Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive177

Special:Contributions/Tennis expert

(Sorry if this is the wrong noticeboard, but I always get the impression that the edit warring nb covers 3RR only. Please move this to somewhere more appropriate or direct to me somewhere it's been raised before, as it quite likely has.)

Every few days, User:Tennis expert goes around a whole load of tennis article mass reverting changes based on his personal interpretation of our style guidelines (or rather his belief that they don't apply to him, or to tennis articles, or at all - I'm not quite sure). Attempts to engage him in dialogue, as I made at Talk:Urszula Radwańska, seem to fail; comments placed on his talk page are quite often removed without reply (e.g. [1]). Is this going to be allowed to continue as a piece of harmless fun, or is some action appropriate?--Kotniski (talk) 10:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC) (Notified the user of this thread; also notified User:2008Olympian and User:Ohconfucius who made many of the reverted edits.)

Tennis expert has severe problems complying with WP:OWN, something I've seen in action at Maria Sharapova in particular. His usual method is to claim "consensus" backs whatever changes he is making and to revert attempts at interaction at his talk page. I know User:The Rambling Man has also had problems of this nature with him. I would describe TE as a problem editor who tenaciously patrols his watchlist to control articles he regards as his own. --Dweller (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This is simply inexcusable. Edit warring is never appropriate, and although 3RR may not have been breached at every article, and the amount of reverts and unexplained edits, has led to a 24 hour block. I'll review the edits and see if any needs to be re-reverted. If this pattern of editing continues post-block... seicer | talk | contribs 14:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Bad block. The issue of date linking/formatting is currently disputed at WP:MOSNUM. The editors performing mass automated edits while a dispute is in progress are violating previous ArbCom decisions relating to mass editing during disputes. Further, the editors performing these automated edits rarely, if ever, discuss their edits other than to claim they have the backing of the MoS (which they do not). —Locke Cole • t • c 21:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, those editors are: (1) the single-purpose account Datedelinker; (2) Lightmouse, who has made thousands of controversial date delinking edits using AWB despite the policy that prohibits AWB from being used to do anything "controversial"; (3) Tony1, who has accused me on various discussion pages of having a mental illness and being a pig; (4) Skywalker, who often engages in blind reverts of everything I do, regardless of the nature of my edits; (5) The Rambling Man on tour (here is an example of his edit warring about date linking, which has continued after Seicer's warning about edit warring - wonder if Seicer will follow through and block a bureaucrat?); (6) Closedmouth, who has done thousands of script-based and AWB edits on date-delinking despite being asked to stop; (7) 2008Olympian, who has done hundreds of script-based edits on this issue; (8) Dabomb87, who has done hundreds of script-based edits on this issue, ignored requests to stop doing so, and edit warred to enforce his date-delinking agenda (e.g., five reverts in three days, five reverts in three days); and, (9) Colonies Chris, who has done thousands of AWB-based edits on this issue. There may be others. Tennis expert (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Dweller, I have never explicitly or implicitly claimed ownership of the Maria Sharapova article or any other article. Your allegation, unsupported by the facts, is ridiculous, incivil, and unbecoming of an administrator. Tennis expert (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to leave for a bit, but can anyone take over the MOS reverts that I started from here? Much thanks. seicer | talk | contribs 15:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've done some more of them. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Seicer said below, "Tennis Expert has not been the only one edit warring, and although it would be a tad late to block other users over this, if I see it continue on by other editors, you can be guaranteed that more blocks will be given out." Yet, Seicer has literally invited two editors to engage in the very edit warring that Seicer has promised will result in a block. See this post by Seicer on Ohconfuscius's talk page and this post by Seicer on 2008Olympian's talk page. Seicer's general invitation, above, to engage in the type of edit warring that he has promised will result in a block also is strange. I wonder if it is permissible for an administrator to block an editor, such as himself or Tim Vickers, for behavior that the administrator is actively soliciting. Tennis expert (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Seicer has reverted roughly 45 articles that I edited concerning the date delinking issue. Nine of those articles were the victims of his blind reverts, where clearly beneficial and uncontroversial edits were reverted. Seicer has refused to fix these problems; so, I am asking that someone else do it. The articles in question are Margaret Osborne duPont, Jimmy Evert, Lawson Duncan, Fred Hagist, Gigi Fernandez, Pat DuPre, Brian Dunn, Herb Fitzgibbon, and Herbert Flam. Thanks. Tennis expert (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I am aware that TE, along with User:Locke Cole have been aggressively fighting application of WP:MOSNUM notably in relation to deprecation of date-autoformatting. I believe that edits of mine which rendered dates in a consistent dmy or mdy format have also been reverted, in blatant contempt of the guideline. I have yet to find occasion to warn him of WP:3RR. This self-proclaimed authority in tennis is edit warring whilst respecting the letter of the policy. Somebody needs to have words with him. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not a guideline. It's disputed, as you well know given the warning I left on your talk page. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Ohconfucius's post is completely false. I had been very careful to preserve the correct formats and have corrected them wherever I have found errors. And I had merely been trying to preserve the existing consensus until there is a new consensus to delete existing date links. It is clear that the new consensus does not yet exist. See, for example, denial to use Cleanbot to remove existing date links, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. Tennis expert (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Block was 3 hours after he stopped editing. Is this block intended to get his attention, i.e. be lifted when he decided to respond? John Reaves 16:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not here 24/7, so this was the first chance I could get to respond (since no one else bothered to do anything about this, either). The user was mass reverting dozens of pages, and the cleanup work has yet to begin (I've tackled 50 pages so far), and for that, a short block was in order. If he continues post-block, then this gives ample rationale to give a lengthy block or an indef. seicer | talk | contribs 18:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No cleanup work is necessary, his reverts were entirely appropriate given the disputed nature of date unlinking (which is now (and has been) being discussed at WT:MOSNUM). —Locke Cole • t • c 21:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

While I obviously disagree with Tennis expert's methodology, he does appear to be enforcing the most recent consensus decision; whenever I've interacted with him on tennis articles, it's been against other editors who appear to be set on making widespread changes of their own volition without consensus. So yes, edit warring is not the answer, but against people like this, reason isn't terribly effective for the most part. Considering that Tennis expert does in fact seem to be both passionate and knowledgeable about this topic, and against serial, single-purpose edit warriors like User:Korlzor, then I'd say that Tennis expert seems to be doing exceedingly well keeping his cool reverting the angry complaints on his talk page and staying within 3RR guidelines. It's a shame that the contributors of this thread have been demonizing him. A block also seems highly inappropriate, especially because he was never notified, and has not been given any chance to respond to the accusations against him. I'd strongly encourage whoever blocked him to undo it post-haste. GlassCobra 21:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Although I really can't begin to care about something as trivial as date formatting, edit warring is disruptive. Edit warring can be three reverts on a single page, or as in this case, hundreds of reverts on hundreds of pages. He was warned about this several times on his talkpage section. This was a good block in my opinion, indeed I was thinking about doing it myself yesterday. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

As much as I have observed and sometimes protested against TE's tactics on editing tennis articles and his refusal to discuss these issues on tennis wikiproject in recent times, I believe that the block was entirely unjust and done in haste. And I guess this is particularly bad due to what this block resulted in. And despite his hostility in engaging in discussions in the past, I believe he should have been given at least some period of time to respond here before action being taken against him. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 23:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Tennis Expert has for a long time blocked any progress on tennis articles, by vetoing any change he didn't like by throwing in the "this is against established consensus" argument. Even in discussions where 20 editors had agreed on a change, he would say that one whould wait for a new consensus to form, but that he could not tell when it would form. That was inevitable interpreted by most as his way of saying "things stay as I want until I declare a new consensus" (i.e. ownership). It was in my opinion a very counterproductive behavior. As to the delinking of dates this was just a manifestation of the same thing. I interpreted his actions as a demonstration of how he helt that even a change in the MOS could not overturn his view on "established consensus" in existing articles. Even on a matter where he in September stated that he did not favor naked links of years. Yet he would not delink years—on the contrary. It really strikes me as somewhere between admirable and very odd. In any case, I don't think his approach is the way to proceed, and even though the particular issue of delinking dates are currently debated, the current MOS does read: "Linking: Dates (years, months, day and month, full dates) should not be linked, unless there is a reason to do so." I never heard a reason for putting in naked links to dates in tennis bios from anybody; including Tennis Expert. So, in my opinion, insisting on putting them in again and again with no reason is just disruptive behavior in order to ride a misguided principle. (And to GlassCobra: He has had every chance to discuss, defend himself etc., but he refuses to discuss; he just deletes and proceeds.) --HJensen, talk 23:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Tennis Expert, from what I can infer from his contributions, has engaged in mass reverts over dozens of pages hundreds of times over. Edit warring is quite defined in this case, and fits the bill here. It doesn't matter who is "right" or who is "wrong" -- because I've kept myself out of the loop on the whole MOS linking bit until now, but if any sides refuse to discuss their controversial edits and edit war over a span of dozens of articles -- and simply remove any discussions that may be worth reading such as here, then there is only so much that the community will tolerate. Our patience is not indefinite, and if he refuses to discuss his edits, then he will aptly be blocked.

Given Tennis Expert's latest soapboxing, this comment from a fellow administrator is quite approperiate. Currently, the only ones who are disputing his block are other editors who have engaged in this sort of petty behavior, such as engaging in MFD's on policy pages (a grossly inappropriate method to resolving issues) and edit warring on multiple pages. I shall note that Tennis Expert has not been the only one edit warring, and although it would be a tad late to block other users over this, if I see it continue on by other editors, you can be guaranteed that more blocks will be given out. Take this to the policy talk pages and have the policy overwritten; don't nominate it for deletion; don't edit war over dozens of pages; and don't soapbox. seicer | talk | contribs 00:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, you need to unblock and back away until you've actually read the volumes of debate on this issue. The simple fact is this: those insisting on removing date links are not participating in discussions at WT:MOSNUM and attempt to derail such discussions claiming they already have consensus (they do NOT). Tennis Expert has my full support in reverting what amounts to a campaign by a handful of MOSNUM regulars to eradicate date links/formatting against obvious disputes/challenges. Further, how you can block him but not block those who are constantly performing these edits (when it's clear they're disputed) is beyond me. So please, either unblock Tennis Expert or block everyone who is involved, because this uneven handling is damaging your credibility in this matter (especially your "repair work", which goes against everything we've discussed at WT:MOSNUM). —Locke Cole • t • c 01:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No thanks, and pandering comments such as yours don't give further credence towards your stance. Furthermore, all of the administrators who have chimed in this thread and on his talk page have agreed that the block is justified -- not necessarily for the MOSNUM-bit, but for the excessive edit warring over dozens of pages that compounded to hundreds of edits. If you can't see it for that, then I can't give you further assistance. seicer | talk | contribs 01:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I know this is going to sound odd seeing as it was me who reported the matter, but I think the block may have been a well-intentioned mistake (just as the blocks imposed on myself and User:Tony1 two days ago were mistakes). I was expecting an admin just to have a word with the user, to try to make him see reason and engage in dialogue, not to jump straight in with a block. I know others have tried this, but at least we could have seen whether an attempt from an admin, with the implication of a possible block, might not have been successful. After all, we feed vandalizing trolls with warnings and attempts to engage; we ought at last to try the same with established users who do make positive contributions on other occasions. (Not that I'm complaining too much; certainly it was better that some action be taken than none, as has been the case up to now.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Pandering? Pandering? Is this your response to a well reasoned request for equality in treatment? Unless WP:BLOCK has changed recently, it suggests you should treat all parties in a dispute equally, and you definitely shouldn't be picking sides and reverting edits which are disputed. Also, it's troubling that you only give credence to the opinions of "other administrators". Maybe you missed it, but this is a wiki ran by (with few exceptions) a community of editors. It's definitely not being ran by you. (← this is pandering, BTW). Did you even bother reading WP:BRD as I suggested on your talk page Seicer? —Locke Cole • t • c 09:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Seicer, the last time I looked, GlassCobra and Arthur Rubin were administrators. Both have said that your block of myself was "wrong" or "highly inappropriate". So, the score is two administrators in favor of your block and two opposed. Correct me if I've miscounted. Tennis expert (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ditto for RMOT (check the home account), Guy, and on and on. I don't dwell on the number... seicer | talk | contribs 19:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess that's true. "All" (your word) is not a number. Tennis expert (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Seicer said above, "Take this to the policy talk pages and have the policy overwritten." Obviously, he doesn't understand the issue, which is that there is no policy to eliminate existing date links. Despite there not being a policy to eliminate existing date links, the editors I listed above have employed automated and semi-automated means to implement their misguided conception of the MOS. Seicer also said above, "if any sides refuse to discuss their controversial edits and edit war over a span of dozens of articles -- and simply remove any discussions that may be worth reading such as here, then there is only so much that the community will tolerate. Our patience is not indefinite, and if he refuses to discuss his edits, then he will aptly be blocked." This is the problem that inevitably results when an administrator hastily and rashly blocks without bothering to determine the facts. I have discussed the date delinking issues over-and-over-and-over-and-over, both on the MOS discussion pages and at WP:TENNIS. I also have said why I had no intention of engaging in yet another dialogue about the exact same issues with editors such as The Rambling Man on tour (RMOT), who are routinely hostile and incivil to me. See this. RMOT was aware of my intentions but continued to pointlessly harrass me on my discussion page, which is why his posts were deleted there. See WP:HUSH and WP:UP#CMT. Of course, Seicer wouldn't know about that because he didn't bother to ask. Drive-by, "I can't be bothered by the facts" blocking was his solution. Tennis expert (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I see you have engaged yorself into an active retirement. The diff that should compromise Rambling Man on Tour, actually reflects some of my entries on another page you cannot delete on. So you may want to edit that if you should come out of retirement once again. Cheers. --HJensen, talk 19:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

HJensen's original post here is probably worse than anything else that has been posted here about myself. It is inaccurate. It is incivil. It is demonizing. It is inflammatory. It creates ill will. It creates an "us versus them" mentality. And it epitomizes the most egregious type of behavior on Wikipedia. I did not block progress on tennis articles. In fact, I did more than anyone else on English-language Wikipedia to improve tennis biographies. My watch list consisted of 450 of those articles. I worked very hard on all of them. Maria Sharapova is used by certain editors as an example of everything I did wrong. But that article is very close to GA status only because of the work I did on it and the vandals I fought. Have a look at Billie Jean King, which I am very proud of. I have spent hundreds of hours on that article. And what exactly as HJensen done? My disagreement with him was about the core principle of consensus. He believed that a handful of people on an obscure discussion page that almost no one looked at could overturn the consensus of thousands of tennis article editors, most of them anonymous IP accounts. He refused to understand or accept that consensus can be created through editing, not just through discussion. He also refused to understand the fact that a more specific consensus concerning a particular subject matter (tennis) can override a more general consensus (MOS). Wikipedia precedent, which I cited to him and others, is clear about this. Instead of discussing these issues productively, he became incivil, gossiped about me, misrepresented my opinions, and said he had "given up" on me. As I have said many times in many places, this is not about whether date linking is a good thing. Rather, the issue is whether there is a true consensus to eliminate existing date links and prohibit the creation of new date links. While date linking is a trivial matter in the grand scheme of things, how consensus is formed and changed is extremely important for the future of Wikipedia. In fact, I doubt there is any issue of more importance. If you look at all the discussions of date linking and all the disputes that have arisen about the behavior of various editors, the fundamental issue is consensus: what is it now? what was it in the past? has it changed recently? may it be changed back? should editors refrain from using automated and semiautomated means to enforce their view of consensus when there is an ongoing controversy? These are tough issues, but that doesn't justify posts like HJensen's. Tennis expert (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Which post? Seriously? If it is my assesment above starting with "Tennis Expert has for a long time ", then that is just my input and opinions. Stop throwing the "incivility" claim whenever someone disagrees with you and sees things different than you. I honestly believe you have blocked progress. That is my opinion. Is that incivil to state such an opinion? And yes, I have "given up" on you, because I have failed to understand what you really want. How can that be incivil? I think you are strongly devaluing the term now. Consider for a moment, and this is meant seriously and not sarcastic, that since so many fail to appreciate your stand, then perhaps you are, as a minimum not being sufficiently clear when expressing your views. It is not like we are all being stupid on purpose here. --HJensen, talk 23:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Not all opinions need to be aired in public, and certain opinions indeed are incivil when they are aired in public. I have stated my views simply in all kinds of ways, in several different places, and if you still fail to understand them, then, well, draw your own conclusions. Tennis expert (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, ýou do not decide which opinions other editors need to air in public (except on your talk page, where you can spend your time in retirement to delete things that you don't like). And having failed to understand your views, make me share your opinion (which I don't find incivil) that I should indeed draw my own conclusions. It is, incidentally, what I do all the time.--HJensen, talk 19:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom 1RR restriction

Considering that Locke Cole has been blocked many times for edit warring after coming off an ArbCom 1RR restriction last year, I find his argument that we're the ones with damaged credibility deeply ironic. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

...which makes 7 reverts in 3 days all the more interesting. 3 reverts in 2 days; 3 reverts in 3 days; 3 reverts 2 days. This should be logged with ArbCom as gross violation over multiple pages. Even if 1RR was not technically violated on one singular article, the spirit of edit warring and reverting over multiple days can result in an extended block. I haven't even begun to dig through his recent contributions, but I'm sure I'd find much more. seicer | talk | contribs 04:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I may not have been clear. That restriction lapsed last year, but he's be blocked for 3RR several times since it lapsed. See [[2]]. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You'd have a good case for edit warring and gaming the system at USS Monitor, where there are seven reverts over three days, timed so that they are not technical violations of 3RR (although 3RR makes it clear that 3RR is not an entitlement and that users can be subject to blocks for non-3RR violations): 22:45, 16 November 2008; 20:01, 16 November 2008; 19:39, 16 November 2008; 17:48, 15 November 2008; 04:37, 14 November 2008; 00:08, 14 November 2008; 11:04, 13 November 2008. The fact that this pattern has emerged over a multitude of pages in a similar fashion to Tennis Expert deserves further consideration for action. While a block at this point may be punitive rather than preventative, a stern warning and a notice that future gaming will result in a block may be in order. seicer | talk | contribs 05:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I would definitely say he's gaming the system: stalks, bullies, intimidates and then stops when warned, moves to another playground and starts all over again. I did warn him 3 days ago about the Monitor, and he stopped. Then, there was the intervening 1 week block (which was unjustifiably shortened to a few hours). He's back now. And judging from recent postings, he's utterly unrepentant. When he eventually does gets benched, he won't be able to say he didn't have it coming. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It's truly bizarre to see people acting exactly as I act pretending their actions are above reproach. Folks, Ohconfuscius and Seicer are performing the same mass reverts they'd have me blocked for. When can this insanity stop? —Locke Cole • t • c 09:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that their edits are in line with the manual of style guidelines; those of TE (and perhaps yours, though I don't remember seeing any of yours) are in blatant contradiction to it. If you want to change the guidelines then make a reasoned proposal or contribute (as you have been doing, in fact) to the ongoing discussion. The fact that a few people want to change a policy or guideline (particularly when the proposed change is not defined in any coherent way) doesn't make the current version invalid, and provides no excuse for acting against that policy or guideline. --Kotniski (talk) 11:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I can assure you that he is doing exactly the same, the two are vice chairmen of the concert party, co-conspirators, aiding and abetting each other. Only difference is that TE has had the good sense to retire. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:CIVIL, Ohconfucius. Your disinformation campaign is tiresome.Kotniski, edit warring is edit warring according to my good friend Seicer, regardless of whether the edits are in accordance with the MOS guidelines. The one exception, of course, covers any edit warring that Seicer himself has solicited, a type of "immunity to prosecution". Tennis expert (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom case with me is how old? And you'll note there were many vocal opponents to the decision the ArbCom reached regarding me. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do tell. Your block log tells another story. seicer | talk | contribs 12:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

What story does it tell? Besides that involved admins in a dispute appeared to have no qualms using their admin tools to win a debate? Your problem is that you look at the block log and think you have the entire picture when if you did even the tiniest amount of investigation you would see that most of the blocking admins supported the opposing position I took. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Our good friend Seicer was once blocked for edit warring. Pot calling the kettle black? Tennis expert (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm pleased your retirement was so short, Tennis expert. In the future, to avoid further blocks, please refrain from edit warring, either on single articles, or by following people's contributions and edit-warring over multiple articles. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

As you may or may not be aware it takes two to engage in "battle". As I mentioned from the outset, the inequality of the blocks (which is to say, "block", as only one party to the edit war was actually blocked with the other side actually helped by the admin in performing their mass reversions) is a real problem. Should this issue arise again I hope the admin handling it will actually treat editors equally instead of choosing a side. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Enforcement of current policy is not a blockable offence. Edit warring over dozens of pages hundreds of times is a blockable offence. I noted that some in opposition to the current policy have tried backhanded attempts to circumvent consensus by starting a MFD on the policy page itself (which was speedy kept). Sorry, doesn't work that way. seicer | talk | contribs 21:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you obviously have no idea what current policy is. And aside from that, the MOS is a guideline, not a policy. Edit warring to enforce current policy, whatever that is, is not a blockable offence, huh? What a strange concept. Where can I find this not-blockable-offense policy? It's not here, which specifically says, "edits against consensus, and similar actions are not exempt" from WP:3RR. Your current interpretation is very convenient for you, I might add, because it gets you off the hook about blocking the edit warriors with a date delinking agenda. Flip-flopping interpretations are not useful. Here's what you said earlier, "Edit warring is quite defined in this case, and fits the bill here. It doesn't matter who is 'right' or who is 'wrong' ... but if any sides ... edit war over a span of dozens of articles ... then there is only so much that the community will tolerate. Our patience is not indefinite...." Tennis expert (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there are a few situations in which repeated edits are not considered edit warring: edits to remove WP:BLP violations and copyright violations come to mind. However, editing to enforce most other policies is not exempt. (Sorry, TE, you're almost correct.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

1) It's not a policy, it's a guideline (and not even a very well backed guideline as it's the MoS which most editors couldn't possibly keep up with thanks to all the changes that occur across the varying pages it inhabits). 2) With few exceptions (BLP and others as Arthur correctly points out) it is a blockable offense to edit war (whether or not you have the backing of policy or even a guideline). As an administrator you should be aware of these exceptions and rules. Tell me, are you an administrator open to recall? I note your userpage history appears to have been deleted so I can't check to see if you were at any point open to recall. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Upon being approved as an administrator, my good friend Seicer said, "I will do everything in my vested power to ensure that I uphold the role of an administrator to the highest standard". This makes his recent actions and statements even more disappointing. And it really is unseemly for an administrator to have this at the top of his user page: "Giant dicks are blocked henceforth." Wikipedia deserves better. Tennis expert (talk) 06:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

A visit to Seicer's user page can see that "Giant dicks are blocked henceforth" links to WP:GIANTDICK. He's just sore, and anybody reading the rant which is supposed to be his farewell message should be beyond doubt that the poor kid's absolutely lost it, his sense of humour was the first casualty. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

TE's statement about HJensen that "[HJensen] also refused to understand the fact that a more specific consensus concerning a particular subject matter (tennis) can override a more general consensus (MOS)." is a perfect example of how TE's views holds up progress on tennis articles. I just got through two rounds of critiques on the 2002 NFL Expansion Draft list, trying to get it to FL status. I was eventually successful (joy!), but one thing that I had to learn is that the larger editing community does not care about Project-specific editing consensus if it conflicts with the MOS. Over at WP:NFL, we had a draft template that included links within the initial bold text of the article name when it first appears in the article text (in clear conflict with the MoS). As in: "The 2002 NFL Draft was the procedure by which..." That format for draft pages was clear, debated Project consensus. I started with that template, yet if I had stuck to it with the tenacity that Tennis Expert is holding on to bare date links in the tennis articles, the article wouldn't have passed the review process. We changed the template to conform with the MoS, which is how it should be done, instead of clinging to the specific-overrules-general rationale, which wouldn't have worked.

