were some editor who was willing and able to make such a replacement, they would need these as a reference, and when you delete these, you can't make new ones. Besides that, anybody could make any kind of map and expect readers to believe they're true. ----DanTD (talk) 12:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spell-fix edit. ----DanTD (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are free to get these from other places, such as you by email or newspaper archives. We don't keep around unfree images that can be replaced. --NE2 18:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No they aren't, because 1)The images are not available on the web. 2)The articles that many of them were published in are not always available on the web. 3)Some of the newspapers themselves, don't even exist. Therfore, they are NOT replaceable. ----DanTD (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the newspapers don't exist, what's the image actually from? --NE2 01:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers that used to exist. ----DanTD (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So the library got rid of their copies? --NE2 02:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, they just don't make them available unless you visit them, which is easy to do if you're close to them. Otherwise you're pretty much up shit's creek. For the record, some of the images I've posted are photocopies from libraries. Also I've posted some of these libraries as references in some articles, but nobody else seems to pay any attention. ----DanTD (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've been told this before: cite the name of the article, the name of the newspaper, and the day it was published. --NE2 03:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I've done that. It doesn't work all the time, and it doesn't keep the "cite source" tags away, but I've done it when I can. The key words in that sentence are when I can. ----DanTD (talk) 04:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can do it here. --NE2 04:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think both sides of this dispute have truth on their sides, which may be what is making it stay so contentious. I agree with DanTD that these images are irreplaceable. They document (minor) political events that cannot be documented by new drawings of the same content, so all the people arguing against that point are just causing Dan to get more frustrated and not really addressing the issue. However, I also agree that these images do not belong on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. When we cite newspaper articles we don't host copyright-violating images of them here and the same should be true of these maps. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the use of the image is to show how the highway would have gone. If you make a map and draw a dotted line on it, that will present the same information. --NE2 21:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but if they don't have the existing images to use as references for any potential replacements, then you've got nothing. Back in January 2007, I had a newpapaper clipping of the original Exits 52, 53 N-S, and 54 on the Long Island Expressway, and it was tagged for deletion with the claim that it was replaceable. What a crock! If that image, among others was so replaceable, somebody would've drawn a new versioin of it, and it would be there to prove that the L.I.E. was originally designed in that manner that the article describes in the area of Commack and Brentwood. Instead, it's April 2008, and you've got a lingering tag demanding that a source is cited. Oops! I'm not allowed to cite a source, because it's a non-free image! The same goes for so many of the non-free images I've uploaded that you're so determined to trash! If you keep doing crap like this, you'll do nothing more than screw the articles up! ----DanTD (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources don't have to be on the web to be cited. And source material on the web doesn't have to be (and generally shouldn't be) hosted here. The less important part of the citation is the image itself — anyone can make up an image and claim that it came from somewhere more authoritative. The more important part is your description of where exactly the image came from. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If source material on the web doesn't have to be hosted here, then what's the point of all the "cite source" tags? For a lot of people the web is their main source of info, and for them if it isn't on the web, it doesn't exist. Your point about making up images and claiming it's from an authoritative source only makes more of a case to keep the images. ----DanTD (talk) 01:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it for a moment, but some say there are "buildings" called "libraries" that contain real examples of this sort of thing. These "libraries" allegedly have indexing systems by which these items can be referred. Those people who rely on the web for information could perhaps benefit from the exercise and fresh air when visiting one of these mythical institutions. Or not. If they exist, they will satisfy WP:RS and WP:V. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those are great, unless you're 1000 miles away from the libraries that have the info you want, in which case you've got to make due with whatever you've got. ----DanTD (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think {{cite map}}, {{cite news}} and {{cite book}} are for? They can cite sources that aren't on the web. If you have copies of these maps you should know where they come from and be able to cite them. It doesn't need to be online anywhere to cite them. --Holderca1^talk 03:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but it doesn't do much when I don't have them. I'm just glad I'm driving up to New York City and Long Island in May 2008, because it will give me the chance to find some of these sources. ----DanTD (talk) 04:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused. If you don't have them, how are you uploading them? --Holderca1^talk 13:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just looking at the example at the top of this section, it has the info you need:

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

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

Next Question
Okay, in the remote hope that this issue may be able settled peacefully, does anybody know of any specific person on the Maps task force, that can and will actually work on a replacement for these images? Please, name some names. ----DanTD (talk) 04:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not personally. On a separate note, Dan, any admin can undelete any image you need. If you just keep track of the names of the images, ask me (you might have to point me back to this thread to remind me) when you need it and I'll readily undelete it so you can have a copy. These aren't going to be gone forever, so please don't stress about them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Maps task force/Requests but they want the article to be "B" quality or better first. Again, keep track of the images and we'll get to it later. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason you can't request one for a non-B class if it's a special case. --NE2 05:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, a "special case." Well, I'll give them all a try. As for citing sources, I hope the rest of you understand that research material on any aspect of Long Island history(not just road history) is a little hard to come by in West Central Florida. Unfortunately, if you have relatives who don't find the information you collect as important as you do and trashes them, it just makes things worse. I wish I could remember the name of everything I found the info on these roads in. Also, when there are other maps that say the same things, it's kind of hard to pick and choose just one. ----DanTD (talk) 11:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Long term abuse