Not that there is any consensus within the Project to retain the date links, it is pretty clear that all but one or two editors agree with removing them. Tennis Expert claims that there is consensus because the bare date links are already there. Of course bare date links already exist, that's why we have policies that specifically address them: WP:OVERLINK#Dates, MOS:UNLINKDATES. But if the date links are not to be used from now on (deprecated), then there should be no problem in removing the ones that are already there. But TE keeps saying no consensus to remove existing date links. It just doesn't make sense. Deprecation means that a feature will be phased out. It is a computing term that is intended to keep programmers from having to take the time to go back and remove the feature from all past work; it just won't be used from now on. It doesn't mean, however, that the feature couldn't be removed retroactively, if some programmers wanted to spend the time to do so, it is just that they don't have to do so.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 00:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus to unlink dates, nor is there even consensus that linking dates or formatting dates is bad. What currently exists at WP:MOSNUM is disputed and was put in to place with the blessing of twelve editors. MANY more than that have come since the change and registered their dislike of the change and this is generally ignored ("we have consensus", "it was decided last month", etc). As if consensus is something that never changes. Please read WP:CON. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You and TE keep saying that, but saying it doesn't make it true. The change was made on August 24, 2008, on the basis of this archived discussion. Please take the time to read it and then follow it.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 02:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As I've already indicated at WT:MOSNUM that straw poll involving a dozen editors is pretty much invalidated since at least as many editors have complained about the change since it was "enacted". I again invite you to read WP:CON, specifically the portion noting that consensus can change (and in this case, it has). —Locke Cole • t • c 02:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

And you have a link to that new consensus where?--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 03:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Go look through the archives, the number of people who pop up to complain about this at WT:MOSNUM at least equals the number who supported this at the straw poll. I'm sorry it wasn't wrapped in a box and given a little bow on top. Also note from WP:CON (you really should read this page), "In the case of policies and guidelines, Wikipedia expects a higher standard of participation and consensus than on other pages.", I'd hardly call a dozen editors on an obscure subpage of the MoS a "higher standard of participation". The time for forcing your point of view on the rest of us is past, it's time to participate in the RFC and other discussion at WT:MOSNUM. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

And, once again, where is this link to said consensus? seicer | talk | contribs 12:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Go through the archives if you don't believe me. But something tells me if I provided twelve links to editors who came since the "poll" (which was itself invalid) you'd just find another reason why you think I'm wrong. In other words, my good faith with you is long since exhausted, you're simply baiting me at this point. Speaking of that: are you ever going to answer my question about whether you're open to recall? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've never stated that I am open for recall; in fact, I've voiced critical commentary against the recall process. If I was open to recall, I would have posted my signature here. Thanks for jumping the topic. seicer | talk | contribs 19:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"Go look through the archives," you say twice above, but it is up to you to support your own arguments, as I have done above. But to save you the trouble of doing so, let me agree with you that "if I provided twelve links to editors who came since the [consensus discussion]...you'd just find another reason why you think I'm wrong."

I will grant you that there probably are some editors that have voiced a different opinion since that consensus was reached. And there are others, like yours truly, who have voiced support for the consensus who also did not participate in the original consensus discussion. Neither one of those facts are of any consequence until a new consensus discussion is held. You need to adhere to the consensus as it is until it changes. To quote WP:CON (which you cite so often):

Editors can easily create the appearance of a changing consensus by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people discusses the issue. This is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works. Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons.

Just wait until the new RfC goes up and voice your opinion there and then, quit trying to change existing consensus by edit warring with those who are just following the above consensus. From what I have read, perhaps with the exception of birth and death years, there is overwhelming support for not linking dates (even from Tennis Expert), and that the reasons behind that are persuasive. I don't even read you as supporting the linking of date years, just that there isn't a consensus to unlink. I don't know why the long discussion I linked to above doesn't work for you or why you denigrate it as a straw poll, it is lengthy and well-discussed. This started as a discussion about Tennis Expert, but as you are one of his most ardent collaborators, you should heed this suggestion as well.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 00:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pearling crew 1926.JPG

I had earlier uploaded this image. However, I personally requested its deletion when an administrator kept tagging it repeatedly as if insisting upon its deletion. However, I feel quite convinced that it is perfectly right for this image to be included in Madras Presidency#Trade, Industry and Commerce. Pearl fishing is clearly mentioned in the paragraph on fishing industry in the Presidency. See here:

"The Madras Presidency also had a thriving fishing industry. Shark's fins[122], fish maws[122] and fish curing-operations[123] comprised the main sources of income for fishermen. The southern port of Tuticorin was a centre of conch-fishing[124] but Madras, along with Ceylon, was mainly known for its pearl fisheries.[125] Pearl fisheries were harvested by the Paravas and was a lucrative profession."

The photograph appeared in a National Geographic Magazine issue dated February 1926. The photo is not in public domain as per Template:PD-US but is in public domain in many other countries of the world. I am not sure, however, whether its copyright has been renewed. But I don't feel any harm in including that photograph with a fair-use rationale.

The pearl-fishing photograph is a rare image from British India. The southern part of India was internationally famous for pearl-fishing. In fact, pearl-fishing activities in this part of the world have been portrayed in the fiction Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea by Jules Verne. Yeah, I can add a recent image of pearl-fishing but I feel that the methods and implements would have changed a great deal in these eight decades. And if I were to find a replacement for this particular image I would have to add another from the same article which would, obviously, not be in public domain, either. Practically speaking, I don't find anything wrong in adding that image as it is highly unlikely that the February 1926 issue of the National Geographic Magazine is in mass circulation now and the inclusion of the image would not harm the business interests of the National Geographic Society. I've clearly stated these points in the fair-use rationale for the image.

I request administrators to intervene in this regard and help me with the fair-use rationale and the reinstatement of the image. I feel quite convinced that it belongs to the article and that there is no harm in having it there. If you wish to verify the source, then I'm here to provide all the info you need.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 05:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have a clear understanding of fair use, which the photo by your description would fall under without any doubt. However the non-free image policy is much more restrictive. BJ^Talk 07:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I've undeleted it. The discussion is still ongoing at IfD. I'd suggest you need to add the following information to the images for deletion page so we can decide whether the image is free or not, and if not free, whether it's fair use. (1) What exactly does the caption in the magazine say? Is there any indication of authorship or claim of copyright? (2) Is there a photograph credit given in the contents section of the magazine or in the article? (3) Is there a claim of copyright stated on the magazine itself? While there are a great many ways in which a picture published in a 1926 edition of National Geographic could be free, I can think of just the two (?) ways for it to be non-free. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request

• Ionas68224 (talk · contribs)

I have received a request via email stating that this user would like to be unblocked. After discussing this with them, I came to the conclusion that a unblock of any kind would require community consensus. So, they have asked me to post this unblock request for them here to allow the community to discuss. Please note that I would not endorse a unblock at this time. Tiptoety ^talk 18:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to be unblocked.

I have been accused of harassment, vandalism, and trolling. I am guilty of all but the last, which was something that my behavior was either misinterpreted as because of the wording and overall tone that I used when writing, or deliberately named as such because someone did not disagree with my views. The former is understandable, as my edits on WP-related "meta" subjects were quite "trolliish", but not actually "trolling". "Troll" can also be used as a disparaging term for those the accuser disagrees with, or challenges a system which the accuser is loyal to (or which the accuser is a member of). This is a misuse of the term and is often used on Wikipedia.

Moving on from the various definitions and usages of the term "trolling", I apologize for phrasing my criticism of Wikipedia's system and Ryulong in particular in such a mean and personally-attacking way. I had never interacted with Ryulong before, but I posted on an RFC that I heard about at a thread on the forum Wikipedia Review, and the information I based my comment on was in the RFC. I still frown upon Ryulong's actions and behavior (past and present), but the way in which I did it previously exhibited the same behavior that I criticized Ryulong for, and is therefore hypocritical. It was not done in a constructive manner. Whether Ryulong has chosen to accept this apology (and indeed he has not) is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is that I am truly apologetic.

The various activities that I have perpetrated with socks, activities that I do not want to go in to the details of, did not help the encyclopedia. One account, ThomasEWilliams (fake name, fake birthdate, any similarities are coincidental), created the "Nikita Molotov" article. This was a hoax article about a nonexistent wrestler, to test the inclusion standards for wrestler articles as compared to other articles. Another article I created under that account was a stub on a fake scientist, which was something to compare with. The results came out that Wikipedia puts less scrutiny on professional wrestlers' biographies, despite the high number of members of the Professional Wrestling Wikiproject. This was something I did to challenge the system, and I would like to keep private the reason I used the fake name. I even spent time looking for lists of common Serbian names. The article is still there today. But the experiment was not right, still. There are other things, and I'm sure many editors know of them, but again I say I don't want to go into that.

I can contribute constructively, and I can improve articles. I am eager to start articles and help build an encyclopedia, while also sharing my thoughts and analyses of aspects and issues relating to the encyclopedia itself. I can't have an opportunity to do so without being first unblocked. I have done some work for the Simple English Wikipedia, just after returning from a ~ year-long ban (see http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jonas_D._Rand), but that includes the extra task of simplification. There are many articles needing improvement, and I can, and I want to, contribute to it. I will try to refrain from bad behavior, being defined in this sense as the behavior that got me blocked. There is almost no chance that I will engage in the behavior again, and I believe has been long enough. Though there is no way to know that I will never engage in any of the actions that got me blocked, I hope that you would take my word for it that I have stopped and won't do it again.

Yours, Jonas Rand User:Ionas68224

Having as long a block log on your "good" account on Simple as you do here, and after reading over this request in detail, I cannot support an unblock. Sorry. MBisanz ^talk 18:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I would have supported just based on the amount of effort that went into writing the request, but looking at the history on Simple, it's clear that Jonas continues to have negative interactions on a regular basis. Two or three months of trouble-free editing on Simple would make a difference here, since Wikipedia blocks are not intended to be punitive. looie496 (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You would have supported based on length and detail of request? That is extremely dangerous, as I can tell from experience that overly long unblock requests tend to be more suspect. —kurykh 19:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No. No. Never. Do not unblock. Jonas has a severe issue with working with others and following the rules of both the English and Simple English Wikipedias. He, for some reason, decided to attack me simply because he read about me on Wikipedia Review while there was an RFC about my blocks. He then proceeded to edit on behalf of banned users and sockpuppet. He does not belong on Wikipedia at all.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Some of you might know that I am often skeptical of blocks, and prefer to err on the side of charity. But not in this case. For one thing, a comment on Ryulong's talk page, "I will stop the personal attacks and bury the hatchet if you bury yours" is not in my mind a hopeful sign for successful resolution of conflict. I also find the use of sockpuppets (including using one sock to comment at an RfC) really, really, problematic. And the explanations now given for some of the socks are so wholely inadequate that they are inappropriate. I scanned through this users edits and saw some good housekeeping edits, also some perhaps well-intentioned style edits that really were not very helpful and eventually undone, and of course a whole lot of talk. I have not seen much sign of serious research on substantive encyclopedia articles. Whatever this user has added to the project is crushed into tiny pieces and washed away by the almost infinitely vaster pattern of problem editing. So this user likes to play with computers? I recommend playing computer-games. But don'tplay with Wikipedia. No, no unblock. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• 20 confirmed socks, evaded his block as recently as August 2008.[3] No thanks. Durova^Charge! 22:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

  A further comment for the record. Not sure whether to go as far as Ryulong's opinion, but there are other troubling factors here that might merit a longer than usual wait. To name one, Jonas Rand describes a hoax with a professional wrestling biography. What he doesn't mention is that he created the account the day before Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar closed.[4] Alkivar was desysopped for various problems, among them proxying for and abusing the tools on behalf of JB196--one of the site's most destructive banned vandals. JB196's principal activity for nearly two years was to damage Wikipedia's database at the biographies of professional wrestlers. For a glimpse at the scope of the problem, note the 378 entries at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of JB196 and 155 more socks at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of JB196. Developments in the Alkivar case also precipitated Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian, which arbitrators began voting to accept two hours before Jonas created his sock account. In the Eyrian case a second administrator was not only desysopped but also sitebanned for disruptive socking. Eyrian used to do fine work for the textile arts project and I wish he hadn't gone down that other path. In light of those circumstances Jonas's description of a quasi-harmless breaching experiment looks very much less than candid. Either he does not realize that this gives the appearance of having encouraged and excused the mistakes of two longstanding contributors as they squandered their hard-earned reputations, or Jonas is bold enough to suppose he can boast of the accomplishment a year later and none of us will be clever enough to notice. Either way, it leaves a very bad impression. Durova^Charge! 00:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Very no thanks, per above comments. Too much disruption from this user, too immature. – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per above. Daniel (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• No. Using socks to evade blocks and bans means a very long timeout. Six months of squeaky-clean behaviour on Simple, and I'd reconsider, but not until then. //roux   09:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• No, no, and no. Like anyone else, he can edit without his ego intruding if he wants to. But "Jonas Rand", Ionas, or whatever he calls himself has demonstrated quite clearly that he is not able to work within the societal norms of Wikipedia. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• I initially declined an unblock request he made in September and told him he needed to come back in a year. After reviewing this guy's history (including how what started as a one-week block escalated to a month, six months and later indef) I see no reason to change my mind. Blueboy96 18:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Community ban review for user:Bus stop

Resolved

 – Unblocked contingent upon mentoring by User:Durova, a topic ban, 6 months of probation, and a full apology to the community.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 13:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Bus stop (talk · contribs) was community sitebanned in 2007. He wrote to me a month ago apologizing for his past conduct and promising to edit appropriately from this point forward. I accepted his apology and wrote to ArbCom October 20, supporting his unblock appeal. Newyorkbrad wrote back the same day asking for details and I sent a follow-up. The Committe hasn't replied again or acted, so since this is the community's ban the simplest way to get this resolved is to raise matters here.

Following is the text of my letter:

He exhibited disruptive and tendentious behavior with regard to Jewish conversions to Christianity, particularly Bob Dylan. Some of the noticeboard threads are a bit hard to find, so the links below are a sampling.

Basically he was also making productive contributions to the visual arts, so we tried to construct a topic ban and mentorship arrangement. Two separate community discussions agreed on a full siteban; I brought him back twice in an effort to construct something less severe. Fred Bauder mentored him for a while, but none of it worked out. And as sometimes happens in these instances, Bus stop developed a very strong dislike toward me--probably because I remained engaged and attempted to work something out, instead of just blocking him and moving on. For several months afterward he was emailing other admins with accusations against me, none of which went anywhere.

Anyhow, it's been a year and I'd be willing to give him another shot. Bear in mind that his pattern before was that when a topic ban was in force, he gamed the margins of the topic ban until its scope had to be expanded.

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive88#Ganging_up
• Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archive10#User:Bus_stop
• User_talk:Bus_stop

Some kind of structured return to editing might be preferable to a simple unblock. So if one of our code monkeys would set up the transclusion template for his user talk (code can be nicked from the WP:CSN archives), let's work something out. People can change; I'd give him another chance. Durova^Charge! 20:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Glancing at his talk page, his unblock defenses are classic "Woe on me, the minority opinion." and similar greatest hits we are all familiar with. Was there something in his apology that accepted that he was fairly singled out for his behavior rather than his POV?--Tznkai (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, his recent emails have been appropriate. Those are old threads on his user talk. My standard offer is to support a return after six months if the editor hasn't been socking, promises not to repeat the behavior, and doesn't generate any extraordinary objections. I don't ask for an apology, but he offered a very polite one unprompted. Durova^Charge! 20:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Would he allow you to post the email so the community can see his thinking? I am inclined to agree with the unblock per your recommendations but would like to see exactly what he has said. 20:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The usual convention is that editors may post their own outgoing e-mails, but not incoming ones from other users. You have my assurance that his communication for this month has been all I would want or expect, and it's been much longer than a six month interval since I've heard any complaint about him. Durova^Charge! 20:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

From what I've seen, I'm not particularly comfortable with him working on anything dealing with religious or cultural identity of anyone living which is a massive topic. We've got enough hostile editing environment concerns without adding WP:BLP concerns into the mix as well, but maybe I'm being paranoid.--Tznkai (talk)

(e/c) The clincher, for me, would be whether he was willing to actively steer clear of the boundaries of any topic ban, rather than game the system (as reported above). I don't know if that's asking too much. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

So would a reinstatement of his old topic ban be what you want, with advisement to him to proceed conservatively? Durova^Charge! 20:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I remember Bus stop as an editor who received many, many last chances. Let's see the equivalent of an unblock discussion with him, in which all can participate, so we can judge his sincerity. There is no longer any protection on his User talk; he should be able to converse there. EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit worried about this given his prior behavior. However, he hasn't socked or anything else in the time that he has been banned(correct me if I'm wrong). If he is willing to accept a sweeping ban on any topic related to cultural or religious identity of individuals then maybe we should give him another try. Note that the topic ban I am suggesting is larger than that mentioned by Tznkai, I don't want Bus Stop for now dealing with any such issues whether or not the subject is living. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, no he hasn't socked. Can't supply firm assurance of that though. Durova^Charge! 22:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I received an email from Bus stop asking about an unblock on 1 July at the end of April. I said he would have to seek wider authority, and that I would not intervene, but would give him feedback on his attempt. I have lost track of the countless emails he has sent and the gaps between, waiting for a response, being encouraged, and then finally getting no reply whatsoever, so having to move on to someone else. He has been restrained and polite throughout, and displayed the patience of a saint. The process made me feel frustrated and angry, just watching it. This has involved an arb clerk, two three arbs (and I forget who else). I'm sure they're busy people, but if that's the case and, as a result they leave someone in complete limbo, then there's something very wrong with the system. He has been going through this process for five nearly seven months, when it should have been settled in one at the outside. He's played by the rules, sat it out, not socked (I feel pretty sure of that), and, to be quite honest, I'm surprised he can still have any esteem left for the project, but he does and obviously believes in its value. That was his mistake in the first place - excessive and misplaced zeal ...and being on the losing side of the argument. I found some of his points were valid. However, that is not the issue. He has made strong statements in his emails about voluntary boundaries and a desire not to get embroiled in the same problems or the same subject areas. I strongly support his reinstatement of editing privileges. There is no guarantee what the outcome will be, but that is up to him. Ty 22:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm comfortable deferring to Durova's and Tyrenius' gut feeling here. Per JoshuaZ, I'd unblock on the condition that they avoid any topic related to cultural or religious identity of individuals, living or dead. And, more generally, any of the topics that caused so much grief last time.

I'm curious whether we're sure ArbCom has ignored this or sat on it, rather than come up with a definitive yes/no that we just don't know about. But in the end, it doesn't matter too much; community bans can be community overturned. --barneca (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Unblock; 1) The blocking admin requests it (even though she's not an admin any more). I'd defer to her judgment in this case. 2) I never liked the Community sanction noticeboard 3) It's easy to re-block if needed. --Duk 23:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, Duk. Bear in mind that there was a subsequent ban discussion at one of the regular admin boards, but the search tool failed to find it. Durova^Charge! 03:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Support unblock; a long time has passed and the user's recent attitude indicates that there is a good chance that the previous problems will not be repeated. Everyking (talk) 09:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• I also support unblock, with the proviso that at the slightest sign of the user returning to his old habits, or breaking the rules surrounding his unblock, he's immediately indef banned again and left there. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC).