Anyone know what this is all about? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 04:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone pissed off. Other than that, RBI.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And semi-protected now because I am a very corrupt admin. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 07:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See this ANI thread and links therein for some background. The IPs and User:Kannan21 are socks of banned user DWhiskaZ who, by my count, has used over 250 sock accounts. Abecedare (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Urgent: hole in oversight discovered
Resolved
– Emailed the Oversight mailing-list —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a hole in the Oversight mechanism; I have unwittingly viewed the content of an oversighted edit. Could an Oversight please indicate below that they are online, then I will email them. Or, should I email the ArbCom "confidential evidence" address? Thanks. —TreasuryTag—t—c 09:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The best thing would be to request it at WP:RFO. PeterSymonds | talk 09:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request what? I'm not making a request, I'm explaining that a humble non-admin such as myself has access to oversighted material! —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that is possible, however you should report the bug --Chris 10:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you it is; I've emailed the Oversight mailing list, I expect that will do. —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Treasury Tag is referring to what I beieve he's referring to, it's a legitimate hole. However, I don't think it's really exploitable on purpose. It needs to be fixed, though. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Far as I can tell, it's a caching issue, probably local. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you reported the bug? If this is a legitimate hole you must file a bug report --Chris 08:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How could there be a hole in oversight? It removes the edit from the revision database altogether; you can't access something that's not there. Either it's a caching issue or the extension didn't properly oversight the edit; I can't see how it could be anything else.--Dycedarg ж 08:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh is that how it works? I never fully understood - I assume that means that oversighted revisions can't be restored? If so, it must be a caching issue. Happy‑melon 09:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, according to mw:Extension:Oversight, a dev is capable of restoring oversighted edits by running a query on the database (and the edits remain in a special table unless restored). FunPika 10:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be technical, the edits are deleted from the revision table of the database altogether making them utterly inaccessible, but the text of the edits remains in the table that holds all the text. The parts of the edits that are supposed to be in the revision table are dumped into the oversight table, which is only accessible via Special:Oversight, which as you can imagine is only accessible by people with the Oversight user right. Thus, oversighted edits can be viewed (but not restored) by users with oversight and can be restored with a database query. In any case, I can't see how a hole could exist, without the data in the revision table the edits can not be viewed in any standard manner by anyone.--Dycedarg ж 16:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably something to do with caches... _(1 == 2)^Until 18:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nasty admin
An admin called John Reaves is very unhelpful, I uploaded a picture and he deletes it because he doesn't like it. Your policy says the site is not censored! I uploaded it again then he deleted it again and threatened to block me if upload it again. I didn't know contributing something could be so difficult. Are all admins like this?--Aleks31 (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While Wikipedia may not be censored, the image you uploaded (admins:disturbing image warning Image:Modern autopsy.jpg) is distasteful to say the least. While I'm not an attorney, I would image there would be some kind of legal obstacle to taking and distributing images of a deceased and gutted woman. Do you have permission, for example? It's not as if the image was taken of a body laying in the street, where there would be no presumption of privacy. That said, admins are not generally nasty and I'll endorse John's deletion. - auburnpilot talk 18:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We received a very long and rambling e-mail about the legal, moral and ethical ramifications of hosting this picture and I decided it'd be best to just delete it. John Reaves 18:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, yeah, you need like releases and things like that. You can't just photograph medical procedure, even on the dead, without getting permission. --Haemo (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think Image:Cut rat 2.jpg is distasteful but that is still on the site.--Aleks31 (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a human being. John Reaves 18:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing the images had descriptive names so I knew what I was going to get when I clicked on them. Unfortunately, curiosity made me click, anyways. Gary King (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
so blur out the faces?--Aleks31 (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make it better. --Haemo (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
John Reaves clearly did the right thing here. The cadaver is clearly identifiable by any relative, and as noted above it is extremely poor form to photograph the dead without releases. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yip. Per AuburnPilot and Guy, deleting admin was right. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is everybody here so strict?It's just a picture.It's not like she was claiming to have killed the person.She just placed a picture on an article.It was just her way of describing the article.Mr. Green^chat 17:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As someone whose mother's remains were used at a medical school (at her bequest), I can assure Jacob Green and others that the use of this picture is grossly inappropriate and offensive without a full release from the deceased's kinfolk. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well then what about the blurring of the face?Or how about making a different one from scratch?Or one with your face on it? Mr. Green^chat 17:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are just trolling. seicer | talk | contribs 17:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

So any of my three choices are o.k?Mr. Green^chat 17:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A user is violating the Good Faith Policy and blocking My Edits on the Obama Girl Which Are Accurate
The user Escape Orbit is trying to label my edits as just opinions. The article I submitted-which was content from the New York Times- did give indications that the Obama Girl was lying when she said she was too sick to vote for Obama on Super Tuesday. The article did say she was actively attending the Fembot election results party that evening, and was even healthy enough the previous day to interview voters in New York. She claimed she was sick because of an airplane ride to Arizona on Super Bowl Sunday. I am trying to write in the truth, but it is clear to me the user is not assuming good faith and letting me do so; though I recently typed in more additional information in the article, I still think that the user will continue to change my edits. I'll even be okay if just a warning is issued to the user to assume good faith and not be one-sided.Kevin j (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please post some diffs and it will be easier for someone to help. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, but this is not the place for it. I suggest dispute resolution — admins aren't the good faith police and there's no administrative action required here. --Haemo (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin j continues to edit war on the Amber Lee Ettinger article with his own personal opinion as to whether or not she was "sick" the night of the party he refers to. Being seen at a party and being sick at the same time are matters of personal opinion, as there is no doctor's statement that she was or was not sick, and Kevin j cannot say definitively that she was not sick. (Note: I have never edited the article in question, nor even read it till Kevin j brought this here). Corvus cornix_talk 22:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried asking Kevin j to cite properly his edits on Amber Lee Ettinger, but he seems more interested in casting accusations. The basic problem was that he is citing a New York Times blog that simply doesn't say what he's adding to the article. When I've removed it he has justified his edit by saying that the article "indicates" what he's saying, rather than stating it (as he repeats above). What Kevin j says it indicates (and this is his opinion) is that the subject lied, something that the cite certainly doesn't say. What makes Kevin j so sure of this is, apparently, an additional source of information that he doesn't/can't cite. So his edit is clearly a violation of WP:BLP and is original synthesis as well.

What "the truth" is, I don't know. But Kevin j fails to grasp the need for verifiability on BLPs and not to volunteer extrapolation on what cites "indicate" rather than what they actually state. As for violating good faith; I'm unclear how I've supposed to have done this as I've not once raised the question of Kevin j's motivation, while he has done this repeatedly to me and seems to have constructed a quite detailed theory from nothing. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I solved the problem for now: the entire para was sourced from a single blog, so I removed it pending better sourcing. Such sourcing will no doubt cover issues of sickness or otherwise. Guy (Help!) 14:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nasty admin #2 (John Reaves)
Resolved
– John has now responded
This admin was also very unhelpful when asked to join a consensus building discussion at talk:Joe Scarborough. User:Kek15 has a strong stance on a term being used in the article. John Reaves reverted it without checking to see what the consensus was (Consensus at the time favoured Kek15's view). After i asked him to join the discussion, he simply ignored me. The way i see it, he has assumed bad faith on newbie editor Kek15! And ignoring me was simply rude. TheProf - T / C 18:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't even leave you a message to tell you that he deleted your stuff! He deleted my picture but left the article in a mess.--Aleks31 (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we condense this into one "let's whine about John Reaves" section? John Reaves 18:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I resent the term "whine", if you had been friendly in the first place i would'nt have needed to post that message, would I? TheProf - T / C 19:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the same BLP nonsense from Michael F. Griffin as well. seicer | talk | contribs 13:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nasty is the word to describe John's contributions to the Joe Scarborough talk page. His comments are very angry, nasty and counter-productive. Difficult to believe he is an admin. This is the kind of input that will drive people away from working on Wikipedia. Kek15 (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the admin (User talk:Seicer) who piped in above reverted an edit on the Michael F. Griffin article; the inclusion of a relevant Link - in the Edit Summary he wrote "Distasteful Material." This was a link to wikipedia article. I have had contact with many helpful admins and editors but Seicer appears to be power happy and quite UNhelpful. And the worst part is that he doesn't seem to read the material or the discussion around it before reverting the edits - and there is virtually no useful explanation or guidance. Kek15 (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adminship poll
It's the time of the year again. I've started a survey on adminship and its procedures, to find out the general sentiment on our UserRight procedure or precedent. Your feedback will be greatly appreciated! And yes, this time round it has got less questions on the table (possibly a good sign?). - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 19:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two ways to help prevent Grawp-related vandalism