• I was fairly active in trying to get Bus Stop unblocked a good while back, before becoming disillusioned. (see his talk). I hope the intervening period has done him some good. I'd be willing to support an unblock on parole. Bus stop would need to know in no uncertain terms that he's out of last chances though. --Dweller (talk) 11:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Abstain until I see a recent on-wiki statement from Bus stop.--Tznkai (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• I'm sticking with my previous comment (conduct a proper unblock discussion on his Talk in which he is willing to answer questions publicly, not just in email), but since I found the link to the community ban discussion on AN mentioned by Durova, here is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive98#Community ban on Bus stop. It's good that he didn't sock, but this is an editor who consumed many thousands of words on the admin noticeboards during his career. Is Bus stop willing to be mentored, and has anyone come forward who is willing to be a mentor? I'm doubtful of arguments like "out of last chances." Where is the evidence of reform that is visible on-wiki? Also, if there is a new restriction, it needs to be fully negotiated, and he should be seen to agree to the restriction on-wiki. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

In August 2007, I offered to mentor Bus Stop on his return. My current ill-health is preventing me from editing regularly or doing much that I'd like to be doing, so I don't feel I could mentor him right now. I'm unsure when I'll be fit enough. Sorry. --Dweller (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Speaking as someone with, er, experience with this sort of thing, and from what I've seen of the background, almost all of Bus Stop's trouble was with Durova specifically, and they've apparently washed all the sheets and cleaned out all the pipes, so they're fine now. If the blocking admin at the time (Durova) is fine with it, then I'd be inclined to let it ride. It's not like he can cause any more damage without being quickly blocked, and was a pretty good content guy all the other stuff aside--and it's been a long damn time. We're not here to chuck people in a penal colony, and if he wants to come back to do content stuff, there are some examples of people where this hopefully worked out well. ;) Just stick him on a 3-6 month topic ban on the stuff that got him in trouble, unblock, and if things go well, we're done. Unblock. rootology (C)(T) 00:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Almost all of Bus Stop's trouble was with Durova specifically. I don't know where you are getting that from. Bus stop had significant issues with many editors over a period of one year. Durova didn't even get involved until the last half of that time frame, prior to which Bus stop had already been blocked in four separate instances. Discussion during that period failed, multiple blocks failed, and mentorship failed. Unblocking is not a second chance, it is one of a dozen that hasn't worked. But, go ahead and unblock. I'm curious to see what will happen and how long it will take for the block to be reinstated. Viriditas (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone changed the title of this thread, so the link I had originally sent to Bus stop no longer worked. I resent him a new link today. Given the glacial pace of his previous appeals, perhaps he hardly expects movement now. Provisionally, I offer my services as his mentor and propose his unblock with a topic ban regarding religious identities at biography articles, broadly defined. Also please note: Tyrenius's narrative has me very concerned. I have written a follow-up letter to the Arbitration Committe asking how things came to this pass. Since I had been the blocking admin it would have been natural for any serious unblock consideration to touch bases with me. If any Committee member or clerk tried to do so I certainly don't remember it. The first I heard of this was last month when Bus stop approached me himself. It's very worrisome to see a reasonable query left in limbo for five months; I wonder how many others fall through the cracks so long. Sent my concerns via e-mail to the Committee last night and am drafting a community-based solution. Since these are the community's blocks, we don't need their consent to take this back to the community level. Thank you to all who posted. Durova^Charge! 03:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hell no. Bus Stop was a classic POV pusher, arrogant and disrespectful in all terms on all occasions. Letting this fox back in the chicken coop will have predictable results. He's got serious issues and an unwavering confidence that he's right. COoperation, consensus, neither matters to him, because he's got 'the truth(tm)' on his side. Oppose any more chances fro someone who can't make good use of them. ThuranX (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with ThuranX in spirit. Although I won't specifically oppose an unblock, I believe it's a waste of time. Hopefully, I'm wrong. Viriditas (talk) 10:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

For the last seven months he has displayed none of those negative qualities that were previously dominant. This has surprised me, as he has had to put up with a lot of frustration in his appeal attempts. His behaviour has been exemplary. Ty 12:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed this months ago - right when Poetlister happened and took me away for the summer. Based on rough memory, I found myself favorably inclined to a second chance. As with all users being re-integrated after a lengthy ban, I would wish them a warm welcome, and happy editing, however also look for clear and well-defined conditions (and restrictions or mentorship if necessary) of what is expected to ensure it goes well, related to any likely past or future "difficult issues", if any. Well worth including so all know where they stand. Sufficiently careful conditions will take care of the above concerns, but sometimes they really do need to be carefully thought out, measured -- and often over a long term. Will comment on those tomorrow. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I support an unblock per Durova..If she mentors Bus Stop and he agrees to that; then there has been tremendous progress just on the face of that...Hopefully if he is reinstated; others will give him a little space to reorient his bearings here.....Modernist (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on the consensus here, I have gone ahead and unblocked User:Bus stop. I have left the conditions of his unblocking on his talk page at User talk:Bus stop#Unblocked. Here are the main points:

• You are on general probation for six months. This applies to all articles and pages on Wikipedia. Any problematic behavior will result in a new block, no exceptions.
• You may not edit any articles having to do with cultural or religious identity of individuals, living or dead. This should be construed broadly. Should you try to WP:GAME the edges of this ban, you will be blocked again.
• You are to be mentored by User:Durova. If you follow her directions, I foresee no reason why you should not become a stand-up member of the community. Any sign of you not following her directions during your mentorship will result in a block.
• One of your very first edits should be a section on this page, or your user page, consisting of a genuine apology for your previous actions. This will go a long way towards convincing the community of your good faith.

I hope this meets with most people's approval.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 13:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully request you strike the last. Ty sent a revised chronology last night and Bus stop has actually been making polite appeals for seven months. Our goal is to move forward productively, not to steal any remnant of his dignity. He acknowledges his mistakes and pledges not to repeat him. He has also given one apology voluntarily, which appears to be heartfelt. A demand for additional mandatory apologies invites formulaic replies. Let's be real. Durova^Charge! 16:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. I understand the sentiment behind the request, but the reality of it won't be very edifying for anyone, and actions speak louder than words. Ty 18:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaucho theory

Resolved

 – User:Protonk closed the Afd as snowball delete.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Could an admin please take a look at this AfD? I think it is quite ripe for a "delete" early closure, under WP:SNOW/WP:IAR. There is an active off-wiki canvassing attempt to influence this AfD at redit.com[5] (the origin of the "theory" in question) and there has been a veritable SPA flood there. When the SPAs are discounted, there is a pretty strong WP:SNOW "delete" case and in any event this looks like the situation where WP:IAR would call for an early close. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Eyh, no harm in letting this run for at least another couple of days. I agree that it's unlikely to be closed as anything other than Delete, but a snow delete at this stage might be a little premature. You never know, an actual editor might find something on this meme in a reliable source. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC).
  • Well, for a "theory" that was born two days ago, according to the article itself, it is highly unlikely that a reliable source would materialize. In any event WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:MADEUP would still apply. When you read the discussion at the reddit.com at the above link, you will see that this "theory" is essentially a hoax or a joke, something that was made up in a day and that belongs on encyclopedia drammatica, but not here. No need for the spectacle that this AfD has become. I say this is a case that calls for WP:IAR. Nsk92 (talk) 00:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Let it run and get enough of an overwhelming consensus – that way we can G4 it next time instead of going through the AfD saga every week until Reddit gets bored. – iridescent 01:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Spot on what I was thinking. Let the AfD close after 5 days with a strong consensus to delete and it can be G4ed on sight until the time comes (if it ever comes) when this joke becomes widely noted as a joke. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
      • There is certainly something to that, but I think that based on the !votes so far there already is a pretty overwhelming consensus to delete, once the SPA IP !votes are taken out. With an external canvassing effort, this is the sort of situation that can easily lead to sockpuppetry, people losing their tempers etc. Nsk92 (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
• I have trust that the closing admin can recognize sock/meat accounts. Protonk (talk) 04:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I am an administrator, and I had already looked at, and indeed participated in, that discussion before you made your request here. There is no reason to close this early, and there are good reasons to leave such discussions to run their normal course (not the least of which is that people coming to Wikipedia from the web site out of simple curiosity, knowing nothing about Wikipedia, might learn how our policies and guidelines apply and be pleasantly surprised). Individual people losing their tempers or being otherwise disruptive can be quietly dealt with without need for closing down the entire discussion. Indeed, in that particular discussion that has already happened. This AFD discussion is hardly a spectacle. In fact, it has been fairly civilized. This has been helped, I suspect, by the WWW discussion forum members who have contributed to the forum's own "help save this Wikipedia article" discussion by noting that the content was inappropriate for Wikipedia, to the apparent annoyance of some who thought that they would be soliciting only opinions to keep from the forum's participants. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This AfD might benefit from an early close

Please would an uninvolved, calm, and experienced admin with no particular interest in GLBT issues and no pro or anti bias look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people killed because they were transgender which has become rather messier than one might expect.

The article in question is radically different form the article I proposed initially for deletion, I believe substantially for the better, and its name has changed several times during the AfD.

I have suggested at the (current) foot of the discussion that a procedural early close and the consideration of relisting either immediately or in a couple of days in order to reach a consensus based upon the current state of the article might be a valuable way forward. This might mean ignoring a rule or two, but I think the discussion would benefit from that.

If this route is taken it will require a substantive rationale to explain the "no consensus" decision, however, hence the request for an experienced and calm admin to look at the thing as it stands today. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I would offer my services here, but I think more admins should review this and there should be a broad admin consensus on how to handle this particular AfD. Regards SoWhy 13:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I would expect no different. The one positive thing is that the discussion does not appear to have become hugely heated. It is simply complex to resolve. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

When the title can not even be agreed upon, an afd will inevitably be hard to reach consensus on because the focus of the article is so nebulous as a result of an often-changed title. I have no problem closing this as no consensus with a very strong recommendation to those interested in it to agree upon a title and improve the article with renewed focus if no one objects. I'll post this on the afd too. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking along the same lines. The arguments mentioned here are quite correct, !votes from 20 November have no real connection to the state of the article today and with the article constantly changing in huge ways, I do not see any possibility consensus can be reached at the moment. If noone minds, I would offer to write a rationale and close it accordingly. But I'll wait for more comments first. Regards SoWhy 14:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

*hopefully* the article is now stable in regards to it's purpose (which ironically is pretty much it's original purpose before the fun and games started). --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless you feel that further time should elapse, might I suggest that this be carried 'nem con' and closed for now as "no consensus"? If someone truly wishes for the article to be deleted they may always renominate it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be fine to go ahead and close now, but avoid teh Latin. لennavecia 16:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and closed it, providing a lengthy rationale for doing so. Let's wait for the DRV ;-) SoWhy 17:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

While I don't think the basic "should this exist" issue was really touched upon in the AfD, I would have to say an early close seemed to be in order. As you so noted, anyone who disagrees with the article could nominate it again rather quickly, so it's really not a big issue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems at this point that all of the involved users have agreed that the article should remain in one form or another. Consensus is working out the title and scope of the article on the talk page. Things seem unlikely to require another AFD if all goes well. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 02:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent close SoWhy - I like your well thought out rationale too for why you elected to close it that way. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC).

Thank you very much :-) SoWhy 15:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Improper CSD I8 deletions

The CSD I8 deletions are becoming more sloppy again. Several times this past week I have had to turn to admin's userpages and point this out to them. I understand that the admins are trying to clear out backlogs and stuff and that with the automated tools etc, most transfers are indeed "proper", but please continue to CHECK that the copyright, source and file history are actually properly copied to the commons page before deleting the image. It leads to frustration among people who suddenly see their image deleted from Commons, while their uploads on en. were proper. It leads to more reactions like: User:Redvers/Say no to Commons. And I can't blame those people because en. admins too often simply don't check the I8 criteria. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

There are a set of rules on CAT:NCT that people here are very very bad at following. The most misunderstood or ignored one is #4, The file was properly uploaded (preserving GFDL required history of revisions) if moved to Commons instead of being uploaded independently. When a certain user went through every single one of my uploads, copying them to Commons with incorrect attribution and without noting the GFDL history, three of my fellow admins happily deleted the images without even the most basic of checks. I had to spend ages undeleting (and the Commons uploads are still there and still in breach of the GFDL, but that doesn't seem to bother anyone). So, yes, my essay is partially in response to such sloppy and unethical practice, so please be more careful, folks. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 15:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

TheDJ, the only admin you contacted was me. And that was about a deletion over a year ago.--Maxim_(talk) 16:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

animenfo.com and anidb.info url blacklisting

animenfo.com and anidb.info both have been blacklisted as per suggestion by User:Collectonian stating that they break wikipedia copyright policy. See: [6] Neither site offers any illegal downloads. Supers (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Anidb does claim that "any registered user can find useful hashes, video/audio related information, and other types of information on files entered by other users". I don't see anything equivalent on animenfo, so I'm not sure it should be blocked. — PyTom (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

animenfo.com/helpabout.php: AnimeNfo was designed as a database for anime. This database is designed to hold all anime related information such as the anime itself, the characters, the seiyuu and the people behind the anime. . Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)'

I'm not sure a poorly worded mission statement is reason to block the site. Looking at a few recent anime at random, I don't see any links to fansubs or anything untoward. They might be a little more relaxed than Wikipedia when it comes to fair use of character images, but that doesn't seem like a reason to block, either. I'd say blocking should be based on what a site is doing, rather than what it might be interpreted to claim to do. — PyTom (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Animenfo does - or at least did - link to fansubs (if the anime was subbed and unlicensed it would list something like "available on fansub" under American distribution). This search shows pages for different fansubbing groups but they seem to deadlink now so maybe their policy has changed. To be honest irrelevant of copyright violations I don't really see when linking to the site would be appropriate under WP:EL. Guest9999 (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

article Jason Yeldell

A little editorial or other help might be warranted for 2-editor new article Jason Yeldell. --Túrelio (talk) 08:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I stuck a "notable" tag on the article, but an AfD may be in order. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Template vandalism on Yttrium

Resolved

The Main page article for Yttrium seems to have been hit with some hard to find template vandalism. Jkasd 01:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC) Seems to be gone now. Jkasd 01:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked user requesting unblock with a very tall story

Resolved

 – Unblock was declined, naturally. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

See User talk:Hakkari. --Deskana (talk) 06:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping for some imagination, rather than "can you prove those are my fingerprints on the keyboard in question?" I think this can be put to bed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

a hyperlink error report

Resolved

 – Errors in Word documents are not something Wikipedia admins are empowered to help with, despite our normally god-like powers. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 08:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocentrism#Environmentalism This web address above has been hyperlinked to my word document, but when i use it http.com page comes up with http://www.http.com//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocentrism in the address bar, is this spam, if it is i am reporting it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.222.102 (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Your complaint seems to be with a link to Wikipedia on an external site, you'd need to speak to them. We have no control over who links to us. – iridescent 18:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be a problem with a Microsoft Word document on the editor's own hard drive. We can help even less with that. It seems from the information given that the URL was copied incorrectly and Word now is rendering the text "http://" as "http.com//" for some reason. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 08:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Whilst this is hardly the place to help the clueless with their internal IT problems, the solution is to right-click the link and select "Remove hyperlink". This returns the link to plain text. Then go back to the link and recreate it. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 08:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request for Sceptre

I've received a request to unblock Sceptre, who is due to be unblocked automatically on Dec 9. Based on previous discussion, there was enough support for a shorter block that I find this request reasonable. I have Accepted the request on the following condition:

• Sceptre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is to restrict himself to article namespace, article talk namespace, the sandbox, WP:SPLICE WP:WHO and WP:FAC and his own userspace until Dec 9.

If Sceptre does not follow these restrictions, I will block him until the New Year.--Tznkai (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Endorse Tznkai's action. AGK 18:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Same here: seems reasonable to me. Acalamari 18:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm appalled this has happened without discussion. No opinion on the unblock as I'm not privy to the discussions that Tznaki has had but Sceptre's lack of understanding for the reasoning behind the block was troublesome and I would have liked to see some evidence of understanding before an early unblock. Perhaps Tznaki has seen this and can enlighten us. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

While I think the unblock is okay, I see Spartaz' point. The block duration was based on consensus here so any change to it should also require some discussion and consensus. Regards SoWhy 18:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As per my thoughts on previous unblocks, let him have every opportunity to prove himself; if he screws up, leash him or lock him up again. Whatever works with the least drama. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Although tentatively this proposal looks viable, it is rather worrisome to see the decision presented as a fait accompli. Durova^Charge! 19:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Out of curiosity Tznaki, did you discuss the unblock with the blocking admin? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorta siding with Spartaz here. Seems like excessive boldness to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse decision, with noted concerns about discussion first. However, saying things like "I'm appalled" is exactly the sort of drama that causes non-action, overly long discussions, fear of being bold, and all that jazz. It's not a big deal, the conditions are acceptable, no problem. Tan | 39 19:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Be as bold as you want, but take responsibility for the consequences. Further disruption from Sceptre should be treated as though Tznkai did it himself, since he's responsible. Enjoy the babysitting duty you've taken upon yourself. Friday (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that should be a guideline. Admins should be held responsible for unblocking without discussion. As it stands now, every admin knows its easier to boldly unblock without the courtesy of informing the blocker than it is to talk to the blocking admin and risk objection beforehand. They know that any reverting admin will get it worse with an accusation of wheel-warring, so their unblocking will remain, despite the minor grumbling the action may elicit. Aunt Entropy (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Per the block log, isn't Tznaki the blocking admin? Another admin shortened Tznaki's block from indef to 3 months. If I'm correct here, this whole discussion is pretty screwed up with people assuming a situation that doesn't exist. Tan | 39 19:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, even if, he acted on a community consensus, just doing what the discussion wanted him to do, not on his own decision. SoWhy 20:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose early unblock - So Sceptre honestly just couldn't bring himself to waiting out his block just as he'd expect of any other user who he deems a "troll" and filed two separate unblock requests asking for special treatment despite continuing in the same disruptive behavior on his talk page during his block that got him blocked in the first place? (See my post in the threadabout his first unblock request.) It's very predictable of him actually and in my opinion shows that the block hasn't helped him to mature or even admit that what he did was wrong (I still remember how he tried to excuse his harassment of another user by editing another user's page as an anon to call them him gay, by saying "it was vandalism, but not harrassment"). So like Friday said, enjoy your new responsibility, Tznkai but please don't blame anyone else when Sceptre starts being a dick again and gets promptly reblocked. And could you please offer us an explanation as to why he should be unblocked early other than that he just wants to?--ParisianBlade (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have no objections to the unblock. Sceptre has been given some rope, so let's see what he does with it. Moving forward, it'll be very easy to see if he uses it wisely or hangs himself for all to see. - auburnpilot talk 20:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Is this enough rope? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• What? There's a difference between understanding you shouldn't have done something and being sorry for doing it. There are many things in life that I will never do again, but that doesn't mean I'll apologize for doing them in the first place. He's said his part, now let's get on with it. - auburnpilot talk 20:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• • • Let's wait a bit, I mean the next block will be for six months and all. MBisanz ^talk 20:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

My issue is that no real reason has been given for the unblock so it seems like he's just being unblocked as a result of asking for it over and over again and not having the patience to wait it out. If he doesn't cause any trouble that's good, but I don't think just that he'll probably behave himself for a while is a good enough reason to treat him differently than most users. What has he done for example to show that it's likely he even will behave, since his first post since his unblock was just flaming the user whom he attacked that got him blocked in the first place? It seems like we're setting a bad precedent with this decision, and based on this are we going to unblock any other users in the future who simply ask for it repeatedly without giving a real reason for it other than that they're just not willing to wait the block out?--ParisianBlade (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Umm...wasn't the consensus for the block to be between 2 and 3 months? How many months since the block was imposed? 2 and a half? So how is that a bad precedent? Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

To respond briefly: I was the original blocking admin in this incident, and another administrator shortened my block as a result to my own discussion after I had declared my intent to. That same discussion as linked, had an only slightly stronger consensus for a three month block over a two month block, so split the difference and here we are. I didn't expect this unblock to be particularly controversial, and y'all can always attain consensus to override my decision. Finally, to repeat what a half dozen other people have said: its not like Sceptre can't be reblocked if there is a problem, we're certainly not short on admins willing to do so.--Tznkai (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Additional thought: If someone could explain why the next 15 days is so important that it will significantly prevent harm, that'd be nice, cause I don't see the practical difference between two and a half and three months other than one being on the drop down menu.--Tznkai (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Fifteen days isn't important, until... wait you found it important enough to unblock early. So it's both entirely important and entirely unimportant to you. Fascinating. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thus defaulting to a shorter length, not a longer one.--Tznkai (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the point he was making was that it doesn't make sense to shorten the block by 1/2 a month and then protest people who want the block to remain it's full length (for a difference of 1/2 a month). Protonk (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not explain adequately my position. There is nothing gained in that half month of blocking. So, even if there is no net gain for the project by unblocking Sceptre, I believe that two positions equal but for time should default to the shorter length. In otherwords, if there is no difference between blocking for two weeks or three weeks, two weeks. The same applies when considering an unblock, if there is no gain from letting the block run out on its own, why let it?--22:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't have an opinion about this unblock, but for transparency's sake, [7] is an AN discussion between the ~10 Sep discussion and now. Basic consensus (as I read it) shows no consensus to unblock, but no consensus to retain the 3 month block as it stands. Seems like an unblock 1 month after that discussion is pretty reasonable. Protonk (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Not really, no. Since there has been extensive discussion with consensus to leave the block in place, it would have been prudent to discuss it before unblocking, especially considering the very obvious and widespread agreement that Sceptre needed a break long enough to get the Wikipedia habit out of his blood. The fact that he's asked yet again so soon after the last discussion indicates that this has not happened. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Eh. We aren't a therapy service. If the intention of the block was to "get the habit out of him", then that intention was flawed from the start. Protonk (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What's done is done; Sceptre is unblocked (and already getting stuck into editing, which says to me he's been thinking about editing, not participating in drama). Let him do his own thing and if there's bad behaviour, reblock. However, what we shouldn't forget is that there are, let's say "others" off-wiki (some from the wiki, some not) who just keep on their campaign of making him try to quit. We don't want our editors to quit, especially not valuable, multiple FA writers, though let me make it clear that it also doesn't mean we have to keep taking crap. I know mentors were discussed and the idea was rejected, but if I notice Sceptre getting stressed, I'll be sure to drop him an email. I'm sure Sceptre has learnt for himself the joy of taking a break from wiki anyway. Seraphim♥ 23:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse unblock. I've discussed this off-wiki with Sceptre who pondered on whether to edit in community-based discussions like this one. I noted quite sternly that strictly adhering to his conditions is his one and only priority; he's been unblocked in good faith for the sole purpose of making content contributions, and failing to restrain himself from editing for other purposes is unlikely to go unnoticed - a reblock may be applied by any of the admins very quickly. He accepted this, and his self-restraint from posting here demonstrates that he has a sufficient understanding of these conditions - as AuburnPilot noted quite succincitly above (at 20:16), it's all up to him now and how he chooses to use his chance to improve Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Nova Design Europe

Resolved

 – Deleted, earth beneath our feet salted. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 12:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please review the above article. I've speedied it, the author has removed the speedy tag despite requests to stop. I'm on the verge of a 3RR so would appreciate an independent assessment. Thanks. CultureDrone (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Motion to amend Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bharatveer

The arbitrations have rendered a decision on a request to amend the case named above and resolved that Bharatveer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

— Coren ^(talk), for the Arbitration Committee, 13:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand is removing images

Betacommand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is removing non-free images from articles about television stations, claiming that they aren't needed. See Special:Contributions/Betacommand. -- Eastmain (talk) 07:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see the discussion on ANI marked "WGN-TV". - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 07:23

Per his restrictions he's not supposed to undertake any pattern of edits to more than 25 pages without prior community apporoval and I do believe he has exceed that. 96.15.46.20 (talk) 07:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Why are you hiding behind your IP address? Care to log in? - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Why are you hiding behind a user name? Care to tell me your real name and ip address? 96.15.194.1 (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking for your personal information. However, my IP address is readily available if you look for it. Given that you are commenting on what has come to be a slightly-controversial subject, it would be more appropriate of you to you use your actual account to do so. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

And why exactly can't an IP register a complaint about Beta? Are we ABF here?MickMacNee (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Because it lends suspicions. And AGF does not mean suspending brain usage. —kurykh 21:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

So, in light of your suspicions, is the observation the IP made reasonable or frivelous? Did it need to be made by an IP or a registered user? Did it require counter accusations, or not? MickMacNee (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant. I was merely commenting on your automatic assumption that people are assuming bad faith by calling into question that an IP is delving so deeply into such matters. —kurykh 23:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Does user Rjd0060 know more about this ip than he is letting on? If so, he/she should say so rather than making accusations. --Tom 15:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC) ip made only one edit to comment here, so I will strike my comment. --Tom 15:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Obin 3391/Obin 3392 Messy

User talk:Obin 3391 redirects to User talk:Obin 3392. User account "Obin 3392" is not registered, but contains a history of posts meant for Obin 3391. Both talk pages have talk history meant for Obin 3391. The page content and history of User talk:Obin 3392 should be merged into User talk:Obin 3391 and then User talk:Obin 3392 deleted. Also, switching the order, User:Obin 3392 redirects to User:Obin 3391. Likely User:Obin 3392 probably can just be deleted. I initially thought to list Obin 3392 for U2 speedy deletion, but realized this messy talk page issue. Please review. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 17:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• User talk:Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim and User talk:Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Fan both redirect to User talk:LAAFan, but the talk histories of the three pages seem to intertwine. -- Suntag ☼ 17:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, what vandalism/edit warning tags would be appropiate for this case?