Would it be possible to disable page-moves that contain Grawp's favorite terms (e.g. Hagger and especially that link to the troll website that he posts) either entirely or for non-admins? When would terms like that ever be legitimately used in articles? I know he will just get more creative, but it could help. For that matter, why don't we disable flagged terms from being used in edit summaries, so that the link to the website that he posts can't stay permanently in the database's memory? Think about this second idea for a second, and think how much it would be useful in general. What is someone designs a spambot that makes minor edits to pages with the web address of the creator's website in the summary? Even if the edit is reverted, the address will still be there in the history. Applying the spam blacklist to edit summaries could be a great way to combat spam. --Urban Rose 22:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've always wondered why we don't use a captcha for pages moves. It would certainly slow mass page moves, and would only delay legitimate moves by a few seconds. - auburnpilot talk 23:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great idea. But will it ever be implemented?--Urban Rose 23:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To first point out, you can add as many links as you want to edit summaries, they aren't searchable (via Google, Yahoo!, or even our own search method) and does no good for spammers. I think a better idea would be limiting the number of moves that a user can make per minute. No one should ever need to move that many pages that fast (not even mentioning that its not possible to move that many pages that fast by hand). Im sure this could easily be implemented. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 23:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well we all agree that more page move restrictions are in order. But even if most spammers wouldn't bother to include their link in edit summaries, I still think it would be a good idea to make the spam blacklist apply to edit summaries as well.--Urban Rose 23:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ehh, right now external links are no longer linked in edit summaries, so you actually have to copy and paste it into your browser to navigate to the link, and they do not come up in any searches, so I really do not see a pressing need to blacklist them, but heck I guess it wouldn't hurt. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 23:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a genius idea AuburnPilot. What are the logistical concerns in implementing it? John Reaves 23:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would be strongly against adding a CAPTCHA for page moves unlessan audio CAPTCHA is implemented. One of the things I like about this site is that a blind user can use all its features independently with a screen reader after creating an account and waiting four days for the external links CAPTCHA to be disabled. Graham87 04:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(←)How about what I previously stated about restricting the amount of moves a user can make per minute? This would be pretty easy to implement (I would imagine) and solve our problem. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 04:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We do have Extension:Title Blacklist installed. We could add hagger to the list --Chris 08:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also be sure to add that site URL.--Urban Rose 12:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Hagger" in various forms is already on the list, the problem is Unicode (and the titleblacklist doesn't affect edit summaries). Mr.Z-man 17:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need Extension:SpamRegex - it allows blacklisting terms pretty much anywhere they you can type them. If there's support for this, I'll file a bug request to get it installed (assuming it's stable). Happy‑melon 14:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's been a proposal for on VPT for a while now. Feel free to request it on Bugzilla at any time. Mr.Z-man 17:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Requested. Happy‑melon 18:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related request to remove vandalism from editing history summaries (Renewal)
See archived requests and the following editing history summaries (scroll down) in Heath Ledger: History. Repeated acts of vandalism by same GRAWP-related sock puppets have left these traces (apparently intentionally). Blocking is not enough; the residues--e.g., Diffs., need removal; otherwise the recently-deceased subject is being continually maligned. Thank you for continuing vigilance to this matter. --NYScholar (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, maybe a place for Selected Revision Deletion? How's the coming along Mr. Developer? MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Until single revision deletion is ready, you'll have to ask for oversight. Thatcher 00:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, why cant you just delete the whole page and then not restore the bad edits? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 00:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which I went along and did, the offensive revisions are no longer visible :-) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 00:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because deleting and restoring pages with 3500+ edits puts great strain on the servers and probably resulted in a brief database lock. Thatcher 10:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention making a fairly high visibility article disappear for 4 minutes. For cases like this it is probably better to either ask for oversight or just wait a few months for selective deletion. Mr.Z-man 17:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's what you get for being bold, sorry if I took down Wikipedia for a bit :-) not my intentions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 03:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RBI
We are being seriously trolled here. Each one of these threads compounds the issue. There are repeated vandals that are not individuals, but message board groups having some laughs at our expense. These threads that continue to postulate, speculate, and bemoan the issue only exacerbate the issue in that it feeds the trolls. Revert, block, ignore. It takes almost as little time to clean up the page moves as it does make them, and having the ability to fix the problem is part of our duties and also means that we have the upperhand. "Grawp" can only be stopped by no longer feeding the meme the fuel it requires. Willy on Wheels was the same issue. Altering the MediaWiki software just to stop a particular vandal? What would please such person more? There's not particular problem to be fixed other than what we make of it. Keegan^talk 04:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think threads like this are what's feeding Grawp so much as an Encyclopedia Dramatica article I saw on him (which essentially lists every single "Grawp quote" he's ever made). I wish that they would have some common sense and delete it (I also regret having put my image in the public domain, as someone uploaded it for use on that page).--Urban Rose 12:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously haven't seen the rest of ED, rationality is not their strong suit. Mr.Z-man 17:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This just seems backwards to me. We don't fix a problem by ignoring it, and technical possibilities have been proposed to stop (or at least reduce) the vandalism. If your problem is just the mention of Grawp here… well, I don't see the problem, given you also invoked Willy on Wheels. (Oh no, will he show up now? ;) ) -- Kesh (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who are the people we'd have to get in contact with to see some of these proposals implemented?--Urban Rose 18:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiprojects
I just created this redirect because I could never remember what to type in and observe that perhaps such redirects should be made for all of them.
Shouldn't it be easier to find these, especially for new users? The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, that redirect is in the article space, and its redirecting to the project space. The redirect really should be from Wikipedia:Wikiproject physics or WP:Wikiproject physics. MBisanz ^talk 07:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's already WP:Phy! —TreasuryTag—t—c 07:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah basically nowadays, if you put a "WP:" in front of the topic you want, and put it in all caps, you will get to the Wikiproject you want WP:PHYSICS, WP:BIOLOGY, WP:NFL, WP:ANIMALS, WP:PACKERS to name a few. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 07:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted per CSD R2. As TT already mentioned, WP:PHY is your shortcut. — Edokter • Talk • 12:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That CSD mentions only talk, user, and user talk namespaces, not the wikipedia namespace. We have some redirects from mainspace to project space, and I don't see what harm it does, really, given that 'Wikiproject so-and-so' can hardly be the name of anything else. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Merging the project and article space in any way is bad. The only real exception is the main page, but even that is often under dispute. J Milburn (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BAG Membership
In an attempt to prove that we can get extended community input on bag membership with out adding extra bureaucracy I am unholding my request(see WT:BAG#Back_in_the_BAG) and moving it to here. --Chris 08:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Back in the BAG
I was part of the bag under the other system but I didn't reapply when the system was reverted because, I though it would distract me from status bot a task that I had been neglecting for some time. Now that I've got status bot fixed up I would like to rejoin the bag. Also is it still the practice to spam all the notice boards? I know it has been in the past but I'm not to sure at the moment with all the bag changes going on --Chris 05:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a current change to pot policy which would require an RfA-like application for all BAG applicants, retroactively. If you want to join now, then Support, however you might want to wait until the policy has stabilized and you can do the new vote. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 10:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I'm putting this On Hold until everything is sorted out --Chris 12:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, this is presently a legitimate way to do it. Support, if you chose to unhold it, you seem to know your stuff (IIRC we spoke the other day about PHP bots, and you seemed to keep up :) ), and, we could really use more people whom are interesting in participating / closing BRFA's... SQL ^{Query me!} 05:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copy from the old thread ends here --Chris 08:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Strider12
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Strider12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. Should Strider12 resume editing Wikipedia, she shall be assigned a volunteer mentor, who will be asked to assist her in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that continued sanctions will not be necessary.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ehh...who cares? It's not like the Arbitrary Committee is a legitimate authority anyway... Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ArbCom thinks it has real power. As for "shall be assigned a volunteer member", that presuposes someone wants this thankless job and that the committee has the power to "enforce" such a decision. What a silly finding from Board of volunteers about other volunteers! Now,if it had made Strider12 responsible for finding her own mentor, and ensuring her own compliance, that would make some sense, especally if "continued sanctions" are named and enforceable. ៛ Bielle (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the troll that just posted here
The unverified information that he was attempting to post's removal from the article's talk page (see diff: [15]) may well have been reasonable in this case, though I wouldn't have done it myself, but this can't be generalized - in truth, it sometimes is necessary for a sensible discussion that possibly libellous information, which we would not allow in the article, must be discussed on the talk page.
This has been mentioned before, indeed, as a reason why non-mainspace pages should be not indexed by Google. It is clear that implementing this would be technically easy, so it is rather mysterious why it has not been done.
Another example that just came up on ANI was the Jon Awbrey matter - in this case, the main point would again have been moot if his user page were non-indexed.
Regrettably I must conclude that the failure to implement this change indicates a hidden motive on the part of the people that run things here, and it isn't hard to think of what that might be. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 12:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? The reason we let Google (et al.) index project space for searching is that our internal search sucks for anything nontrivial. There's no other agenda, hidden or not. Lots of editors use Google to search project space (because our internal search sucks), and taking that tool away from them doesn't make any sense at all. If you want WP to stop allowing third party indexing, the solution is trivial - just write a free (as in freedom) site search and indexing tool with all the features of the Google interface, that doesn't require a bunch of dedicated servers and doesn't cause excessive server load under expected usage. You do that, I'm sure the Foundation will have no problem with restricting the indexing of project space - but they aren't going to do it now, not while our internal search sucks. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, I'm not quite clear. Are you saying that you think that Wikipedia's internal search is flawed in some way? I always use Google when searching for block/ban/sockpuppet discussions on a user, since I've never figured out how to find that information using the internal search. I assume this is because I am ineffective at using it, since obviously Wikipedia's software is all of the very highest possible quality. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While we're on this topic I wish we could get something on the tool-server just like this but for searching AFDs (which we have asked Google and other search engines to ignore). — CharlotteWebb 16:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{TFAempty}}
Can you please change the first word from The to A on {{TFAempty}}. It really dosent make any sense, "The featured article".... What? "A featured article" sounds better. Nobody is responding on the talk page, so I posted here. Rk Or To N 16:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Responded there. In short: It does make sense. x42bn6 Talk Mess 16:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Next time, you'd probably get more luck using {{editprotected}} -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Assassination jokes acceptable?