User:81.141.3.171 did an edit of a time on the Top Gear Test Track lapboard and moved it elsewhere, and User: 81.141.3.140 replied to my discussion about said fact and signed as --your.mom (talk) 6:21pm, 18/11/2008 (GMT). WHOIS indicates that both IP's could be the same person give the edit and fact in question. Question is, what tags in the Vandal/Edit Warning list should I put for both? It's obviously not too disruptive of an edit, yet I can't deny the fact that the discussion page response kinda raises the flag abit. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 06:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I would probably choose NOT to use a template in this case. I'm thinking an individualized "It's fairly obvious that you and the other IP are the same editor, so please dial back on the attitude/be more civil/stop being an asshat" (take your pick, though I'm thinking that third one might get you a civility warning yourself) would be best. Templates are great, but we don't have one for every possible occasion; WP:DRETIPHTCMAILMMOOT--"Don't Revert My Edits, Then IP Hop To Challenge Me, And Incidentally Leave My Mom Out Of This" doesn't seem like it would be a template that would get much use. It'd be kinda like if Hallmark made a card for "Happy Talk-Like-A-Pirate Day, Great-Grandma"--it might get used, but more likely not.

Second Opinion wanted due to non-signed response. I don't know if this is kosher or just a joke posting. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It was posted by an admin, Gladys j cortez, if that helps?

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, how did that happen? SineBot follows EVERYBODY around, myself included--sorry I forgot to sign, but shouldn't the bot have caught it and covered for me? I don't THINK i have it disabled...GJC 20:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

{{Uw-test1}} or {{uw-vandalism1}} would also suffice. You know you can add text to such templates: {{subst:uw-test1|Article name|Additional text}}. Kingturtle (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

In my experience SineBot only follows vandals around, signing their posts so I can't rollback them. dougweller (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Secret/Attract More Editors

I would welcome contributions and comments for this new proposal to attract editors. Thanks Secret ^account 21:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Persistent Copyvios from User:Rockyobody

Resolved

Rockyobody (talk · contribs) has been uploading copyvio images (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,7) and text. This pattern of behavior already got him indefinitely blocked at Commons. He has been warned, and I even offered to help him figure out copyright materials. Unfortunately, the practice continues.

Now this user is inserting copyvio text into articles. Two full paragraphs at Wendell Craig Williams were lifted right out of from Fox News. The entire page at Shannon Royer was lifted from Shannon Royer.com. This user's talk page is full of warnings, everything from removing AFD notices from Shannon Royer to about a half-dozen copyvio notices from about a half-dozen editors, including a "final warning" from an administrator.--HoboJones 05:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked for a week. Anyone is free to unblock if they feel that he will make a good faith effort to comply with the image use policies. From his past history that doesn't look to be the case, but you never know. Protonk (talk) 06:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
• Note: User Rockyobody has already been indef blocked on Commons (after multiple warnings and previous short blocks) for repeated copyright violations and false authorship claims. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• User has been unblocked after claiming to be willing to respect our copyright policies. If he returns to his old ways just make another post here and the block will likely be longer in duration (possibly indefinite). Protonk (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Franz Liszt

User:Antandrus deleted all the sources about Slovak origin of this composer, including one relevant book of historian Miroslav Demko, Franz liszt, compositeur slovaque (2003). It this OK? This information should be in the article. It is famous, that Liszt did not speak Hungarian at all, he rather spoke Slovak, German and French, so ho was rather German or Slovak, but he was not Hungarian. Demko says that Liszt was born in Burgenland (present Austria) in a part that was originally Slovak, his parents and grandparents were Slovaks, too. --Wizzard (talk) 11:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

edit: maybe he was a Hungarian in the sense "from the Kingdom of Hungary", but the word "Hungarian" wrongly suggests that he was ethnic Hungarian. --Wizzard (talk) 11:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Editors may wish to read the current discussion at Talk:Franz Liszt#Verifiability of Sources before commenting here. For me the largest single reference work on Western music (as well as other leading English known sources) stating he is Hungarian is reliable enough for Wikipedia --Alf ^melmac 12:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, User:Wizzard's propagating his edit war. Past and present overwheling consensus is that Liszt is Hungarian. Antandrus' edit was completely valid and, if this edit warring continues, Wizzard has already been warned by User:Kingturtle and should be blocked. aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 20:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Anubis3, you know that you are not telling the true, as Kingturtle said, so please do not lie again. --Wizzard (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Wizzard has not continued the edit war after my 3RR warning. Instead, Wizzard has taken the discussion to the Talk page. So he's playing by the rules, and there's no current need for a block. Kingturtle (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sanity Check requested

Resolved

 – WP:RBI, and as for my sanity, I got a crisis loan to tide me over for now. --Rodhullandemu 23:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I bring this here for independent review, given the current brou-ha-ha surrounding the BNP and its leaked membership list. Jakereilly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was an account created today whose one and only edit was to add to Nick Griffin: "his mobile number is <redacted>. Give him a call if you want to terrorise him" (paraphrased). This is so obvious and gross that I think WP:IAR must apply and I have blocked the account indefinitely as a VOA and deleted the offending edit. Not sure oversight is required as My take is that it's a kid and WP:RBI should apply, but I have requested oversight. Input welcome. --Rodhullandemu 16:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Good call. PhilKnight (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the block/oversight: good call. Regarding your sanity:  Inconclusive. :) MastCell ^Talk 19:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll take that as a compliment; as Edmund Blackadder would say, "Wibble". --Rodhullandemu 21:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions about use/creation of Hidden Categories

I posted this at the help desk last night, but no one could answer my question, so I will ask again here.

I noticed earlier that Category:Articles contradicting other articles has not been made a hidden category. Most, but not all, of the subcategories of Category:Wikipedia cleanup categories are hidden categories, but I didn't want to make any changes to these categories because these are all administrative categories, and I am but a lowly Rollbacker.

So my questions are:

1. What specific criteria, if any, determines whether a category is (or should be) hidden? I know that most categories which are not self-references should not be hidden, but what beyond that? Is there any specific policy on this, beyond what little is mentioned at Wikipedia:Categorization#Maintenance_categories?
   
2. Should Category:Articles contradicting other articles be made a hidden category?

I eagerly await your guidance, because I am quite confused about this. --Eastlaw (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any special knowledge, but Category:Hidden categories says "In accordance with Wikipedia:Categorization, the categories which should appear here are the maintenance categories, that is, categories reflecting the present status of the encyclopedia article, rather than classifying the article subject." Wikipedia:Categorization#Maintenance_categories has a bit more on this.

So it seems that Category:Articles contradicting other articles should be a hidden category.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed community ban for Fatal!ty

Just a heads-up to those who consider these things. Over at AN/I, following the disastrous results of my unblocking of Fatal!ty (talk · contribs) (who I have since reblocked indef), we have started a community ban discussion which has attracted a lot of support. I don't know if we're really supposed to have it here, but if anyone wants to weigh in who hasn't already, please feel free to do so. Daniel Case (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hippopotamus

Resolved

Someone has added "Hello Josh and Jenny the next one to find is Ushanka, which is a russian hat" at the top of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Action ben (talk • contribs)

Reverted and account responsible blocked for this and other vandalism. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 12:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The amorous hippopotamus whose love song we know

Is now married and father of ten,

He murmurs, "God rot 'em!" as he watches them grow,

And he longs to be single again!

He'll gambol no more on the banks of the Nile,

Which Naser is flooding next spring,

With hippopotamas in silken pyjamas

No more will he teach them to sing... (all together now)

Mud, mud, glorious mud

Nothing quite like it for cooling the blood

So follow me follow, down to the hollow

And there let me wallow in glorious mud

(M. Flanders). Guy (Help!) 23:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

--wonders what POSSIBLE meter would accomodate the phrase "amorous hippopotamus"--GJC 01:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you can find sources to write a proper article at The Hippopotamus (song). ☺ Uncle G (talk) 12:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a dactyl plus a dibrach and another dactyl. Not good if you have a dactyl terror, or vice versa. --Rodhullandemu 12:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Ireland page moves

Yes, sorry, it's the "I" word again. But this time it seems to be better news: a bit of a consensus is gradually forming around what the names for the articles currently at Ireland, Republic of Ireland and Ireland (disambiguation) should be. Ideally we could do with an uninvolved admin who's feeling brave to take a look at the discussions at WP:IDTF and especially the talk page of that task force, to see if you think the editors there have:

• observed due process (if not, what else needs to be done?)
• formed a consensus, either for actions to be taken or general conclusions that can be drawn from the discussion
• abided by WP policy, particularly the naming policy and WP:D guidelines, or identified a sufficient reason to ignore them

A number of polls have taken place recently, which should hopefully help a bit. I think the atmosphere there is generally one of cooperation - people who are fed up with the endless discussions and want to move forward - so this could be a really positive step for the project. Any volunteers? waggers (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Better still, if you don't want to go it alone (and who could blame you), perhaps we could have a committee of admins to make a joint decision? Please consider it, you could be making wiki history! (Ok, I admit it, I'm rubbish at selling) waggers (talk) 08:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Ceiling Cat

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

Meow! MBisanz ^talk 15:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Resolved

 – Nobody cares Guy (Help!) 23:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this declared alternate account problematic? Its primary purpose seems to be to post lolcat-related rants. --NE2 18:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

We could ask User:Raul654 to checkuser it. Alternatively, we could ask NE2 to stop going looking for drama. Hm, which?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Or we could ask Raul to checkuser it, then report him to ArbCom for checkusering the poor cat, then ask him to detail all of his checkuser activity, all while Scibaby runs amuck. Hm? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That account has done no harm, just his play around IRC account, not a violation of WP:SOCK or anything. Secret ^account 19:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

How does it help the encyclopedia? I've had to close or revert its discussions on Talk:Main page several times. --NE2 19:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Misery. You'll be wanting to block Santa next.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

He's at least writing articles, though that probably should be done by the main account. I don't see anything that allows joke socks on WP:SOCK. Yes, yes, I know, IAR, but that way lies madness Is there any reason I should not revert all nonconstructive edits by Ceiling Cat? --NE2 19:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, you started this thread by suggesting you were asking if the account was problematic. Now you're insisting its problematic based on some monkeying around with policy. Something doesn't quite track there, but the answer to the first question is "no."--Tznkai (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Reverting the edits would not be constructive either, and would degenerate into "zOMG DRAMA". Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

On Talk:Main page we get people posting well-intentioned but unrelated comments such as "why is there a U.S. article on the main page" or posting an article submission. They're generally closed or reverted. I see this as no different. --NE2 20:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Enough with the damn POINTY drama-whoring already. Jesus. Horologium (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The account is not problematic. No admin action is needed. Mark section as resolved? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I've had to close or revert its discussions on Talk:Main page several times. Why? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to say - describing his actions as "rants" doesn't seem to be close to the truth. However, if he did post "'lolcat'-related rants", please link me. I'm sure they would be absolutely hilarious. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh, yes. Beating a dead cat here, NE2. This is a volunteer project, so people just stick around insofar as it's fun. Taking away non-harmful alternative accounts is detrimental to editor morale, so this seems like a legitimate invocation of IAR. kthxbye. Cool Hand Luke 15:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Franz Liszt again

User:Anubis3 again deleted the relevant sources about disputed nationality of Franz Liszt. He even threatens by blocking. Stop him, please. --Wizzard (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Wizzard, I issued a 3RR warning on your talk page, and on the Liszt talk page, I pointed you to some previous discussions on Liszt's nationality. Kingturtle (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not what I wanted and it is NOT a desired solution. It is not me who deletes relevant sources. --Wizzard (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a long history of discussion on the topic. Please make your case for your sources by using sound arguments in the TALK page, and please do not use an edit war to try to solidify your argument. Kingturtle (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Just made that, hope my argument will be heard. --Wizzard (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Wizzard, consensus on Franz Liszt has been reached past and present that is why Antandrus removed your edit. You have now been warned by Kingturtle. I also suggest that someone should look into User:Wizzard's edits as they seem to be trolling by randomly labeling biographies of people as "Slovak" without using valid sources (not just on the Franz Liszt). This is not constructive. aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 21:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I also suggest that someone should look into User:Squash Racket, User:Hobartimus and a lot of others that seem to be trolling by randomly labeling biographies of people as "Hungarian" without using valid sources and other Greater Hungary related stuff. I am trying to fix at least some of these mistakes. --Wizzard (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I reject the false accusation of User:Wizzard. This is not the first time he tries to do that. For example at the article László Mednyánszky he added a website of a hotel and a Wikipedia clone as "reliable sources".
I added Britannica as a source which he described as "not relevant". But he tries to add Demko as an acceptable source. According to this article Demko's book was completely dismissed even by Slovak scholars (!), so he set up a conference on which the only invited Slovak expert was simply shouted at for arguing for the Hungarian nationality of Liszt. The title of the article is also telling: Non-scientific conference under cover of Franz Liszt.
User:Wizzard simply ignores that reliable English sources present him as Hungarian. Squash Racket (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wizzard, presenting Liszt as Slovak is a fringe view. Reliable sources have him, as you would expect of this most famous of all Hungarian composers, as Hungarian.

Wikipedia is overrun with people fighting little nationalist edit-wars, and one of the most common symptoms of this disease is an edit to the first line of the article arguing about the commonly accepted nationality or ethnicity of a person, backed up with obscure or fringe "sources" originating in the language of the nationality for which the edit-warrior fights. Please do not contribute to the problem. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I know what are you talking about, it is well known that it is impossible to find correct information about history of Slovakia and Hungary at Wikipedia. Maybe you know very well what I am talking about. Even Hungarian Wikipedia is more accurate than English.--Wizzard (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It boogles my mind, Wizzard. What do you have against Hungary? I count at least ten times you verbally bash the country. I've been there, trust me, its not that bad. Plus, some people might get offended. aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 21:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing against Hungary at all. If you are not a Hungarian, I may tell you, Hungarians are generally very similar to Slovaks (it means most of them are normal and friendly). I have a far family in Budapest born there and even visited them. They do not speak Slovak at all, but it is not important. I dont care if they have a map of Kingdom of Hungary at a wall. But this is not what these disputes are all about. Hope you understand. --Wizzard (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Problem with user page content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names does not seem to address this problem. Hence my request. user:perpetual motion machine's user page appears to be a WP:Content fork of the article perpetual motion machine. It's a little confussing because on google search, his userpage is number 1 hit. Then the article is after. Does this even matter? Does Content Fork apply to user pages? And, does anyone care to advise the user if it does? --CyclePat (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well have to say if Google puts a user page above an article page then the problem lies with Google rather than us doesn't it? Theresa Knott | token threats 17:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(EC)If indeed it is a content fork, such pages have been deleted via WP:Mfd before. I have to say, I really don't like this user's talk page as this transclusion seems to me to simply confuse would be posters. Any thoughts on the purpose here? And yes, I will drop a note informing this user of the discussion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, we're not going to get Google to change how it works any time soon, but we are able to ask User:Perpetual motion machine to address the issue. Which I will do shortly. Kingturtle (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

On a side not, User talk:Perpetual motion machine was being used for non-talk related items. I reverted it and gave the user an explanation. Kingturtle (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that Perpetual_motion_machine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edited in more than 20 months. Probably just a clean up situation. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and added {{noindex}} to the user's page. Anyone please feel free to revert; I think I'm done unless the user responds. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Request to create MD 908 Redirect

I just added MD 908 to the List of Maryland Minor State Highways, using Maryland's Highway Location Reference as a citation for its existence. I tried to create a redirect of the Maryland Route 908 page to this section; however, I have seen that it's apparently been a subject of abuse. While I understand MD SHA's desire to protect their pages as an MD SHA employee myself I have no intention of doing anything malicious to the page, and as such I humbly request that someone please redirect Maryland Route 908 to its section on the List of minor Maryland state highways. Thanks.

TraderJake (talk) 23:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

A cursory look doesn't reveal that there's anything to militate against the redirect's being created (I wouldn't doubt that I've overlooked some significant history, but I can't imagine that being bold here should be bad), so  Done. Although your reluctance to wade into an existing dispute (if there is one) is understandable, you should in the future not worry about being bold toward a propitious end; you won't, one may trust, be chastised for acting in good faith. Joe 04:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That must have been a glitch; I don't see anything in the protection or deletion log. Someone probably added a borked regex to the title blacklist. --NE2 04:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in either of the blacklists would block it. --Carnildo (talk) 07:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see I wasn't crazy; I feared that, having of late spent a little less time following AN, AN/I, and RfAr than usually I would, I'd missed some grand development in the ever(-)contentious area of the naming of road and highway articles that would for some bizarre reason counsel against creation, the absence of anything in the deletion log or the blacklists notwithstanding. Joe 19:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey

I'd like to become an administrator. How do I do it? Pandyu (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:GRFA. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 16:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

A box of chocs to every username with more than 500 edits in the last 3 months. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

204.108.8.5 Block Review and Concerning Edit

I gave a 24 hour block without warning to the IP address 204.108.8.5. The block was given for this concerning edit that could be a possible death threat. Most likely it was a joke done in very poor taste but I would appreciate if others could review this block and determine it appropriate. It may be worth noting that the the address is registered to the Federal Aviation Administration.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine from here. I don't think it is a legitimate threat, FWIW. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Update

Can somebody update the List of albums released in 2008 article? The mid-November albums have been released and it's November 24 today. Pandyu (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

From what I can tell, this does not require administrator action. Is there a reason why you can't simply update the list yourself?-Andrew c ^[talk] 19:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) ditto. --Rodhullandemu 19:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason why you cannot do it? Pandyu (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

because they don't want to? Why is it you think it requires an administrator to update this list? --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason why you cannot do it? Abtract (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Because I suffer from Numerophobia --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to help, but I suffer from an unnamed disorder commonly known as "fear of crappy music." GJC 20:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I would bet you a small sum in Real Dollars that not more than a handful of those albums will be remembered ten years from now. I wonder if we will be purging the 'pedia of the thousands of one-album band articles by then? Guy (Help!) 17:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Depends on who's doing the remembering. Ask me about my recall of the obscure music of 1991-1995, if you've got a few hours.GJC 23:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The joys of being a Morrissey fan: I'm allowed to think of all other music as being obscure and forgettable. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 23:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Need help moving edit history

Resolved

The contents of Little Tahoma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was copy/pasted to Little Tahoma Peak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (which is the correct name for the mountain, per U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Administrators' noticeboard/Archive177). But, now the edit history is on the old article name.

Can an admin assist by deleting Little Tahoma Peak, then doing a move of Little Tahoma over to the corrected name so that the edit history is also moved? Thank in advance. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed this. —EncMstr (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

MrDarcy

MrDarcy has block me without me editing anything! All I was trying to do is put in TRUE facts, and he reported my other account, User:Ad.sell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.212.135 (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you put block templates on other users pages multiple times. This warrants a block, as it is not permitted. You also just admit to being a sockpuppet._David^WS _(contribs) 01:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

UAA backlogged

The UAA is backlogged also in addition some pages have been sitting in need of speedy deletion for some time now. Rgoodermote  01:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Agriculture template help needed - something wrong

Hi there, not sure if anybody can help, but I have messed up the agriculture template while trying to improve its looks. Not sure what’s wrong, but when in articles the template messes up the formatting of the articles completely. See Fish farming and Plant pathology as example. The template is in quite a lot of articles so I would be grateful if someone can help me sort this out. The link to the template is [8] Ta--SasiSasi (talk) 03:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I reverted to the most recent working revision for now, to minimize problems in the mainspace. Next time, if you want to experiment with a template or try something new, it might be best to try it in a sandbox. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

User:OKBot

This bot is marking images as too large without anyone visually checking them. The idea that just by reading pixel count a decision can be made about size of copyrighted logos is ridicules. Could someone please undo the markers made by this bot, as well as stopping it. Many people have invested a lot of time encouraging people to contribute images to wiki pages. For this type of image there are already many hurdles to keep the data. There should not be any more annoying discouragements to added color to articles. Traveler100 (talk) 06:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any I disagree with. Can you link a specific one? I doubt any article is going to use, for instance, Image:Zippo.png at full resolution. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

A few examples Image:Battle of Bramall Lane 20020316.jpg, Image:Jellybabies.jpg, Image:3-D Docking Mission.png, Image:Black jacks gum2.jpg.Traveler100 (talk) 12:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

"List of programs broadcast by" mess

Resolved

 – No admin action necessary.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Today I stumbled across List of programs broadcast by TV Land. I found the article to be completely lacking in references and really questioned the encyclopedic value of such an article. I took a look at WP:NOTDIRECTORY and felt that the article was not in compliance with that policy. In particular, "For example, an article on a ... station generally should not list...current schedules, et cetera, although mention of ... historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules) may be acceptable." I don't see how a listing of every show that has ever played on TV Land constitutes historical significance, much less one referenced by secondary or tertiary sources. In that way, the article also seems to violate WP:OR.

Troubled by this, I decided to put the article up for AfD. Wanting to make sure that it had not been AfD'd before, I checked the talk page (no record of it) and "what links here" to see if there was an existing AfD. There isn't one. But, what I ran across was an immense number of very similar articles. Have a look at Template:Lists of TV programs by country. There's article after article after article on that template that are largely akin to List of programs broadcast by TV Land. More disturbingly, quite a number of them have current schedules listed, for example List_of_programs_broadcast_by_ABC_Family#Primetime_Schedule. This is directly against the WP:NOTDIRECTORY policy. I have also noticed a stunning lack of references in most of these articles, and in the few that do usually just one or two references (usually to the TV channel's schedule page or similar).

There's a real problem here. These articles, just by sheer size, are heavily entrenched. Bringing them all to AfD as a group would fail. Yet, as a group they miserably fail our policies.

Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Fails WP:NOT indiscriminate collection of information as well. This should go. Maybe a good start would be to make a list of them (are there all in the template or are there others?). Hm, you can tag some of them as prod for start, if nobody removes it, deletion is guaranteed. Otherwise, afd still makes sense with a well-written nomination. --Tone 22:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

What we need is a system whereby articles on a particular topic can be automagically placed in a sorted list. We could call it something catchy like "categories". I expect to make millions from the patent on this idea. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If you ment something like Special:Prefixindex/List of programs broadcast by, you are too late. Well, at least there are not thousands of those articles. --Tone 23:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not a relevant question, but are many of these articles well maintained? Do you have the sense that categorising and then deleting these articles would piss off hundreds of busy Wikipedians? Avruch ^T 23:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Should not really matter. Those articles are not supposed to be here, whether people like them or not. --Tone 23:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You wanna see a REAL cruft-o-rama??? PBS idents. Not only is it beyond mindbogglingly over-detailed, it a) has friends! (Not the images--I can se where the images might be useful in the individual station articles--but the subcats of logos and idents-lists.) b)They attract flies (most particularly a notorious sockpuppeteer named Jamesinc14 and all his flying monkeys). These logo lists have all been AfD'ed at least once, many more than once--and every time they're closed as Keep. So I share your pain--I would GLADLY do a giant clean-out of these lists (oh--and if you want a list to make your eyes bleed with its pure awfulness and unciteability--List of fictional dogs) but I fear I would be rolling many boulders up many hills, simultaneously. GJC 23:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who's annoyed at the fact that Wikipedia apparently has zero standards when it comes to fictional material. The problem is that, for every editor who argues for deletion on the basis of policy and guidelines, there's two fanboys whose arguments rarely amount to more than "OMG! Keep! Keep! Keep! Super duper mega IMPORTANT!" and who invariably get their way through strength of numbers. Even though AfD isn't supposed to be a vote. Reyk _YO! 01:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

If these are historical lists going back to the start of the networks, there shouldn't be a problem. If shows are being removed every year, there's a big problem. --NE2 23:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No, that's what makes it indiscriminate. There should be a mention at the show's article which network aired it but not vice versa. --Tone 23:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is this posted to the Administrators' Noticeboard when it is not an administrator issue? Please consider posting to the relevant village pump instead. -81.139.76.64 (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Because it's a deletion issue, and I'm not going to forum hop. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

if you want to delete, just go ahead and try. I wouldnt necessarily recommend it, because all such lists i can recall have been overwhelmingly kept. There are those who think that the creation of works of imagination is among the most important activities of humanity. I don't propose to argue that TV network programming is among the highest levels of creative art, but I can';t see a comprehensive encyclopedia making distinctions like that. We need to expand the thorough approach we take to that subject to more traditional artistic and literary topics as well, rather than reduce it where it does exist. DGG (talk) 04:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

See, to me, it's not the question of "is it worthwhile for an encyclopedia to cover the topic of television programming in detail?"--I would say yes, of course. To me, the question raised here is: "If we posit that the television shows in question are themselves relevant, and that information re: where they were broadcast would be included in the relevant articles, why would we need a SEPARATE article to list these programs solely on the criterion of which network broadcast them?" And to that, I would say "We don't." Ditto for logos--if the logos are relevant, they should be included in the article for the network to which they belong; if they're not relevant enough for that, then they certainly don't merit a list of their own, let alone an entire article. And for my fictional dogs example, which gives me a headache every time I look at it--if the dog is in a movie, mention the dog in the article for the movie; if it's in a TV show, mention it in the show's article, and so on--and if it's not relevant enough to be mentioned in the corresponding article, it's surely not relevant enough to merit inclusion in such a list. Honestly, this makes me just TWITCH to invoke IAR, but my US RDA of Wikidrama has been dangerously exceeded this week. Anyone gutsier than I will have my applause and my eternal admiration (to say nothing of my backing at the inevitable ArbCom kerfuffle.)GJC 08:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Different people navigate in different ways. Some may know the titles of TV shows they want to look up, while others may remember that they saw it on TV Land but not the title. Different dramas for different mamas, eh? --NE2 09:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Which is why we have redirects. Still no need to cover every episode and every character in a separate article.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about, but I'm talking about List of programs broadcast by TV Land. --NE2 16:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you thought about mentioning it at the project Wikipedia:WikiProject Television? While seeing discussions to "save" articles like this makes me doubtful about their objectivity, you may have a sympathetic ear or two. Perhaps the project can start pushing guidelines down. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• My patience with projects is shot. Not once have I encountered a project that maintained objectivity. I think projects are fine for helping fill out missing areas of the encyclopedia, and fleshing out articles that truly need to be here. But they are terrible at maintaining any sense of equilibrium with regards to the project. We end up with untold number of sections of Wikipedia becoming fan guides with insane levels of (typically in-universe) detail. If you happen to tread with an XfD into an area of the encyclopedia that is maintained by an active, membership heavy project you'd have a happier time trying to eat a chain saw at full throttle. Pass the sauce please, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your bad experiences -- mine have been just about the opposite. I've received fabulous help, most recently from the Pokémon project, which took it on their own to bring to AfD the article I questioned. (And yes, the article was deleted.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Forget it - our ghetto areas are too well entrenched, regardless of what you are told, AFDs are votes when it comes to fiction and you'll just be outnumbered. Just do what the rest of us do - turn a blind eye and drive pass the ghettos to the "nicer" areas of the encyclopedia. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I for one am not willing to throw in the towel just yet. Reyk _YO! 23:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I personally feel that it would probably be a good idea to change all of these to categories. They're definitely category-worthy. That, however, would have two major problems: 1), the less important, how do you list shows that, as of yet, don't have their own articles? 2), the vitally important: it would have to be done properly. Before deletion, the category would have to be created, and all relevant articles placed in said category. Looking at the mindset of editors in this thread, I get the strong feeling that they'd rather delete these articles before such a transition, but let's be honest, the articles have survived years, and another week or two will make no difference. People (myself included) have put a great deal of time and effort into these lists. Convert them into categories: great. Decimate them completely: not on. That's my stance on the matter, anyhow... _TalkIslander 23:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Well, I attempted to prod List of programs broadcast by TV Land [9]. I almost had hope. It went a day and a half without being challenged. But, the prod got removed [10], and even if I had provided a reason it would not have mattered (see edit summary from the removal).

So now it's AfD? Anyone want to bet an AfD would result in deletion? No? How about 20:1 odds? 100:1? Still no takers? Sigh.

This article is clearly inappropriate for Wikipedia. It violate policy in a number of ways. So how in heck do we go about getting it and articles like it deleted?????? --Hammersoft (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Put it this way: an article is deleted if consensus shows that deletion is appropriate (AfD). If that consensus is clearly not there, perhaps you should question your stance on these articles in relation to the relevant policies. Poor keep !votes in AfD's have much less weight than solid delete !votes. Is this system really flawed to the extent that certain articles that should be deleted aren't? I don't believe so. _TalkIslander 19:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• You have a heck of a lot more faith in the system than most people here do. The reality is that if an AfD were attempted on this class of articles, it would fail. This, despite it blatantly violating our policies. It's become entrenched. So, it exists outside of policy and there's not a damn thing we can do about it. Don't believe me? Try an AfD on just one of the articles. See what happens. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, start an Afd anyway in order to get various opinions on the topic. Then you can think about what the next step could be. --Tone 12:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Picture of mine on userpage of User:Mms

There is a picture showing me on the user page of User:Mms. The context is Mms' conflict with some users of the german Wikipedia. I would like to have that picture removed from the page, as I don't want to have anything to do with the conflict of Mms. Therefore, I have contacted the user on his talk page in a very friendly way and asked him to remove the image. However, he refused to comply with my request, and replied that he is allowed to use the image because it's licensed under the CC-BY-SA. I replied that that's not the point as my personal rights have nothing to do with copyright, and asked him again to remove the image. He did not reply to that, however someone must have noticed it and removed the image. Mms reverted this change, and Rjd, who obviously just saw vandalism, protected his user page. Thus, I would like to know if my personal rights allow me to forbid the use of my picture on Mms' user page. Personally, I think they do, so I'm hereby asking some sysop to remove the image for me. Thanks, --Leon (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, he is under no obligation to do so. Under the terms of CC-BY-SA, anyone is free to create derivative works from your image, as long as they credit the original creator of the image, and do not create said works with a more restrictive license than the original. Further, you cannot revoke the licensing of the image, as the derivative image was created while the CC-BY-SA license was still valid. The issue of personality rights does not apply here, as there is no commercial application, which would allow you to prevent the use of your image. Horologium (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No, fortunately this great venture allows me to use the images of my enemies. --mms (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

He is allowed to use the image, but Wikipedia is not obliged to allow him to put it on his user page. This could be seen as a personal attack -- that user page also contains a pretty egregious attack on Jimbo. looie496 (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Can't you discriminate between criticism and a personal attack? --mms (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

A full look at the page in question leads me to believe that it might qualify for MFD, under WP:SOAP. The PA on Jimbo is pretty straightforward. However, I don't see the personal attack on Leon; could you please clarify? (This is not snark; it's a serious question.) Horologium (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Please speak clear. What does MFD stand for? --mms (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is more a matter of simple trolling, rather than copyright. In this case one Wikipedian takes anther's personal picture and then posts on his userpage to annoy the target. Sure its legally fine, but that does not mean its not disruptive. Icewedge (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, trolling, whatever. Using a picture of somebody with a sarcastic caption is surely some sort of attack. looie496 (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The caption is the translation of the text in the image in German. The user Leon uses this image himself in his gallery. --mms (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Remove the picture, imho. --Tom 15:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This is user space. If you don't like it, move on. Who put you in charge to judge my contributions? --mms (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the project put me in charge since you ask. Its not that I don't like it, it is that it appears that the picture is being "used" in some sort of dispute, attack, nonsense, shananagans, blather, yadda yadda, whatever. --Tom 18:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this may be covered by Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Kingturtle (talk) 15:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Not from my side! --mms (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• This could be the first time I remove something from a userpage. But Mms has been sufficiently requested to remove it himself, and has made his reasons for keeping it there quite clear: to bait and badger User:Leon. (Yes, I can read German at a pinch.) I've removed the image from the page. My action has nothing to do with copyright, everything to do with disruption and WP:BATTLEGROUND. In passing, Mms, please note that this is the English Wikipedia, and post in English if possible. Your "Learn some German, bureaucrat" is an improper response to Kingturtle's repeated requests that you remove the picture. Please treat other users with respect. Don't edit war to put the image back. Bishonen | talk 18:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC).
  • Endorse removal and support blocking if this disruption persists. A quick look at his soapboxing userspace indicates that this user has been disruptive on de.wp, whilst that's no reason to block, it does mean if he starts stropping and wikilawyering about free expression here we should take a zero tolerance approach. Let's not waste time here. Mms - if you are here to assert rights and disruptively campaign, the door is over there.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

After seeing the "justification" provided by Mms, and his blatantly combative attitude, I fully support removal of the image and blocking if the disruption persists as well. I apparently went a little overboard in assuming good faith here. Horologium (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I, the one who protected the page, wasn't doing to specifically to prevent this user from removing the image. I'd like to make that clear. We semi-protect userpages all the time by request of the user. Other than that, I'm no expert on personality rights so if the image is removed as a result of this discussion that's perfectly fine. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The image in question should either be speedy deleted or nominated for deletion. It serves no purpose except to antagonize an editor. Kingturtle (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your quick help. --Leon (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Intentional removal of the external links by Beestra

Resolved

 – Spammer blocked--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 20:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I am the writer of the http://simpleprogrammingtutorials.com website, which contains free IT-oriented tutorials. At the moment external links to these articles were cut by Beetstra and any attempts of third parties to restore them on my request have no effect and were reverted by Beetstra. I do ask for your assistance in this case, because none of my arguments was accepted by Beetstra and I see no chance to solve the problem in a different way.

Pages involved: Bubble_sort Selection_sort Arrays Depth-first_search Quicksort Adjacency_list Adjacency_matrix Linked_list Binary_search_algorithm Dynamic_array Binary_search_tree

I count on your assistance in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SPTWriter (talk • contribs) 21:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not that place to promote your website. The links clearly do not meet WP:EL guidelines, and Beestra was correct in removing them. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for bringing Beetstra's continued excellent work for the project to wider notice. His many hours of tireless work protecting the project fomr spam do indeed merit recognition, I will zip over right away with a barnstar for him. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Well, it was lovely of us to try to help this chap, but since all his edits mention (/* External links /*) or were to a ludicrous and quickly deleted Arbcom complaint against Beetstra, I've taken the liberty of indefinitely deselecting him from editing Wikipedia. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 23:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oh what a shame. After all he did for the benefit of the project, too. Guy (Help!) 00:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• simpleprogrammingtutorials.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Thanks for the support here. I analysed this indeed as 'spamming' (when can we change this term to 'inappropriate external link additions'?), the only additions to that time were by this account, and often to top of list only. I do recognise that the links could be of interest as a reference (as suggested in the much underrated/underread intro of the external links guideline!), but such suggestions have been ignored (after all the chances he had to actually read those ..!). As shame that this specialist (with all the content that he could have added) is now forced to leave the project. Back to the one that complained to me on email today. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Urgent admin help needed with Vandal

Resolved

AIV reported vandal with a personal vendetta against Malcolm Borg is going on a vandalism spree: 24.193.171.246 (talk · contribs · block log). Admin assistance would be invaluable --Flewis^(talk) 08:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Racist slurs, vandalizing my user-page - still waiting on admin help --Flewis^(talk) 08:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

[11] - This guy's not stopping. Where are all the admins? --Flewis^(talk) 08:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Patience, young Padawan. Noone pays us for the job, so it might take some minutes for someone to act. ;-) SoWhy 08:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Great Job! - blocking times are down to only 45 minutes.--Flewis^(talk) 09:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Then it's time to start nominating more people to become admins. The ones we've got are overworked and underpaid for what is, literally, a thankless task. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 09:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I would apply, but with less than 3 months of experience, my RFA would close overnight. Until next year then. . . hopefully. --Flewis^(talk) 10:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Then nominate someone you trust for admin who's up right now at the same time you are, and hope they're around to help when you need them. It's worth a shot.Dayewalker (talk) 10:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

1 step ahead of 'ya [12] --Flewis^(talk) 10:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for admin coaching myself, otherwise I'd put in a self-nom. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

And don't be afraid to use Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism in the future for faster response to block requests on vandalism. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Quote: "AIV reported vandal" - first few words of the thread :) --Flewis^(talk) 21:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Philipp Lenard

I recommend to check this article completely. I have a doubt that is is not written from neutral point of view, also most of the sources does not seem to be relevant, this is why I marked it by the template. --Wizzard (talk) 20:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

So you complained on the talk page, somebody explained to you why you are wrong, and instead of answering you bring it here? That isn't going to get you anywhere. looie496 (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, this appears to be a content dispute not relevant to this noticeboard. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, I will try to resolve it at a talk page or in the article. Maybe I should not bring it to here. --Wizzard (talk) 08:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by 2 users.

2 users have been found of tendentious editing. The users are User:Viriditas and User:IronDuke. The evidence is in these links. [13] and User talk:IronDuke#Osama Bin Laden. --Mixwell!^Talk 01:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure they're joking around there, doesn't look like there is any real dispute, although you could try asking them--Jac16888 (talk) 02:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup. 1. Have you asked them? 2. What do you expect us to do about it? 3. Have you told them of this thread? 4. Are you serious, because I don't think they are? --Rodhullandemu 02:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I forgot this Arbcom case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IronDuke and Gnetwerker --Mixwell!^Talk 02:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

How is that relevant to this? for starters its nearly 3 years old?--Jac16888 (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, and it seems to have no bearing on either of the links you provided. I suggest if you have anything of substance, bring it here, otherwise certain conclusions might be drawn. --Rodhullandemu 02:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

What I do see, to my utter dismay, is that two days after being unblocked early, Sceptre is already edit-warring on Osama bin Laden. looie496 (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

And also that Mixwell appears to be in a dispute with ironduke--Jac16888 (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

<- Is there some reason Sceptre went shopping for sanctions against IronDuke and Viriditas on IRC (with the exact same language used in Mixwell's original complaint, no less)? I sure hope it wasn't to perform an end-run around his ban from project space. east718 // talk // email // 02:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy, drama here we come--Jac16888 (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Shouldn't this section actually be titled Three tendentious editors as sceptre is acting disruptively and edit-warring at Osama bin Laden [14] immediately after coming off his previous months long ban. Recruiting IRC meatpuppets to proxy for you seems like a no-no too. 75.175.27.170 (talk) 06:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Governance issue and solution

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

nevermind

---

I've dobbed all the bureaucrats in in a new idea for a safety valve/point of redress/check and balance/good governance/etc. --> here

My idea would be this was a low volume committee which could be established by any five 'crats for the situations described. Has something like this been discussed before? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No, per WP:BURO. Not needed. Should we ever get to that kind of way-out-there edge case, I'm sure we'll find a way to handle it. // roux   06:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

A few people have been hounded off the wiki for ideas like this ;-) I've added an example of where it might have been useful on the talk page. No harm can come from (re)thinking about governance. We are supposed to be an agile project after all. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I will mark this as historical/archived in a minute as TenOfAllTrades has poked enough holes in it to make me ditch it. Feel free to archive folks, or I will rummage round for a template in a moment. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Backlog at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations

Any help clearing the backlog at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations would be appreciated. --Iamunknown 07:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

CSD A9

Resolved

 – Admins can't directly intervene on this. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 23:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Why isnt CSD A9 including non-notable movies and computer games too? I think it schould be included. The Rolling Camel (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Be bold and change it and see if it flies. Or do it the more boring way and propose it at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 23:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean that i can just go in and change the template? The Rolling Camel (talk) 23:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You can, and someone can revert it back, which is probably what will happen within minutes. Discussing it at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion would be a more prudent method.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Yes. Worse that can happen? Someone reverts you. Not a black mark (you're not vandalising), just a revert. And then you'll need to discuss it. But if no-one reverts, then it has consensus. Mad, but that's how we do it. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 23:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

and indeed, it will happen, because I will immediately revert you. Very poor advice indeed to add criteria for speedy without prior discussion. And considering earlier discussions there, it is rather unlikely to gain consensus. The point of A9 for albums s that we had the notability of the artist to use as basis. This is not true for games, and much more diffuse for movies. DGG (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It's increasingly common around here to bash editors who want to help by promising to blind revert them for being bold. Being bold in editing is one of our central tenets and you, DGG, should be ashamed for suggesting otherwise. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 08:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:BOLD#Non-article namespaces: "Be bold" generally does not apply to policy pages—WP:CSD is marked with {{policy}}. 21:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be simpler to change A7 to include all products. But the more urgent change would be as per Uncle G's proposal, unsourced BLPs. Guy (Help!) 00:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

But why would we do that? It is not like there is a problem, is there? We surely don't have completely unsourced (and tagged as such!) pages on living persons stating for almost four years that they were nazi concentration camp guards? Oh well, luckily we can apply G10 in such cases... Fram (talk) 12:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

"CSD A9" doesn't say anything about "notability" except that it's not dependent on notability. This is a common mistake. --NE2 00:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate block

Resolved

 – No further action required here.

Krimpet has recently blocked Kristen Eriksen without offering any evidence to justify her action, or even so much as posting a block notice explaining why the action was taken. When queried about her action, Krimpet offered only the unsubstantiated accusation that Kristen Eriksen is a "sockpuppet of a serial cross-wiki vandal." [15] However, Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Confidential_evidence expressly forbids blocks on the basis of secret evidence, as occured in the User:!! debaucle. In performing the block, Krimpet also enabled the "e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page" options, preventing Kristen Eriksen from appealing the block, without any evidence of talk page or e-mail abuse. While some concerns were previously raised relating to Kristen Eriksen's familiarity with Wikipedia in comparison to the age of her account, Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Identification_and_handling_of_suspected_sock_puppets provides that

While precocious editing skills may give the appearance of sock puppetry, the Arbitration committee has ruled that evidence that a user is familiar with Wikipedia editing conventions (such as the use of Wikitext markup, edit summaries, and core policies) is, by itself, insufficient basis to treat the user as a sock puppet. Such users might be visitors from a non-English Wikipedia. They may be familiar with our software, though they have not contributed here before.

There appears to be no other potential justification for the block, apart from a Wikipedia Review thread containing nasty and irrelevant personal attacks against Kristen Eriksen, to which Krimpet posted shortly after effectuating the block. If "IRC blocks" are bad, then this sort of "Wikipedia Review block" is even worse. John254 00:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

John, have you seen this post--Alison's done a checkuser on the account in question.--Maxim_(talk) 00:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The post appears to refer to the account "Krimpets Tasty Cake", not Kristen Eriksen. Since don't normally conduct Wikipedia's administrative business on the basis of ambiguous Wikipedia Review posts, it would be helpful to have on-wiki clarification of what accounts Alison checkusered, and what results she found. I will contact her shortly. John254 00:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No secret evidence - there is only evidence which you neglected to enquire about before starting a thread on WP:AN attacking the behaviour of another admin. Get your priorities straight John. Viridae^Talk 00:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"Krimpets Tasty Cake" is a phenomenally-obvious trolling account and Krimpet is right when she says it's a cross-wiki vandal. However, it's Johnny the Vandal (JtV/TIV/etc) and I'm not sure where Kristen Eriksen comes into it. He's probably finding this highly amusing right now, no doubt - Alison ^❤ 01:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, priorities. Like deciding to leave a rude comment about someones lack of knowledge instead of enlightening them with it. Arkon (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC) (EC - this is in response to Viridae)

You imply that I have the evidence (apart of course from the insanely obvious injecting oneself into the most contentious areas of WP both behind the scenes and in the article space, all in one hit.) JOhn you have been sucked in by a female name and a pretty picture. Viridae^Talk 01:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No, you made the implication when you said No secret evidence - there is only evidence which you neglected to enquire about. Arkon (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No that differentiated between secret (refuse to disclose) and secret (No one has told me yet). Viridae^Talk 06:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I did inquire [16] [17] as to what the evidence for this block was, before making a report here. Unfortunately, Krimpet refused to provide any evidence whatsoever to support her actions, beyond bare accusations [18] and non-responsive comments [19]. I didn't ask Alison about the checkuser results before making a report here because her post didn't appear to contain checkuser results for Kristen Eriksen -- it was only later that it was so construed. John254 00:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Which is the main account? If this is a sock account, it should be tagged. If somebody wants to email me the evidence I will be glad to look it over and give an opinion on whether the block is valid. Jehochman ^Talk 01:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Given that there isn't actually any checkuser evidence against Kristen Eriksen, and apparently no other evidence against her, I would ask that her account be unblocked. The fact is that we need more users who have an excellent understanding of biology [20] [21] and are interested in preventing the promotion of fringe theories [22]. John254 01:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This needs to be sorted out ASAP, for the sake of the accounts blocked here. Ok, Kristen Eriksen (talk · contribs) is  Unrelated to Krimpets Tasty Cake (talk · contribs). The latter account belongs to a well-known prolific vandal. I recommend unblocking Kristen Eriksen - Alison ^❤ 01:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I poked Krimpet via IRC, she did not object to me unblocking, so I've gone ahead and do so per her and your advice.--Maxim_(talk) 01:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. John254 01:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Hang on Kristen Eriksen (talk · contribs) = Crimp It! (talk · contribs). Admins, look at Crimp It!'s deleted user page. Jehochman ^Talk 01:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Kristen Eriksen previously explained this issue at User_talk:Kristen_Eriksen#Comment_by_Krimpet. John254 01:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Could we have a checkuser address this explanation, specifically, is the following statement credible: "That's probably my crazy ex-boyfriend Chad, who also attends my university." Jehochman ^Talk 02:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It's possible, given that she exclusively uses shared IPs and her BF could well be part of that institution. However, the account is now  Stale - Alison ^❤ 02:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible but highly unlikely... Do you need anymore evidence that KE is a troll? Viridae^Talk 06:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes... an account that was indefinitely blocked three months ago and a stale checkuser result -- that's really good evidence. Why wasn't this dealt with three months ago, when a checkuser inquiry could have provided more useful information? Now, which is the more parsimonious explanation for these events?