[16]. I am not sure about the legal exposure, but the public relations exposure is probably not particularly favorable either. I do know that this is something that really is not looked upon with much humor in the United States. --Filll (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a supposition, not a threat. Even the U.S. and its Homeland (In)Security isn't that sensitive. ៛ Bielle (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feh. Picturesque analogy, nothing to see here. Guy (Help!) 16:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in Britain, and it is looked at as something to joke about here... and all the Americans I know (a surprisngly high number, including some in the Foreign Service) would not take offence at this either. There's no legal issue, and don't let the PR issue worry you. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the problem is with the "Why don't you buy a gun and experiment" part. Obviously a joke, but from what I understand the Secret Service does not have a sense of humor. Still, I suppose that's between Doc and the US gov't, not us. --barneca (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As long as everyone undersands that it is a joke what harm can be done.No one thoughtn he was serious and if Homeland does send someone out to his house thats his own fault.We really don't need to be getting on his case about it.Nothing is going to affect the Wikipedia community because of this. Mr. Green^chat 17:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smart ass comment withheld. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Public relations exposure tends to be directly proportional to postings on high-traffic noticeboards. Moreover, it's clearly not a threat. --slakr^\ talk / 19:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is so ridiculous it's hard not to see it as trolling. The remark was not a joke, it was an illustration of how someone could become obviously famous overnight. You'll find the context here [17]. Then some "Homeland security" cooks threatened me with the feds, which I found hilarious. Now, since I only imagined shooting the Bushy on a Monday, that would mean that the Secret Service could relax from about 3 hours time until next week (obviously I mean a GMT Monday, in case there was any doubt). Finally, although I do think ridding the world of Bush would not necessarily be a Bad Thing, doing it through Wikipedia, in order to test a theory about BLPs, would be a rather extreme case of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. And I wouldn't want to do that.--Doc^g 20:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Technically you would be disrupting the real world to prove a point. Think about it. — CharlotteWebb 21:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't real??? Wow?--Doc^g 22:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, everything's real. "Outside world" would be more to the point though I use them interchangeably. My point is that deliberate off-site actions which encourage Wikipedia to write an article about you would not actually disrupt Wikipedia, as Wikipedia would only be reacting as it normally would in regard to people who slay sitting presidents. Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure your encore would be to log in via prison wi-fi and delete your own article, in order to set a new standard for "who may opt out". So maybe you were right the first time around. — CharlotteWebb 14:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though rumor has it, if you threaten to assassinate Jimmy Wales, you get taken to an Objectivist prison. No guards actually take you there; your hedonist greed takes you there. The prison is in your brain. MessedRocker (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is the best thing I've read today. --Masamage ♫ 21:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As tasteless as we may find it, "shooting the president" has a fairly well established history of usage in examples, jokes, and hyperbole. For example, there is a fermilab physics workbook[18] which has students solve a problem "An evil alien assassin intends to shoot the president of Earth. His weapon of choice is a. particle beam, consisting of particles traveling at 1/3 the speed of light".... If you somehow actually believe someone made an honest threat your obligation is to report it to the proper authorities, not to generate bogus drama on Wikipedia. --Gmaxwell (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The key differences are that "president of Earth" is a fictitious office and that the mention of extra-terrestrial snipers makes it even more obvious that they are taking the piss. I doubt a reputable textbook would refer to an actual head of state/government in this context, living or not, though I could be wrong. /me checks Wikiversity just to be sure. — CharlotteWebb 21:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

“ It doesn't matter if I shoot the President because if I kill the President at 12:00 Noon, by 12:01 we've got a new President ”

— Frank Sinatra in Suddenly (a film were a nobody wants to shoot the POTUS--Doc^g 21:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Lebanon vandal
71.57.148.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) repeatedly vandalised a group of articles, including the Demographics of Lebanon. Communication attempts were ignored and disruptive activity didn't stopped in spite of several vandalism warnings by me and other editors. Zello (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for 24 hours. Please report the next incident of vandalism to WP:AIV. Cheers, nat.utoronto 19:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion notice
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Reversing the AFD default for BLPs about changing how AFD results are evaluated when the subject of an article is a living person. Davewild (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AIV
Resolved
Have the cleaner bots gone on strike? _GB^T/C 20:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. _GB^T/C 21:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
POV edits from a group of users on Dorje Shugden
Wisdombuddha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wikilama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Tkalsang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Helen37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Also:
Trudy21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Peaceful5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Re-posting As User:Kt66 noted in this talk page, these users are deleting sourced information and have a clear POV that they've conspired to promote on Wikipedia. They are pretty intransigent when it comes to talking about reverting and they show bad faith in editing. I don't know the intricacies of this dispute, but you don't need to in order to see how mass deletions of verifiable and reliable information are a bad idea. Furthermore, considering their respective editing histories, a checkuser might be in order. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked over the diffs, and I've got to say I agree with Kt66 and Justin on this one. I have contacted Wisdombuddha about it as he appears to be the most active proponent of the new edits. Thingg^⊕^⊗ 20:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you notice, only 2 sections were deleted because they did not have references with them. The other sections were moved to more accurate spots in the article. I agree about the anonymous sites, but these have references in other places as well and will be cleaned up. Many of these reverted changes took place over the period of several days and it seems like Kt66 got back from vacation and determined that he had to approve all edits. We are simply trying to clean up this article as you can see with the See Also and the overview (how is a unsolved murder mystery a verified source? or an overview topic?). If you check, you will see that Kt66 is very biased and has edited this article as a personal reflection. He is also not responding to any discussion besides the topics he brings up, and even then not frquently. With even minor changes being undone it is not possible for this article to develop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilama (talk • contribs) 01:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This dispute might be easier to manage without sockpuppets. Checkuser Confirmed that Wisdombuddha and Wikilama are the same person, and that Helen37 and Trudy21 are the same person, and Likely that all four of them are the same person. The other named editors appear to be unrelated. Thatcher 12:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Block request
Request indef block of two likely socks of banned User:Roitr (WP:LTA/Roitr) based on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Paterisco. Kelly ^hi! 23:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both blocked. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NY highway article issues
Lately, everything I've done has become a problem to a specific administrator, User:TwinsMetsFan. I wrote 3 articles recently on 3 highways: County Route 115 (Tompkins County, New York), New York State Route 912Q and County Route 106 (Orange County, New York). For the first of the three, he posted [19] comment on my talk the day after writing the article. He's mad, and won't accept that writing new articles is not illegal to Wikipedia criteria. I replied on his talk saying I no longer wanted his opinion and to bug off from me.
Several days later, I was willing to apologize, because article expansion had stopped due to the 5th gradish bickering between the 2 of us. I also proposed some conditions to help us work things out, and he hasn't replied at all. I know he's complained to other editors about my article writing, and he accuses me of taking more pride in writing them rather than expanding them. That, to me, is a false statement. If it wasn't for my article expansion, we wouldn't have 28 Good Articles, 1 A-class, and 1 Featured Article, and right there he shoots all my work down.
In the last 10 days, I have expanded 1 article, New York State Route 990L, and written the second 2 aforementioned articles (NY 912Q and CR 106). I feel this only started because of US Roads' statistics factor called WikiWork. I am willing to try some dispute resolution steps, but to one help out and not get yelled at by him for writing new articles. Please, this is really important for the project.^Mitch32^contribs 00:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
County routes are not notable and they pose grounds for removal. He's only giving you advice on the fact that they could (and should) be proposed for deletion. The fact is, we had way too many articles authored in NJ and NY that hardly mustered for inclusion -- every state route, county route and driveway was listed, and it became not only cumbersome to maintain, but too exhaustive. Other states, like Ohio, really have very few articles. seicer | talk | contribs 00:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsigned reference routes (state-maintained highways whose designations are not signed for through route purposes) also fall into the not notable category, unless they have unquestionable notability, such as if they are a parkway. A half-mile spur that is little more than a service road for I-87 exit 22 certainly isn't. As I stated on the I-87 talk page regarding my tagging for the article for a merge, the only claim to fame of the spur is that it was once the northern end of the Northway - in which case it can easily be merged into I-87's history. – T M F 03:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its not quite the articles itself, its how he reacts and this isn't just with CRs, look at 912Q, and look at what he tells me to do, go work on other states. I am entitled to writing articles, and I end up getting told off for it. ^Mitch32^contribs 01:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IAU. — CharlotteWebb 01:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, as much as that comment may be off, there really isn't all that much that we can do as there has been no direct violation. Just ignore and proceed on, I suppose. seicer | talk | contribs 03:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was intended as advice to Mitch. — CharlotteWebb 14:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You make it sound as if those recognized articles were all your own doing. I know of at least two Good Articles where other editors contributed entirely to the content, and another half-dozen where you had a very minor role. The A-Class article you refer to was also predominantly written by other editors. And if I'm obsessed with "WikiWork", who was the one who ran the WP:1.0 assessment bot multiple times daily and posted a running tally of the "relative WikiWork" in the IRC channel?

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

The reaction in that diff is also spurred by my personal belief that it is better to have consistent coverage of every route across the board than to have inconsistent "molehill coverage" - have several articles at the top of the assessment scale and many, many more at the bottom. As an extension of that, my focus has been squarely on improving the articles that already exist and not create any more until they are in good shape. Was it erroneous of me to expect others to have the same mentality? Probably, and I will admit that. As I said in response to a later poster on my talk page, this kind of outburst won't happen again. However, if I see an article that I don't believe should exist and there is a plausible merge target, I will tag it for a merge, regardless of who made the article. The last time I checked, I'm well within my rights as a Wikipedian to do so. – T M F 03:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that I've had WikiWork issues in the past, but anyway, I wanna try some measures to get the two of us working together again, for the benefit of NYSR. (I specifically suggest coming back to IRC, where history is discussable.)^Mitch32^contribs 10:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mitch: if a highway was simply renumbered, it makes sense to have only one article. TMF: chill, man. Let him write about what he wants to. --NE2 11:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Admins editing MediaWikis
Please review the category, MediaWiki page edit suggestions shown to the very bottom of this page. Then keep going until you find this on the talk page:
{{mediawikiedit}}
Once you have saw the new edit, you'll may do the edit. Porchcrop (talk|contributions) 01:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this, nor do I understand the purpose of {{mediawikiedit}}. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 01:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing the purpose either. What's wrong with simply using {{editprotected}}? Creating yet another maintenance category for admins/editors to watch is not a good idea; it'll likely slow the process if anything. - auburnpilot talk 01:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone ahead and merged it to {{editprotected}}. Also gave it a slightly different message when used on MediaWiki_talk pages. — CharlotteWebb 01:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of Admin rights from inactive accounts
Just a heads up that a discussion to withdraw admin rights from inactive accounts is building up a head of steam at WT:RFA and that a straw poll on this has already started. This seems rather premature to me and doesn't match my recollection of how we write new policy. I have therefore archived the discussion. Other users will no doubt have views on this proposal so I think a heads up is in order... Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agreed with stopping the discussion carrying on there. If anywhere, surely it should be here, where there are already a couple of inactive proposals —αlεx•mullεr 06:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hungarian-Slovakian experiment
I am requesting input from other administrators on a series of ethnic disputes that I am trying to moderate. This is as part of my involvement in the ArbCom-appointed Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars.