(1) That Kristen Eriksen's ex-boyfriend, who likely has a serious grievance against her, spent a few minutes to create the Crimp It! (talk · contribs) account and use it to nominate her userpage and an article she had written for deletion, all from the comfort of his own dorm. Or,

(2)(a) That someone created the Kristen Eriksen account, and used it to make extensive and genuinely valuable contributions, for the sole purpose of ridiculing Krimpet over the speedy deletion of a few userboxes, most of which were retained in the subsequent MFD discussion, by deliberately giving the Crimp It! (talk · contribs) account an IP address sufficiently close to Kristen Eriksen as to draw attention to Crimp It! (talk · contribs)'s activities through an extensive multi-checkuser investigation culminating in an accusation of abusive sockpuppetry, when most users might expect an obvious troll account such as Crimp It! (talk · contribs) to simply be reverted, blocked, and ignored. (This was essentially the accusation made against Kristen Eriksen three months ago) And,

(b) Someone continued to edit with the Kristen Eriksen account, for the purpose of further ridiculing Krimpet by convincing her to block Kristen Eriksen on the basis of checkuser evidence which wouldn't actually exist, because she would misinterpret Alison's post on Wikipedia Review.

Wow. Not only does this Kristen Eriksen hold a serious grudge over a minor incident, she's also an evil genius, and practically psychic! Or, perhaps we might want to give Kristen Eriksen a slight assumption of good faith, instead of creating elaborate conspiracy theories and vilifying a user to such an extent that we're willing to block her over imaginary checkuser evidence. I might even venture to suggest that we simply ignore the fulminations against Kristen Eriksen on Wikipedia Review, just as we ignore their bizarre conspiracy theories concerning SlimVirgin, and similar nonsense. John254 17:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• I suggest keeping an eye on User:Kristen Eriksen. If she edits well, no action needs to be taken. If she engages in drama mongering or provocation, the past incident may be relevant. I am marking this thread resolved because I do not see any possibility of further administrative action at this time. Jehochman ^Talk 17:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Gee, doesn't anyone remember this three month old conversation anymore? Three months to the day... GRBerry 05:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

In that discussion, it was determined that Kristen Eriksen should not be blocked immediately, but should be asked to provide an explanation of the events. When she provided a satisfactory explanation, the issue was closed. There's little new information here, since Kristen Eriksen was recently blocked on the basis of non-existent checkuser results. John254 15:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Opening a discussion on this here noticeboard header up top

Main page: Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Header § Reorganise_header

While mulling over arbcom candidacy questions and answering, I discovered that I had not seen this board - Wikipedia:General sanctions - until today. It also occurred to me that the box up top was filled with so many things I found I was not reading the contents. I was also thinking that there appeared to be overlap in content between AN and AN/I and noth were very busy pages, but that maybe some rearranging of teh template at the top was in order. I am writing this to initiate a discussion over there. More eyes on the trouble spots of biographies and cultural/ethnic wars are good, so was musing that one bar at the top could be coloured salmin pink and contain trouble pages (welcome to insert better word), including Wikipedia:General sanctions, theWikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Special_enforcement_log and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard next to each other, as well as cultural/ethnic noticeboard. input welcome. I was figuring we have all the policy to deal with these, but more actual and closer attention was needed. thoughts welcome. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I rearranged the navbox up top here - can someone colour the trouble areas bit orange or salmon pink? I find the one we have now odd as things I think of at the same time (eg SSP vs Checkuser, and the BLP noticeboard, and BLP log) are not near each other. I was musing whether making the trouble area bit orange would make it higher profile and maybe get it on admins' radars a bit. Anyway see what y'all think. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Fyslee

Resolved

 – No admin action needed at this time, WP:DR procedures should be followed instead —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Fyslee keeps removing an image of the Pope from the Man article stating the image is controversial because some people see him as the Antichrist. User:Fyslee kept removing the image from the article and then only brought it up in the Talk:Man page after I kept reverting his removal of the image. He states on the Talk page that his views are now to be considered consensus, even though consensus with editors has always been for the image as none have ever tried to remove the image or ever brought it up in the Talk page. I have tried talking to him on his User Talk:Fyslee but still insists on removing the image for seemingly absurb reasons. Please see the articles I have linked to see what has been going on. Usergreatpower (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute with no need for Admin intervention. I suggest you and other editors leave it on the article talkpage for consensus, if any, to develop. In the event of edit-warring, the page can be protected if necessary. --Rodhullandemu 21:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

JRSpriggs attempting to sway deletion process with Personal attack on physics project page

User:JRSpriggs is attempting to sway a deletion process with Personal attack on physics project page. I removed the comment, but he reinserted it. Comment was added here: [23] and removed here: [24] and then reinserted here: [25]. Delaszk (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the personal attack, and have warned the editor against repeating the action. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou. Delaszk (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU indeed removed the personal attack (diff). I think that when you change somebody else's comment, you should leave a note of it on the talk page. Thus, I added a note (diff). LessHeard vanU disagrees, saying that this only serves to bring notice to the personal attack, and that he never adds a note when redacting comments by others. Especially this last statement surprised me.

I would very much like what others think of this. You can read LessHeard vanU's reasoning at User talk:Jitse Niesen#"redacting" personal attacks? and mine at User talk:LessHeard vanU#Redacting comments. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU is correct, the edit summary is the place for any commentary about the removal. dougweller (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Edits of User:85.201.148.183

• Resolved

   – edit warring spamming IP blocked for a while, edits rolled back, spammed sites taken to blacklist. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone have a look at the recent contributions of 85.201.148.183 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and tell me if this is a problem? The IP is adding lots of information on acquisitions of (as far as I can see) unrelated companies, using what may or may not be reliable sources as references. It could be nothing, but it smells faintly like tomfoolery in an attempt to manipulate stock prices or share issues through spreading unsubstantiated rumours. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC).

I really don't see how some edits to a Wikipedia article are going to effect share value, especially HBOS, Ryanair, Easyjet, etc. (and certainly not Woolworths). Why don't you try asking them on their talkpage if you have some queries relating to their editing? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not tomfoolery, it's blatant spam, and all of these changes should be reverted. If it continues, the websites www.swfinvestments.net and *.acquisitionreports.com should be blacklisted, as they contain no information useful to ordinary readers. Since there are about 40 edits to revert, it would be nice for somebody who has automated tools to do this (I don't). Looie496 (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The site he's using as a reference is run by an unknown 'group of investment companies' and access is restricted to 'clients only', which makes the information unverifiable. I reverted most of his edits, and he has undone my reverts. I have suggested on my talk (where he left a message), that he consult with WP:INVESTMENT or WP:BUSINESS before adding any more content of this sort. I have other obligations today & won't have time to follow up until much later. --Versageek 22:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for a week, this is also possible copyvio, but certainly as it is not verifiable by readers doesn't belong here. dougweller (talk) 06:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Stubs

Resolved

 – No admin action required.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Basically, I attempted to deal with this group a couple of weeks ago. The whole lot of stub sorting project pages don't mesh well with Wikipedia. The stub sorting project has essentially created their own walled garden where they decide what should and should not be used to categorize short articles. I made a stub category, and the day after I made it (last year) it was put up for deletion because I hadn't proposed it. Last month, when I was going through articles and making new ones that fit into that category, I found it was deleted without any sort of notification made towards me. I'm fairly positive that there are only a handful of administrators out of the ~1000 we have who are active are involved with the stub deletion process.

Either this group needs to be reformed or this group needs to be dissolved. I would like to bring that up for discussion here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've always found the stub sorting people work hard and do a good job. Editors are encouraged to be bold in creating articles, but I don't see that mandate extending to boldly creating stub types. There is a sound argument for keeping the stub sorting coarse enough that each "type" of stub can be expected to be somewhat populated. SO I don't see the stub sorting project as a problem. Frankly, I'm glad there are some people who want to handle that sort of thing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

While it is always good to have folks who don't mind handling such things, the Stub project has set up its own little fiefdom when it comes to anything stub-related, where their word is final. Last I checked, this isn't how Wikipedia is supposed to work. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the decision making at the stub sorting process as any different than UCFD, for example, and both have a long enough history that their decisions are somewhat authoritative. Sometimes a little process is beneficial, and this is one of those times.

It appears to me that Ryulong is complaining because he didn't follow the well-established process for creating a new stub type and then his new type got deleted. I think his new categories did fail to meet the accepted guidelines for new stub types, and if that's right then their deletion is hardly a surprise. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Editors are encouraged to be bold in whatever they do on Wikipedia. That applies just as much to creating new categories for stubs as to fixing spelling mistakes, creating new articles, proposing new policy or anything else on Wikipedia. Wikiprojects are supposed to concentrate attention on their topics, not to act as final arbiters over them. However when they've set up a sensible process and standards, ignoring those standards may be an overly bold decision. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don' view the stub sorting people on the same terms as a random wikiproject. They are much more like WP:UCFD: an out-of-the-way group that helps keep the wiki organized. And it is not true that editors are meant to be bold in everything they do. The last thing I want to see is the collection of Category:Mathematics stub templates expanded from 17 to 68 because some editor decides that each one needs to be split into 4 new ones. The stub sorting people take care of that sort of thing, and I appreciate their work. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, what administrator action is requested here? — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This board is for discussions which admins may be interested in. Admin actions are usually requested at ANI. —kurykh 23:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't even really understand why we need such elaborate stub categories, other than for the sake of giving people stub work to do. No one, as far as I've ever seen, actually uses the stub categories for anything other than stub sorting. No one is going through improving all stub articles on 1950s basketball players, or even using the stub categories to identify such articles - except for the purpose of doing further stub sorting. Once you get beyond maybe 100 generic stub categories "Sports stubs", "Science stubs", etc. I just don't see how they accomplish anything except giving people busy work to do. Which isn't a very good purpose at all. --Rividian (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not list the deleted categories at WP:DRV? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

With categories like Category:Stub-Class rail transport articles, do we need stub categories at all? It seems like an outdated system that's been superseded by assessment templates and categories. --NE2 03:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. They do seem redundant to the WP:1.0 classification system. (Wait, did I really just agree with NE2 on something?! ) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• There are long standing guidelines for stubs (they must reasonably apply to around 60 articles); Ryulong created a stub that didn't meet the guidelines so it got deleted, nothing amiss in that. He should have been warned true, but sometimes mistakes are made. It is no more of a "fiefdom" than WP:N and WP:AFD. Icewedge (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

obscure processes like these create a burden on users & the decisions can affect many other people; the burden is partly ameliorated if notice is given. For a project like this is omit doing so is not a trivial error, and calls for reopening the discussion without the fuss of a DRV. I'd say about two or three orders of magnitude more people see and contribute to AfD than stub sorting If they are going to conduct their affairs this casually, perhaps that process should be combined with something more visible, such as MdD. DGG (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I've long stayed away from stub sorting, having found that the process-wonkery, line-the-blocks-up-neatly mentality that I really can't work to has eaten that project alive. Complaints shower down on editors who dare move a block out of its row - creating a stub template with one less article than they've decided a stub template requires (result: deleted with insults), creating a stub template that fits the naming conventions of your Wikiproject but not theirs (result: renamed with insults), tagging an article with a faintly "wrong" stub template (result:changed with insults)... not one single good experience of dealing with the stubs project in years of editing here.

So I agree: stubs are redundant to other methods, tell us nothing that a category can't anyway, aren't useful for editors other than a flag to ay "I'm only small, don't delete me!" (better to change that attitude than to have a giant all-consuming shrubbery to prevent it), and waste editorial time on finding the correct one, applying it, having it changed, having it deleted, recreating it, jumping through hoops to "propose" a new one (er, wiki, anyone?) etc etc. Time to abolish stubs and stub-sorting and let the project members find a different place to put blocks in neat rows. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 10:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

There actually are a lot of place-block-in-neat-row jobs that are useful... like uncategorized pages, orphan pages, etc. It's always seemed ironic that that the one maintenence area with little backlog is stubs, which are decor at best. If there's ever a serious effort to formally declare stub sorting redundant to the newer processes, hopefully someone will let me know. --Rividian (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting#Has this project been superseded by assessments? --NE2 01:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

People who owe their edit count and reputation to stub sorting are going to oppose this by reflex... you're probably going to want to get input from people outside the stub sorting scene. --Rividian (talk) 13:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

About the issue of the process of proposing stubs, I would like to point out that in the MfD there were some users who voted keep while either taking no position on the necessity of this process or opposing it. Alai, Ruslik, Gavia immer, Terraxos and I (Od Mishehu) all made such statements, and in the closing statement explicitly mentions that the MfD was the wrong way to go. This noticeboard isn't the place either - we don't decide on policy here. I would say that WP:VPR is probably the best place, although a request for comment may also be. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the justifications for the stub sorting project are that people will hopefully catch other problems at the same time and b/its a suitable activity for beginners. DGG (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

When I used to tag for WP:USRD I would fix or at least template obvious problems.--NE2 01:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Community ban request for User:PierreLarcin

Resolved

 – User:PierreLarcin site-banned indefinitely; indef-blocked by Guy; a CheckUser request will be filed in order to block any IPs that are socks of the banned user.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to request that the community make a decision on the actions of PierreLarcin (talk · contribs) and his marching band of IPs, which have been disrupting Rotary International and related articles for more than two years on a regular basis.

This report provides an overview of why I am requesting this community ban. The executive summary is that Pierre is a long-time tendentious editor who has disrupted Rotary and attacked editors not sharing his viewpoint (read: everyone else) through two accounts and a whole range of IPs. Specifics are available in the report. Recently, he has begun to stalk editors' contributions - not to a large scale, yet, but it appears he's decided to use that as his latest approach when the Rotary article and talk pages are protected. We would not be setting a precedent with this decision; he has been indefinitely blocked on the French Wikipedia.

If the community accedes to this request for a ban, I will block the accounts here as an administrative move (they already appear to have been abandoned) then seek out checkuser assistance to determine whether a range block can be applied to shut down the IP flood. Failing that, I will use the strength of that ban as the basis for an abuse report with the ISP. I appreciate any input. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I would support such a ban. I remember Pierre Larcin insisting on some text in the article explaining how links work, and that was years ago. A glance through the talk page shows to my satisfaction that the community's patience for this guy has been depleted. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Support - looking at the history, I'm amazed this has been allowed to go on for so long! --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Support - a ban should streamline future efforts to reduce & prevent disruption. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Support after reading the report. Clearly not here to contribute productively.  Sandstein  17:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment This should be used to file a WP:RFCU immediately. If you think he is using those IP's in violation of WP:SOCK, then filing it under code G will work. The checkuser should be able to see if he has made any other sleeper socks at those IP's. This will be more effective then banning him, waiting for him to evade the ban, then filing a RFCU with a code F. Protonk (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

My intention here is to ensure that there's an iron-clad consensus behind any further actions that I take. The problem here is that it's obviously at least a somewhat dynamic IP, though there are multiple uses of several of them over time; I suspect there won't be any sleepers, as he's abandoned his named accounts; a checkuser would be an attempt to pin down any specific ranges he works from, and see if a rangeblock will shut him down. Plus, a ban will be an unequivocal statement that his advocacy is not needed or wanted. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• May I consider this an expression of consensus? I'd appreciate if another admin would confirm this and close this section so I can get onto the next section; Pierre hit one of my contribs again tonight, it's time this was stopped. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll confirm it. Ban. dougweller (talk) 08:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You can count me as supporting this as well. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC).

• Exactly the kind of missionary we can do without. No judgement on him as a person, an activist, or the merit of his campaign, just not here, thanks. So yes, ban for inappropriate advocacy. Tony is on the money, and is being nicer than he needs to be. I have blocked Pierre Larcin and ancourage anyone to review that block and the comment I left on his talk page. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Guy, I appreciate that. Unfortunately, as he's abandoned those accounts some time ago and is editing specifically through the IPs (another one today), blocking the named accounts will be more symbolic than anything else. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Sure, but block / ban evasion is a bright-line rule for checkuser purposes. If you want me to block any of the IPs, drop me a note or send email. This one needs to get, and stay, gone. Some of that crap can probaby be oversighted. I'm amazed you've put up with it this long, to be honest. Guy (Help!) 00:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support, I also am appalled by the length of this. But, I think you should definitely bring it to CU to of course, have proof. —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 03:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Niggerati talk page

Resolved

 – No further action needed.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I am attempting to start a talk page for the above article in order to explain my rationale for adding a notability tag with the aim of nominating it for deletion as unencyclopaedic. However, I am unable to do, receiving a message informing me that it is impossible due to vandalism concerns and to raise the matter here.FrFintonStack (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC) N.b. Have attempted to follow articles for deletion proceedure, but have received the same message when following the 'pre-loaded debate' linkFrFintonStack (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Have done it for you; please replace my placeholder rationale here with your own. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu 21:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the help.FrFintonStack (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    • If it's kept, I would propose an IAR-based eternal full-protect. Can you frickin' IMAGINE the level of vandalism such an article would attract? It would be its own personal Wikipedia Hellmouth.GJC 23:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
      • The article has survived for over three years with no vandalism at all. There's no justification for protection, especially given that the only editors who have so far actually contributed content to the article, rather than just juggling categories, hyperlinks, and tags, have been editors without accounts. Why protect an article against being expanded by the very people who are actually writing it? This article is yet another reminder that quite a lot of Wikipedia has been written by people who do not have accounts. Uncle G (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
        • So then what was all that "unable to start talk page due to vandalism concerns" stuff that FrFintonStack ran into? If there's been no vandalism, why would such a measure be needed? And if it wasn't needed, who did it and why? GJC 22:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
          • Nobody did anything, according to the logs. Neither the article nor its talk page have ever been protected. So your questions, being based upon a false premise, are unanswerable. Uncle G (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
            • Fair enough--I try to ask at least ten unanswerable questions per day--but I'm still curious as to why, since the article/talkpage had never been protected, a message popped up saying it was impossible to create the page? Somewhere along the line, some user/bot/Wikipoltergeist put something somewhere to trigger the "Nope, can't do it" response when anyone attempted to create that page. Since it's clearly fixed, and clearly causing no damage to anything except the aggravating chunk of my brain which demands explanations for everything, I'm not expecting any investigation of this issue--but I've now been provided with another One of Those Mysterious Things, and I had plenty of those to begin with. :) GJC 06:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
              • Pages titled with certain strings cannot be created by non-admins. 208.59.120.194 (talk) 06:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
                • Specifically, anything with "nigger" in the title is blacklisted. --Carnildo (talk) 06:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
                  • That makes sense--sort of. It seems odd that the title blacklist applies to creating talkpages for existing articles; I would have guessed that once a page is created--even one which had to have its title released from the list--that the talkpage for that article would automagically be okayed for creation. Is that a feature of the blacklist, or a bug? What would be the disadvantages of doing this? (I ask because if there aren't many, I may bring this up at the Village Pump. ) GJC 13:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Most used IPs

Resolved

 – No admin action required beyond being careful with rangeblocks.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Submitted for consideration, the following is a list of the /24s and /16s that have the most anonymous edits associated with them. It may be worth considering whether some of these should be treated with greater restraint when blocking based on the heightened risk of collateral damage. In addition to the anon edits, I would also guess that most of these are associated with a number of registered users as well. Dragons flight (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

PS. For comparison the range 82.148.*, which is listed at Wikipedia:Sensitive IP addresses as encompassing the nation of Qatar, has only 7956 anon edits associated with it. Dragons flight (talk) 09:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

/24 # of anon edits 202.156.2.* 10118 128.205.163.* 10334 213.42.21.* 10365 72.1.206.* 10404 62.25.109.* 10424 208.187.9.* 10543 217.168.172.* 10553 125.60.243.* 10818 207.69.139.* 10952 165.21.155.* 11247 81.145.242.* 11850 69.138.229.* 11932 204.52.215.* 12115 218.186.9.* 12270 198.54.202.* 13091 204.153.84.* 13720 206.47.220.* 13995 81.145.240.* 15094 217.129.67.* 15102 195.92.67.* 16634 81.145.241.* 16726 207.69.137.* 17745 69.19.14.* 17932 131.111.8.* 19119 152.163.101.* 20135 64.12.117.* 20510 195.92.168.* 20601 67.142.130.* 20671 165.21.154.* 20689 202.156.6.* 22742 68.39.174.* 24516 134.53.145.* 25333 66.82.9.* 26823 205.188.117.* 35120 131.107.0.* 39657 207.200.116.* 52546 205.188.116.* 71332 152.163.100.* 75767 64.12.116.* 77552 195.93.21.* 89918

/16 # of anon edits 86.129.* 35842 64.231.* 35946 71.112.* 36454 220.237.* 37005 84.9.* 37023 66.30.* 37242 86.42.* 37707 86.134.* 37740 86.132.* 38217 63.3.* 38302 59.93.* 38329 24.6.* 38559 131.111.* 38728 67.86.* 38786 70.48.* 38820 69.138.* 39809 131.107.* 40605 220.239.* 40908 202.156.* 41125 207.69.* 41138 65.95.* 41180 82.35.* 43081 211.30.* 43557 81.145.* 43977 66.108.* 44146 209.244.* 44343 210.213.* 45204 69.140.* 45230 86.133.* 45485 68.39.* 46431 59.92.* 46692 67.171.* 48572 195.92.* 49556 207.200.* 55627 156.34.* 56854 212.219.* 89417 64.12.* 101300 152.163.* 102924 195.93.* 103593 205.188.* 110394

Out of curiosity, how did you gain these figures?211.30.109.24 (talk) 09:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The API has a way of pulling these per /16 or /24 e.g. [26]. Then you filter all the registered users with a program. MER-C 12:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Okay... So these ranges have high concentration of anonymous addresses... What are we supposed to do with this knowledge? Unless this is an assumption that anonymous account equals disruptive/vandal editor and we may as well block the ranges (and who needs oil from Qatar these days, anyway) I don't see the purpose of noting this. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Dangons flight's point was that we should be aware of the collateral when blocking (especially range blocking) these addresses. A high number of IP editors probably == a high number of registered editors, so an IP block could rattle through to many registered accounts. These addresses will also have a high amount of vandalism but also a high amount of good contributions, so blocks need to be proportionate. Then again, this is all good general advice, even without the statistics to back it up. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 13:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems like none of the /16's which cover the "Sensitive due to public relations implications" ranges are included in the list of top /16's, nor are any of their /24's included on the list of /24's. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Redvers, not necessarily. For example, AOL is likely to have a higher proportion of silliness than an ISP specialising in metropolitan broadband. But the point is valid, that any rangeblock will have more effect if there are more anons. Guy (Help!) 15:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Has G2bambino exhausted community patience?

Resolved

 – Community patience hasn't run out quite yet, although it's being stretched thin.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

G2bambino was handed a three-week block on November 13 by FP@S for filing a bad-faith RFC against Roux that was merely thinly-disguised harassment. He recently posted a third unblock request, which I declined, after which I locked down his talk page for the duration of the block.. I initially locked down his talk page as well--but unlocked it after a suggestion from WilyD. An aggravating factor in my mind was his Nonetheless, as I reviewed the case, I couldn't help but notice his block log. He has been handed 13 distinct blocks since 2007. Granted, two of them may well have been excessive, but with a block log that long, you have to wonder--is this user really here to build an encyclopedia? I therefore propose that the community put him on notice that if there's a next time for this behavior, he should be indefblocked and banned with no further preliminaries. Call this, if you will, a statement that the community has lost patience with him and that his standing here is hanging by an eyelash. Thoughts? Blueboy96 17:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

A block log on its own is perhaps not decisive. G2bambino is an editor of rather narrow interests, but there's nothing wrong with that. Some 20 new articles in 20000 edits is not prize-winning, but there are admins who would do worse and this isn't Conserv*p*dia where five-year plans must be exceeded, or else. Harassment and stalking are serious, but a three week block seems to be in the appropriate range, if perhaps a little mild. I have no strong view on whether anything does need to be done, but if others do feel that way a topic ban would work just as well. Whether G2bambino would want to edit much outside the subject of monarchy, narrowly defined, is another question, but it has happened and so far as I can tell it has been trouble-free. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Come on. Block logs shouldn't be used on their own to decide sitebans, I realise. But Blueboy has a great point. 13 blocks is absolutely ridiculous, even if some are too harsh. I don't think the community's patience with him is very strong. His standing here hanging by an eyelash made of liquid. Garden. 23:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't lost patients. I'm waiting to welcome him back on December 4 (2008). GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

All this was discussed before his last block and this current length of block decided, I'm sure bearing his past blocks in mind, plus he is under 1RR and stuff on some pages I think when he returns. He hasn't done anything new that's aberrant unless you count asking to be unblocked and saying he's innocent of some of the 'charges'. Why not wait till he does something new before rehashing a discussion about the old stuff- perhaps in the hope of a different outcome? :/ Sticky Parkin 00:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I shouldn't comment here... but I'm going to anyway. G2bambino is incapable of saying anything to or about me without--to use Mayalld's term--a sting in the tail. I want him to stop. I left (and yes, I returned, a) believing that his leaving announcement was genuine, and b) WP is freaking addictive as we all know), and he kept on sniping at me [27], first by suggesting I was acting in bad faith by saying "Assuming that it's permanent, that is" in reference to my retirement, then accusing me of "evident paranoia", and "get the nagging feeling that Roux is in need of some help." No need to say any of these things; I was gone, he was just twisting the knife further. He also went on to say "I like the idea of Roux no longer being an obstacle,"[28]. I will give him *some* credit for saying he wasn't "comfortable" with how it happened. Somewhere on his talk page shortly before or after his block, but definitely after I'd left, he referred to my behaviour as 'disgusting' as well.

And with his latest edits, he's continued the usual pattern of trying to make me look as bad as he possibly can. He said that I "accepted little to no blame," when I have said over and over again that I know my actions have not been up to standard. That I "bait[ed] [him] with threats of unending reports," which I did not do--in fact, he baited me with a looming threat of an RfC/U held in his sandbox, deleted as an act of good faith during a MedCab that he started, and immediately put back as soon as he derailed said MedCab. He also commented on my "intolerable rudeness" and "chronic incivility."

All I want is to be left alone. I want--and I think I deserve, as every single person contributing to this project deserves--to be able to edit without dealing with tendentious editors, and without having to deal with someone who takes every opportunity he can to attack my reputation. I've done stupid and rude and against-the-rules things here. I own those and I take responsibility for them, and for the damage they do to me. What I don't accept is someone twisting words and twisting diffs to make it look like I've done things that I haven't done, and said things that I haven't said. A large number of people have commented in various places, showing that G2's behaviour isn't limited to interactions with me.

I guess at this point I want to ask the community to impose the following restrictions on G2 when he returns. They are very clear-cut, as his history of wikilawyering is intense (he spent multiple posts arguing about the use of the word 'the' in the proposed outcome of the MedCab, for example). He's already shown that he is unable to abide by the restrictions proposed by Nixeagle, so these are an expansion:

• He is not to speak of me at all, whether overtly or obliquely, anywhere on WP, very broadly interpreted. As far as he is concerned, I simply do not exist. Similar restrictions have been made in ArbCom cases.
• He is not to come near any articles dealing with Canadian heraldry or vexillology, in order to allow me one stress-free area where I can contribute and have an intersection of interest and knowledge.
• For any articles not covered by the above point, he is required to stay completely away from any article I have edited since October 15. I chose this date because it is one month before his latest block, and nobody can argue that I then went and edited X number of articles to keep him away. I am already avoiding him and will continue to do so. Or to be more clear: I have left any and all articles, projects, and templates which even tangentially relate to Queen Elizabeth, her family, and the nations of which she is queen, with the exception of articles about Canadian heraldry and vexillology.

Please. I just want to edit without someone taking every opportunity possible to make me look bad. I screw up enough on my own, and I take responsibility for those screwups. I don't need someone poisoning the well. I love contributing to WP, and I don't want to have to give that up.

// roux   08:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• As long as editors and admins in good standing are prepared to work with G2b to fix the issues with his editing then the community has not lost patience, but I have to say that I washed my hands of this one some time back. As soon as we run out of mentors, I would say a block is inevitable. Guy (Help!) 15:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible Vandal Problem(s) spurred from external source

Resolved

 – Article already deleted.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

See: http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/7g2a6/reddit_i_have_an_experiment_for_you/ Someone has already created a wikipedia page on prowebstinating. Don't know if more will arise from this "game" so I'm posting it here as a heads up. Might also apply to wikitionary. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 21:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Wizzard

Resolved

 – User:Wizzard blocked by Guy--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

From my talk page:

I thought that since you are already familiar with this particular user from Talk:Franz Liszt, I feel it necessary to point out a few of their recent edits, see [29] ; [30] ; [31] . I have a serious issue with a person going around and changing biographical information to suit their own predispositions (POV’s) or nationalistic views. From the very inception of this user account, this user’s purpose has been exactly this (in fact, if there’s any doubt to user’s mission, see the user page <– to me such “grand” ideas are very dangerous). Unfortunately this user has what seems very much like only one purpose in mind: edits directed against one particular nationality. It is one thing to improve articles relating to your own nationality but something entirely different to direct one’s time at depriving another nationality of its identity and inciting nationalistic-based edit wars (see here, somewhat reminiscent but, in fact, more disturbing than the Liszt talk page). To me, all of this just doesn’t seem to be constructive and, in fact, seems very disruptive of Wikipedia.

On a lesser note, I should also point out potential sockpuppeting by this user ([32]). I have been an active editor for almost three years now and this is one of the most disturbing cases that I have come across. It would be a great shame if Wikipedia had no mechanisms to weed out such disruptive edits/editors. I do appreciate very much and look forward to your input. Best Regards, aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 04:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

On the face of it, this appears to be on the money: Wizzard looks to be promoting a pro-Slovak and (more of a problem) overtly anti-Hungarian agenda, with multiple unsourced edits and those sources he does use being polemical or nationalistic. The IP would also appear to be the same user, whether accidentally logged out or evading scrutiny is another question. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

More directly anti-Hungarian than pro-Slovak. In Phillipp Lenard, for example, he is arguing that this physicist should be identified as German rather than Hungarian, using arguments that border on incivility. Looie496 (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Check my edits better and you will see all of my edits are sourced. About that IP, I am always logged and if I am accidentally not, I do not remember I made such edits like that anonymous IP address. But OK, I think it is useless to continue, so I have better stop checking these "controversial" articles. It is contraproductive and it takes me too much time, stress and energy and the result is almost none. --Wizzard (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

And of course, Philipp Lenard was German born in Bratislava, but I don't care if tomorrow I will find that Napoleon Bonaparte and Jesus Christ were Hungarians. --Wizzard (talk) 10:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You are determinedly ignoring the fact, pointed out multiple times, that your edits are often sourced to a single, nationalistic source which contradicts in some cases very large numbers of vastly more reliable sources - simply being sourced does not make something significant. And right now the essay which best describes your behaviour is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Start listening, or you will most likely be blocked. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that most of Slovak sources and textbooks tell something different than most of Hungarian sources. And do not mention blocking all the time, it is not important. I already explained that I have not need to quarrel fore and aft. I finished. --Wizzard (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Note: I have blocked Wizzard temporarily following a look through his edits and a review of his responses to numerous well-founded concerns. It seems that he misperceives his own biases as neutrality and is determined to wage nationalistic war against "pro-Hungarian" editors. The solution to the issue of Slovak sources claiming that Hungarians are not Hungarian is to avoid Slovak (and Hungarian) sources and rely on those sources which do not push a nationalistic agenda. Many of Wizzard's edits fail this simple test of source impartiality. Partisan sources are not good sources for contentious claims of nationality, as has been pointed out to him before. Guy (Help!) 13:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the issue in some detail and I have to agree and endorse Guy's assessment of the situation. There were some huge red flags here like the user page and some comments. To give some context there is some tension in the real world relations these months, we should do our best not to let them spill over in this form and watch the area of articles for a little while. And as Guy said use impartial sources for highly contentious claims while attempting to identify and reject the fringe stuff that only appears in a certain types of sources. Hobartimus (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. And to be sure we absolutely must be sensitive to and prepared to document external tensions, but not in the way Wizzard uses, which is to steamroller in, citing polemical sources to make changes to self-identified nationalities in long-standing and generally mature articles. Guy (Help!) 15:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

DONATE IMAGE FOR "ERIC NEWBY"

Resolved

 – User:SoWhy to the rescue!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I am "Residue" and use Wikipedia on a regular basis but have never, as yet, edited any material.

I find it an exceedingly useful reference site and recommend it to all my colleagues.

The Eric Newby site requests a non-copyright image and as a friend of the family, I have an image which could be used for this purpose. However, I do not qualify since I have not achieved the status of "autoconfirmed user", "administrator" or "uploader".

How can I donate this image for use? Residue (talk) 11:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You could either make another 9 edits to acquire autoconfirmed-status or ask another user to do it for you. But before doing so, you should check that the image you want to add was released under a free license (see Wikipedia:Image use policy) and can be used for Wikipedia. If you think this is the case, you can send me an e-mail with the request and I will help you with it. Regards SoWhy 11:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing talk page from Blacklist

Resolved

 – My interpretation of the request below is: "I am evading a block, please block me and delete the repetition of previously-deleted attack content from my talk page". I have done this. Guy (Help!) 15:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi.

I would like to have my previous talk page removed from the local blacklist allowing me to link to it.

In June, I set up a project to documentabuse of the Wikipedia system, gaming I think it is called, on Japanese-Korean related pages by Caspian blue (talk · contribs · logs). An initial statement is, here; [33].

My ISP uses dynamic IPs, I have no control over that. This has been persistently misrepresented as sockpuppetry. In most case, I have clearly marked or referred back my account to the original one and purpose. There has been no intent to "hide" my identity.

The user account Documentingabuse was disallowed, not banned, because it was thought confusingly "official" by Rlevse. I dispute that but ever since, the harassment and provocation by Caspian blue has increased to a ridiculous level adding IP to IP. --118.16.165.249 (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I deleted User talk:222.150.193.35 because it was an attack page. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I just messed up

Resolved

 – Problem fixed.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I moved a user page to a subpage of that user, but also move the talk page (I forgot to uncheck the move talk page box). User talk:Linda Golden/U Card should be moved back to User talk:Linda Golden. Please fix. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 16:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting deletion review

Hi everybody, there is a deletion review here of the AfD for List of problems solved by MacGyver. The arguments seem pretty finely-balanced, and I'm not sure if my decision was correct, so I would appreciate some input from expreienced admins. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Poilspubiens.jpg & bad file list

Resolved

 – Added exception for Bikini waxing on the bad image list for Image:Poilspubiens.jpg

Hi, could someone please remove Image:Poilspubiens.jpg from MediaWiki:Bad image list, or at least allow it to be used on Bikini waxing? It's to be used to illustrate the style of waxing which leaves all hair within the bikini line. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally I don't think an image like that will ever come off the list. I added an exception for now. Next time feel free to make further requests to add exceptions for certain images on the bad image list talk page.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I did, but no one seemed to be paying any attention, and IRC people ignored me. It did say come here on the template. IMO though, the whole idea behind the list is a bit... well, if, and I'm assuming this is the rationale here, nudity = vandalism = bad, there are under 200 images on the list, but probably several thousand such images on commons, so I don't see why it's limited to those particular ones. Moreover, it was my understanding that usage of protection tools was meant to be limited on wikipedia, or rather they should always expire, unless something is in major use. I don't see what about this image is so much worse than all the pictures that aren't page-restricted. Why is this particular image of genitalia more likely to be used in vandalism than any other? -mattbuck (Talk) 03:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Generally, images are only added to the list after they've been used for vandalism. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Appeal of indef block of user:werdnawerdna

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

There was no consensus to remove or reduce the indef block. JodyB _talk 22:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

---

I hereby appeal the indef block of user:Werdnawerdna Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive492. I think that indef blocking this user for user talk page and article talk page rants is excessive. Andries (talk) 12:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI(archive492)Werdnawerdna for faster navigation. Have you raised this matter with the blocking admin, and what was their response is so? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I had not when I posted here, but I have done so now. [34] I do not understand this block and certainly not an indef block. Andries (talk) 13:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This block did not occur solely because of talk page rants. It occurred because of a long pattern of disruptive, negative and intolerant editing covering topics from sexuality, pedophilia, racism, disability, and religion, violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:POV and WP:OR, creating a hostile editing environment, that despite a lengthy and detailed listing of issues, Werdnawerdna did not indicate that he thought there was a problem with his editing and the viewpoints he supported. Defending the use of terms such as quadroon and mulatto as being anthropomorphically correct categorizations is but one example. I would object to even the consideration that the block is excessive and suggest that anyone who does think it excessive actually read everything listed in the original AN case. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The beauty and curse of indefinite blocks is that there needs to be a change of circumstances before an unblock can be considered - it is not a matter of waiting out some time and then resuming as before. If Werdnawerdna were to acknowledge that his previous editing style was inappropriate and contrary to that expected for the encyclopedia (note that I am not suggesting he change his mind, only not to express it in the manner as before) then there may be grounds to reconsider the block - otherwise any unblock will very likely result in further disruptive editing until a new sanction is enacted. It is in Werdnawerdna's hands whether he will be able to edit again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie, I have re-read the archive and I am not impressed. The main reason for blocking, as also indicated by the blocking comments, is talk page rants. An indef block for this is excessive. Andries (talk) 13:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Reading the archive was tiresome but necessary. I am not convinced that the editor ever came to understand the problem and as such was probably headed for indef sooner rather than later. I am convinced that there was no firm consensus for the indef ban/block until after it was made. It seemed a topic ban was at least going to be attempted. Nevertheless the block was made and no one was willing to overturn. Now the question is whether User:Werdnawerdna has asked for this to be brought to AN and if so what he would commit to in terms of reform. If this is not driven by WW I would say no and lets move on. If User:Andries has a message of contrition from the user then lets hear it. JodyB _talk 14:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

A message of contrition for talk page rants? No, I do not have it and do not consider it necessary, but I can ask however. Andries (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Andries, is it you feel that a block was never warranted? Was Werdnawerdna's behavior simply a part of Wikipedia discussion? Do you find anything objectionable at all about his edits? I don't quite understand why you're appealing this. On a related question, does Werdnawerdna have to express how sorry he is then return to normal editing for the block to be overturned? --Moni3 (talk) 14:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it necessary to say sorry, but to acknowledge the concerns and to undertake not to repeat the behaviour that incurred the block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Mere soapboxing on the talk page (which I do not condone) in combination with the constructive edits that Werdnawerdna made is not sufficient for a block, I think. Andries (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Concur with LessHeard vanU. The archived discussion shows clearly that the community was unwilling to tolerate the continued problems from this user and some remedy was certainly forthcoming. I do not think a simple lifting of the block without restraint is approproate here. The user must come to terms with the community norms and standards or else not edit. Did WW ask you to have this block listed? If so what if anything has he acknowledged or agreed to? It is a reasonable question. JodyB _talk 15:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Why did not the contributors simply ignore his talk page rants? Andries (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Very good point - why not ignore stupid remarks from people who have no idea how offensive their ignorance and bias is to the majority of the community. Excellent. I shall start doing right now. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

As long as contributors make constructive edits, I think it is better if other contributors ignore talk page rants. Andries (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) One could ask the same question about virtually any type of obnoxious conduct on non-article pages. At some point, such rants create a sufficiently unpleasant and hostile environment for or other editors that we – the community – need to step in. It appears that a community consensus existed that Werdnawerdna's conduct rose to that level of hostility. It further appears that Werdnawerdna is unable or unwilling to acknowledge that his conduct was problematic, or to undertake to avoid such conduct in the future. Hence, indefinite block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

LHVU is being generous. Homophobic soapboxing is about as welcome as a fart in a space suit, and unless/until the user (who was part of a rangeblock already) agrees to behave in line with community norms then the answer is likely to be a resounding "no". Guy (Help!) 15:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

LHvU is being more than generous, more like downright foolish; I just read the archived discussion and now remember why I didn't comment then - why soil my already frayed sense of the inherent dignity of human kind? I think having Werdnawerdna acknowledge the inappropriate nature of his comments would be required to have the block lifted is fine, because I doubt the block will ever be reversed on that basis. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is a promise~by werdnawerdna to better his or her edits and following Wikipedia guidelines. [35] Andries (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Query for Andries — what prompted you to make this request? Is it on behalf of Werdnawerdna? Has he given any indication that he intends to reform his conduct, beyond the week-old, vague platitudes in his fourth unblock request? Or are we just wasting time here? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I had noticed that werdnawerdna's edits were constructive and I had read s/he was threatened to be blocked (incl. the ANI discussion) and were very suprised that s/he was indef blocked for mere talk page soapboxing. I have to conclude that I do not understand the decisions of the admins (neither intellectually nor empathetically) even though I have been editing Wikipedia for many years. Andries (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see such an experienced editor refer to Werdnawernda's edits as "rants". They're not just rants. They're hateful comments, in some cases directed at other editors in direct violation of WP:NPA and at times violations of WP:BLP, which extends to all areas of the project, not just biographies. Homophobic and racist comments. For anyone reviewing this that has skipped the archive link, the above from Andries is deceiving. It's not simply "talk page rants", it's comments and edit summaries including the following:

• "The above paragraph reads like the propagandistic fantasy of a promiscuous ephebophilic homosexual supremacist."[36] (Direct violation of NPA)
• "The fact that the vast majority of pedophiles are male and that over a third of known victims of pedophilia are male, proves that, among homosexual men, there is a higher incidence of pedophilia, as the large majority of people are straight."[37] (Hateful original synthesis)
• "There are other legitimate concerns which motivate the desire to reduce miscegenation, such as the high rates of criminality and mental illness among mixed race people, particulary mulattoes"[38] (BLP violation; see Mulatto)
• "...She's a quadroon..."[39] (BLP violation; see Quadroon)
• "Improved racism to race, to make it widely inclusive. Most common example of en 'elephant in the room' is the fact that a massively disproportionate number of serious crimes are committed by negroes."[40]
• "Added American Buddhists category: his homo wedding was a Buddhist ceremony."[41] (BLP vio)
• "Added that he was homo, added refs to prove it."[42]
• "Added LGBT from USA category: self-confessed homo."[43] (BLP vio)
• "Added categories: LGBT artists, LGBT from Italy, LGBT writers. Definitely homo"[44]
• "Added that he's probably a homo."[45] (BLP vio)
• "Improved section heading. Added homo? and spouse? queries."[46] (BLP vio)
• "Confirmed he was pro homo-marriage"[47]
• "...He rightly blamed Muslim immigrants and their offspring, especially Pakistanis, because they are disproportionately involved in hard drugs dealing and trafficking in the UK...."[48]

لennavecia 17:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment from the blocking admin: I blocked Werdnawerdna because (s)he was creating a hostile editing environment. This was not mere standard disruption, but the aggressive creation of an environment that any number of reasonable persons would find unpleasant to the point of emotional distress. Your prejudices are your own on Wikipedia, and if you keep them neatly bottled on your side of the screen, I couldn't care less. When you allow it to infect your content and your conduct to the point that Werdnawerdna did, the community, and administrators on behalf of the community has the right and the duty to separate the problem user from the community. As a community, we must protect ourselves. As a community that is writing an encylopedia, we again test and see that Werdnawerdna causes a disruption to the editing environment, and is again unwelcome. Until there is no likely harm against community and editing environment, Werdnawerdna is not welcome here.--Tznkai (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• I suggest we mark this closed. I don't see any likelihood of consensus to unblock a bigot. Guy (Help!) 18:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Law Students for Social Justice AND LSSJ

I created a page 'Law Students for Social Justice'. I then went to the page 'LSSJ' and tried to create a redirection option from there (in addition to an already existing redirection option to 'Super Sayan') to the page 'Law Students for Social Justice'. I was having trouble working it out, and then the page blocked me from doing it with something about a local blacklist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justiceperson (talk • contribs) 04:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Suspected Sockpuppets backlogged

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets seems to have over thirty cases that have not even been looked at. Could a few admins go and check it out? - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 05:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Law Students for Social Justice AND LSSJ

I created a page 'Law Students for Social Justice'. I then went to the page 'LSSJ' and tried to create a redirection option from there (in addition to an already existing redirection option to 'Super Sayan') to the page 'Law Students for Social Justice'. I was having trouble working it out, and then the page blocked me from doing it with something about a local blacklist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justiceperson (talk • contribs) 04:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Suspected Sockpuppets backlogged

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets seems to have over thirty cases that have not even been looked at. Could a few admins go and check it out? - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 05:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Date linking RFC

In an attempt to gain wider community input on an issue which has been in dispute for at least the last three months (and the issue itself been debated for the past two years apparently) I asked that the Date Linking RFC be included in MediaWiki:Watchlist-details. That request was denied because there are two RFCs being conducted at the same time and the administrator who denied the request feared confusion would cause the RFCs to fail. He suggested merging the RFCs together, but the situation at WT:MOSNUM is such that I believe that would be impossible. Please read the following exchange from that administrators talk page:

Here's the breakdown of events over the past week:

• Over a week ago Masem (talk · contribs) suggested creating an RFC as a way forward in the dispute at WT:MOSNUM.
• During that discussion, Masem created an initial draft of the RFC at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC.
• That draft RFC was worked on/edited by numerous participants in the dispute.
• Tony1 (talk · contribs), for reasons only Tony knows, decided to create his own RFC comprised entirely of questions worded by him practically on the eve we had planned to take the other RFC live.
• During the beginning of that RFC we attempted to add some background information about the discussion so far and it was aggressively removed by Tony and his supporters.

For these reasons it's highly unlikely "merging" the RFC would be possible as Tony and his supports seem to believe this is some kind of holy war. An uninvolved admin, Tznkai (talk · contribs), who was alerted to the issue of the spontaneous Tony RFC twice attempted to blank it but was quickly reverted by Tony's supporters. As delisting and closing the other RFC isn't possible, and merging them isn't possible, do you have any suggestions on a way forward so we can get input from the larger community? —Locke Cole • t • c 06:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I wish I could be more helpful, but I'm not really sure how to take care of the situation, either. You may be right that in the end the only thing to do is to go through this farce of having two duplicatory RFC's. Something else needs to be tried first, though. I would ask you to post this issue on WP:AN for more input, since I'm afraid I don't have any brilliant ideas on how to do this. The thing that concerns me is that, if the two RFC's come up with conflicting results, we haven't achieved anything. Even if the RFC's will come out with exactly the same result, it's stupid to ask editors to vote twice on two separate RFCs. I am interested to find out what more senior administrators think on this matter, though, so bringing it up on WP:AN is probably the best idea.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I am asking for input on this to try and salvage this situation (preferably in such a way that we can still use Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC as a discussion area for the wider community and not just regulars of MOSNUM or MOS). —Locke Cole • t • c 10:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The 'first RfC' (by Tony1) is now listed in {{Cent}}. Locke only listed the 'second' for reasons he may care to explain. I have amended the template so that now, the fact that there are two RfCs is made equally clear within the template, and on WT:MOSNUM. The real reason there are two separate RfCs (which has been explained ad nauseum by Tony and me in WT:MOSNUM) is that the one 'in the pipeline' was being bogged down with 'the committee' not being able to prioritise, and hesitating to ask questions in a simple and unambiguous way. The 'second' contains two, maybe three questions are sufficiently unambiguous (or are being rendered unambiguous by the overwhelming responses attracted). However, when the 'second' RfC is ready to close, it will still require a considerable amount of parsing of the finer points which contains a whole spectrum of points and 'wish-lists' to find out exactly what the Consensus is.

The situation was just beginning to calm down, and I feel the above request could certainly have been made without quoting the exchange, which I feel is rather inflammatory: it contains partisan remarks and Cole's usual insinuation of lack of good faith on the part of Tony, as well as apparent justification of blanking or attempted curtailment of an ongoing RfC which Cole's side may have perceived to be a threat. The two RfCs appear to be gathering steam, and I believe the only thing we require further is good amount of publicity. Ohconfucius (talk) 11:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm searching high and low and can only find one such RfC (the one I've participated in). I'm having an attack of the stupids - can someone post the link for the other one, please? --Dweller (talk) 11:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It's at WT:MOSNUM, at the top of the page currently. The one you linked is transcluded into the page as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Got it. --Dweller (talk) 12:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

LC asked, "Has the whole world gone mad?" at WT:MOSNUM. It's the same question asked by wrong-way drivers staring at a long string of headlights fast approaching them on a superhighway – and a nice example of famous last words. What, no gloating allowed? OK, then remove my comment :-)--Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Response by Tony1:

• User Cole has taken a hostile attitude, intensifying over the past month or so, towards the community's decisions at MOSNUM talk against date autoformatting (August 2008), and more generally towards the much older position against the free linking of chronological items (see also WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSLINK); all three are parts of the Manual of Style.
• I first want to extend the hand of wikifriendship to Cole, since nothing is served by the highly emotive environment that has developed at MOSNUM talk. I dearly wish the anger he clearly feels towards me and several other people could be redirected into more productive areas.
• I'd be much more comfortable with a neutral account above. For example, the assertion above "Tony1 (talk · contribs), for reasons only Tony knows, decided to create his own RFC comprised entirely of questions worded by him practically on the eve we had planned to take the other RFC live." could have been expressed as "Tony1 launched an RfC to seek formal input on the dates and links debate practically on the eve we had planned to launch ours, into which much work had gone over an extended period. We felt undermined by this and were upset that there was no warning; we felt that his framing of the changes in the negative, i.e., in terms that we knew he disagreed with, was ingenuous."
  • I would have replied that I had already expressed serious misgivings about the RfC draft that appeared to be taking a long time to develop and had significant problems in wording and structure. I used a "negative" frame because I believe that it is the simplest and most straightforward way of presenting an RfC: in terms of proposals to change existing text in a styleguide. User Masem took me to task shortly after I launched what I considered to be a much more practical, simple RfC that proposed three straightforward changes to MOSNUM; he partially agreed with my concerns about his draft (see MOSNUM talk "Meta-discussion"). I had no idea that the other RfC was within sight of being launched, and had lost interest in following the related discussion because I felt it would achieve nothing. I suspect that had I not taken action, its development would have dragged on for some time, and it would have been much vaguer than it has turned out to be (this vagueness was one of my key criticisms to Masem after I launched mine). I don't mind extremely negative commentary on the RfC itself, but not where it makes wholesale changes to the text and falsifies the process.
  • The second (more detailed) RfC is yielding interesting results. I don't disagree with some of its design, and find serious problems only with the first question (absolutely redundant given mine) and the last question (some people, including me, don't know what it means, but no response on that yet—see the bottom).
• Back to the account above: "During the beginning of that RFC we attempted to add some background information about the discussion so far and it was aggressively removed by Tony and his supporters." No, it was after dozens of responses had been registered for each of the three issues on the basis of the existing text. There have been:
  • (1) sudden additions to the opening text in an attempt to undermine it,
  • (2) several insertions of negative commentary just beneath the original lead, and later above it (in which half of the original lead was split in half and the first sentence rendered hanging at the top as an introduction to a series of objections to the RfC, the rest of my lead in place as originally,
  • (3) the deletion of the whole RfC, and
  • (4) prompt reversions of attempts by me and several other editors to restore the original text and structure that had been the basis for some 80 responses. These reversions were in spite of attempts to explain that those responses had, in effect, been falsified by the changes. The fact that some of what was virtually vandalism of the RfC was conducted by administrators was very disappointing.
• I have pleaded with Cole to avoid personalising the issue and to stop vandalising the upper RfC, to little avail.
• During this period I was unable to visit WP except on fleeting occasions due to extremely heavy work commitments in RL. I'm grateful for the active support of other editors, who have done most of the work in preserving the original RfC.
• I'm not much interested in expending more effort on this ANI section, and hope that Cole does not feel he needs to respond in inflammatory, personalised terms.
• Some two hours ago, in consultation with Ckatz, the one-sided notification at Template:cent has been changed to refer to both, I have inserted an "arrow" to the second RfC after the lead of mine, and there is a note at the top of the ToC announcing both. I don't understand what the problem is. Tony (talk) 12:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with it (and the reason I declined to add both RFCs to the watchlist notices), is that there are now two competing RFCs. Originally I supported the request to post this on the watchlist, because this issue keeps dragging on and on, needing to be settled. However, with two competing RFCs, I don't see what's going to get settled by this. It's like if you had two competing elections for a national president/prime minister. If the results are different, how do you reconcile that? Both sides would claim to be the winner, and you'd have to have another election (and/or revolution) to achieve consistency. So, here's my recommendation: scrap both RFC's for now, and try to at least come to terms with each other enough to determine what questions to ask the community. (Disclosure: I participated in the original discussion that recommended deprecating autoformatting. I was, and still am, in favor of that deprecation.)--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 14:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Valid points, but fortunately, it looks like both are heading to similar conclusions. --Dweller (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't understand why they're being framed as "competing". Tony (talk) 09:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Continued discussion

I propose that we focus on what to do with the watchlist notice instead of producing useless user conduct drama, which I don't care for. By now, both RfCs are ongoing and cannot be usefully merged. But they seem set to reach approximately the same result, so that's not too much of a problem. Why not include a watchlist notice in the vein of: "A discussion about the linking of dates in articles is ongoing. Your input is appreciated." and leave it at that?  Sandstein  14:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If the RFCs really are going to reach the same result, then it appears my fears are unfounded, and I have no objection to the watchlist notification. I was just afraid it was going to be a big inconclusive mess.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 14:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Typically, RFCs last for 30 days in the exception that it is snowballing. In the event of that, would one or two weeks be appropriate for the RFCs to run concurrently? seicer | talk | contribs 15:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if we're just going to let them run as is, I'd prefer that they both run until conclusion. That way, nobody can come back claiming that they lack validity because they were cut short.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, if the RFCs are allowed to continue (note the proposal below suggesting a six month moratorium, which I support) then they should run for a full month (and I would prefer it be a full month from the time they're added to the watchlist notice). —Locke Cole • t • c 02:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• It's hard to predict how long they should run for. Best to revisit in a week or two. Tony (talk) 09:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Greg L

This is a dispute by two camps. Tony et al. (which I happen to be part of) don’t want date linking or autoformatting. Apparently now, 90+% of editors are in this camp too. The other camp has a differing point of view and dominated the discussions when formulating their RfC. As often happens with work product of a committee that must meet divergent views—the wording of proposals gets watered down. Tony clearly didn’t like what was being considered. I took a hands-off approach during that committee effort. Once they finally posted it to MOSNUM, I could see why Tony didn’t like it. So…

Tony, as correctly stated above, posted a very succinct RfC that cut to the chase: three binary questions that asked the user community “Which wording do you want on MOSNUM(?): {this} wording or {that} wording. As you can also see, the community response to that RfC has been enthusiastic and overwhelmingly in favor of getting rid of autoformatting. And notwithstanding all the theatrics and fainting of the complaintants, Tony didn’t pull a “Boston tea party” and throw their tea in the harbor; he built his own ship and stocked it with his own tea. That his ship has its decks crowded with visitors speaks volumes to the virtues of its simplicity.

The behavior of the anti-Tony crowd has been simply atrocious. One editor green-div’d the section (declaring it an archive) after only 14 hours of voting. Tznkai then Two admins (Ckatz and Tznkai) collaborated to deleted the entire RfC and all its votes! I fully intend to come back here and see to it that Ckatz, who Tznkai up to the “dirty work” (or both) is blocked and has his admin-privileges revoked. Their behavior there has been absolutely outrageous. It doesn’t matter how unwise he thinks the wording of Tony’s RfC is, his deletion had the effect of throwing away the votes and opinions of dozens of editors.

The behavior of Locke Cole has also been outrageous, and his coming here to complain doesn’t surprise me in the least. He was extraordinarily tendentious and disruptive by inserting debate and {I dispute this, the voting is invalid} comments into the RfC’s hat statement, as well as other stunts like archiving it after only 14 hours of voting. My response to all these provocations has been one simple message: “The proper response to bad speech is better speech. It doesn’t matter if you think Tony’s RfC is incomplete or flawed; scores of editors have voted on it and continue to do so. Stop molesting it, deleting it, archiving it after 14 hours, suggesting that everyone is now a disenfranchised voter and their votes are meaningless and new voters are wasting their votes because the RfC is invalid, and otherwise acting like children, and just go start your own RfC; if it’s fairly worded, the outcome will be the same anyway.”

What is very important is that we get this issue of date linking/autoformatting settled once and for all. It has raged for months, if not years. Since the voting on both RfCs is going in a highly parallel manner, the two RfCs are not mutually exclusive. We need to be able to let both run out for what we now agreed will be two weeks (at least in the case of Tony’s RfC) and we need the RfCs (or at least Tony’s) to be properly spotlighted in the proper places (watchlist notice) so we recruit the greatest amount of input from editors. After this is all over and the MOSNUM guidelines call for deprecating autoformatted dates, editors will undoubtedly come to MOSNUM with their hair on fire over how their blue dates are no longer blue. We need to be able to point to the RfC archive and unblinkingly and correctly say “this was properly and fully discussed and the consensus was clear.” Please let Tony’s RfC go forward and please instruct complaintant’s party to leave Tony’s RfC alone and stop posting declarations about lack of validity, which are clearly intended to inhibit voting. We need the greater input, not less. Greg L (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Ckatz

When I first saw Tony1's post here, I considered replying, but thought it best not to risk further inflaming the situation. However, I cannot let Greg's comment go without a rebuttal, as aspects of it are a) outright distortions of the truth, and b) in conjunction with Tony1's post, a demonstration of what has been happening on the MoS page. (Note: it should be clear that I'm commenting on this as an editor, not an admin, due to my involvement in the MoS discussions and the fact that Tony, Greg and I do not see eye to eye.)

Greg's outrageous claim that Tznkai and I "collaborated" is further compounded by the fact that Greg has already made this accusation elsewhere and has been told that it is untrue. Tznkai - whom I've never met or even heard of before this - has already told Greg that he came to MoS of his own accord, having seen the issue arise on the ANI board, and that Greg was mistaken in accusing me. I have also made it clear to Greg that I did not "contact" Tznkai, and that I did not have any part in the deletion of the RfC (here and here, among others). Another editor even went so far as to contact Greg (on Greg's talk page) to say that Greg had made a mistake, and that he should apologize. Greg also acknowledged - when I challenged his error - that he could not be bothered to study the talk page before making his mistaken accusation ("I don’t want to go through the history and figure out who did what."). And yet, despite all of that, he insists on further perpetuating the lie.

As for Tony1's response above, I'm not going to justify Locke's actions. However, Tony is not the "white knight" protecting an RfC (and MoS) under attack that he might wish others to believe. The dysfunctional situation at MOSNUM is far more complex than that, and I'd only ask that anyone responding to his comment above consider it in light of the recent talk page contributions and edit summaries of all parties involved in this mess. There have been far too many instances of uncivil comments, unsupported accusations and threats, and other such incidents. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

And you're not the devil incarnate vandalising it. Tony (talk) 13:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Rebuttal and apology

Oh, jeez Ckatz, chill out and close the valves on your verbal flamethrower. [49] You’re an admin?!? No, I didn’t lie. But I was mistaken about the facts and do owe you an apology. Why was I mistaken? Because of how Tznkai explained why he deleted the whole RfC. He wrote [50] “I was responding to an AN/I report from another admin who said that this whole conversation was spiraling out of control…” I thought he was saying that he was responding to a request from you (“another admin”). I’m very sorry for not understanding the proper facts and have struck the offending text. It was Tznkai who exercised atrocious judgement for an admin; you just don’t delete an RfC with dozens of votes. It was a knee-jerk reaction but he did allow me to revert it. So I don’t have a problem with him or you. Greg L (talk) 03:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Greg, I'm not sure where the confusion could come from, given our conversation from two days ago where I stated that I had not requested assistance from anyone. However, I do appreciate the retractions you've left here and on my talk page and am quite willing to consider this closed. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Very well. No hard feelings. My fault. Greg L (talk) 06:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, what now?

Disregarding the "second" RfC, there are the following serious (IMO) concerns with Tony's.

1. His statements as to the "status quo" are disputed
   1. That the consensus present text reads "Linking: Dates (years, months, day and month, full dates) should not be linked, unless there is a reason to do so."
   2. That "any proposal to allow the linking/autoformatting of only dates of birth and death would require a change to the following requirement in MOSNUM, and is not under consideration in this RfC: "Dates in article body text should all have the same format.""

   Hence, if there is not consensus about those, then the RfC is seriously flawed.

2. He's opposed to the proposed changes, so that the significance of a consensus for "oppose" would be unclear, except that the specific wording is opposed.

If there is a consensus established, what would it mean? I can see there would be a consensus that autoformatting is generally bad, but not really that it should never be used, except for a strained interpretation of "Dates in article body text should all have the same format."

I think we'll need yet another RfC, with undisputed wording, and with Mediawiki:Watchlist notice, to confirm the results. If Tony would rescind his RfC and reissue it with only undisputed text, then only the second concern would be a problem, and we could establish consensus about something. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That's too confused for me to follow. But what we do not need is a third RfC and associated drama. Two RfCs on this subject are quite enough.  Sandstein  21:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid we probably do need a third RfC, as neither RfC supports the assertion that all year and day-of-year links should be removed, which Lightbot and company were claiming as supported by the current MOSDATE. The proponents of bot unlinking still do not have consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

See Carnildos proposal below, that seems to be a better way forward (even if it does delay an outcome to the dispute). —Locke Cole • t • c 03:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Please explain that reasoning Arthur. By my read of Tony’s RfC, it is clear that the consensus is that dates shouldn’t be linked to trivia, that autoformatting is worthless and undesireable, and that bot activity doesn’t require another wave of voting for permission to go about whatever bots do. Greg L (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about RfC2/Q2; if it doesn't show at least a weak consensus against ever autoformatting, it suggests that enough tags be left so that autoformatting can be done later. RfC1, as the "changes" are opposed to the proposer, doesn't imply anything more than it says. And RfC2/Q4 shows, at the moment, a weak consensus in favor of sometimes linking raw years, in spite of your assertion that there's a consensus against it. If either of those holds up as the "final" consensus, then mass-unlinking is not supported by consensus. RfC1/Q3 is not relevant, as there then wouldn't be a consensus for mass-unlinking. But I agree that both RfCs should run at least a month after being put in the watchlist-notice, and we'll see what happens. If consensus is established in RfC2 that autoformmating is never desired, and RfC2/Q3 and RfC2/Q4 have a consensus for never linking, then the bot should go ahead. Otherwise, not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• RfC1 shows only that Tony thinks that all of those are the case; we'd have to look at the individual "oppose" statements to see if the other editors support it. The wording he chose is not appropriate to support those assertions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

Voter exhaustion is a major problem here: with all the drama that's been going on around MOSNUM and date linking, uninvolved editors are staying far away from the subject, leaving only those with entrenched views -- hardly an environment conducive to solving problems. I propose the following:

1. A moratorium on date linking. Anyone caught linking or de-linking a date in the next six months gets a six-month ban.
2. A moratorium on MOSNUM date drama. Anyone bringing the subject up in the next six months gets a six-month ban.
3. After six months, a totally uninvolved editor is roped into running an RfC to see what the community consensus on the matter is.

--Carnildo (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh hello ... the community is speaking very clearly that it does not want date autoformatting. Are you going out to catch people implementing both the existing wording at MOSNUM, MoS, MOSLINK and CONTEXT, and adhering to the overwhelming consensus against DA expressed in both RfCs? What you're proposing smells of the Stalinist state, and is entirely impractical. Thousands of people delink (and link, unfortunately, because they see linking elsewhere). Going to arrest them all? Creating a square-brackets police force? Tony (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You lost me at "Stalinist state". —Locke Cole • t • c 14:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. Many people (presumably not only those with entrenched views) are now participating at the two RfCs now underway at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), and preliminary results at both RfC indicate a clear consensus that the linking of dates is to become (or remain) deprecated. We should just leave these RfCs to run their course and evaluate them when they're done. If they arrive at the same conclusion, as seems likely, neither side will have much to complain about in terms of procedure, I should think.  Sandstein  21:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The community is now participating fully in both RfCs and seems to be making a very clear statement in both. Throwing away this input after so many editors have gone to so much trouble to gather it would be deeply unwise. I oppose Carnildo's proposal completely. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Sandstein & TimVickers; the two RfCs should be continued to their natural conclusions. It's unliklely they'll bring differing results that conflict, but if they do, that will have to be resolved. If their results are in harmony, that will provide and even stronger indication of consensus and would be helpful in referencing when questions come up later. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's let it run its course then. It's clear that the preliminary results indicate a clear consensus that the linking of dates is to remain (or become) depreciated. Evaluate the results at the end, but ending the RFC prematurely will only stir additional drama and we'll be back here in another two weeks. seicer | talk | contribs 23:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I said this on the RFC, and it probably bears repeating where someone will read it, deprecated does not mean "removed as fast as possible." Even if there is consensus that date linking be "deprecated" that is not the same thing as agreeing with a bot to go and delink every link. Mr.Z-man 04:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

A cooling down period on this wouldn't be a bad idea considering all that's gone on for the past few weeks. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Seicer, anything that—in the end—allows MOSNUM regulars to point to the vote and say with a straight face that it was done per all procedures with fair notice at all the proper bulletin boards is fine by me. I just want it to be over. We’ve had a horrible, long-running experience with a couple of editors over “IEC prefixes” (words like “kibibyte” rather than “kilobyte”) and they endlessly complain that there “was no consensus” for deprecating the IEC prefixes. If Lightmouse gets busy with his Lightbot and automates the process of “de-bluing” dates, then a small army of editors will come to MOSNUM with a WTF reaction. They will with-out-a-doubt complain that they weren’t consulted. There’s little consolation when these editors hear “sorry, we thoroughly discussed this, but you missed out and it’s settled.” It really would be fabulous if everything has been done fully and by the book and that every editor has been given the maximum available notice to participate in the latest vote. Greg L (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • As Arthur rightly notes above neither RFC would give Lightmouse (or any other editor) blanket permission to unlink dates. All that's been discussed so far is deprecating linked dates, and as far the second RFC seems to be leaning away from a system where all date links would be bad (which by definition would preclude removing them in an automated fashion). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• This debate will just go on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on: At this stage, it is already clear what consensus is being formed at the RfC. It is also clear from statements above that some editors will never accept the outcome. These "conscientious objectors" are likely to try to win by inflicting extreme boredom. 202.123.64.42 (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Ix-nay to Carnildo's proposal above. Let the RfCs run their course (by now, it could be argued that all three of Tony's questions can be WP:SNOW closed). I foresee some trouble ahead when it comes to tallying the responses to the other RfC. The authors made the mistake of not proposing exactly what wording they want