As I was researching various areas of ethnic conflict on Wikipedia, I found a pocket of de-centralized disputes that had resulted in over a dozen ANI and other threads over the last few months, and edit wars in a variety of articles. There were also several extraordinarily frustrated editors who were openly organizing tag teams of revert warriors,[20] because they hadn't been able to get admin enforcement.
A few days ago, on April 17, 2008, I created User:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment, and attempted to funnel the disputes into a centralized location that I was moderating. I also invited a few other admins to participate, though as it's turned out, I'm the only one that's actively doing anything.
I offered a general amnesty to the edit-warriors for past actions,[21] if they promised to abide by policies in the future. Some of them immediately settled down. Others couldn't resist the temptation to continue reverting (it was like some of them had a daily routine). So I placed Digwuren editing restrictions on them if they continued to cause problems, then if they continued, I gave them another warning, then escalated to stricter restrictions such as a 30-day "no reverts except for vandalism" caution, and then if that didn't work, then actual blocks. In most cases the warnings were sufficient. I placed brief page protection on a couple articles, blocked one anon for 15 minutes, and placed two other brief blocks, plus blocked a dozen sockpuppets that had shown up via CheckUser.[22]
Overall my actions seem to have been successful in de-escalating the disputes. However, as I've dug deeper into Digwuren, I've found that it doesn't give me the authority that I thought it did. On a strict read, Digwuren only applies to "civility, personal attacks, and AGF". But it doesn't say anything about edit-warring or other kinds of disruption.
I see that there was an attempt (by someone else) to file a motion last month to extend the restrictions, but it couldn't muster sufficient arbitrators to pass.[23]
I have written to the arbs to ask whether I should continue with my experiment (per the working group that they themselves put me on), but I have not yet gotten any clear answer back. In the meantime, I'm continuing on with my best judgment.
So, until/unless the arbs reply, I'm asking the admin community at large, what do you think? Should I continue with my experiment? Any other uninvolved admins who wish, are of course welcome to join. I would appreciate the help!
Or, is my experiment too far "out there" in terms of what the wiki-culture allows, and should I shut it down?
Or should I do something else, like every time I issue a block or other restriction, post it here at WP:AN for review? Be warned, this could become a daily occurrence. Part of my experiment is trying short blocks and alternative restrictions to try and snap someone out of problematic behavior, rather than issuing lengthy blocks to just "get them out of the way".
Ideally I'd like to continue with the experiment as-is, subject of course to monitoring, and if any admin disagrees with a block or restriction that I'm placing, they can of course challenge it. The goal of the Working Group is to look at some of the longrunning ethnic disputes, and try to propose new ways of dealing with them. But I don't want to be setting up "the Elonka law" in this corner of Wikipedia, if it's undermining other admins at the same time.
So, what do you think? Should I continue, shut it down, or modify it in some way? Thanks, El on ka 12:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it is working, and those editors effected by it are improving their behaviour which results in better articles, then I say continue and have it written into the relevant guideline. I suggest only contentious blocks, and complaints regarding enforcement by the individual concerned, need be brought to AN(I). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it works, then keep working. Happy‑melon 15:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request for eyeballs
There is a perennial debate going on that erupts routinely, related to civility policy, IRC and the like.
Following a lot of talk on various pages, I've summed up much of this at User_talk:FT2#Bringing the threads together. I'd value eyeballs for several reasons, but for two in particular:
If my representation of civility on-wiki is wrong, then we need to discuss it. If it's right and what I have described is our communal norm and standard, then it needs to be accepted (by all) that it applies to all users equally, from administrators to the newest user, with no "favored exceptions" for this or that list of "established editors", whoever they may be.

If administrators are expected to deal with incivility, then they need to be able to do so without fear of excessive retaliation.
FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about doing some kind of "blind" test? List out a series of comments where questions have come up about whether or not they're uncivil, but don't say who said them or where they were said, and then ask admins to weigh in on, "This was civil," "This was uncivil", or "I'd need to know more about the context in which this was said." If the consensus is that it was uncivil, then a block (or at least warning) should be issued, regardless of who made the comments. --El on ka 15:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards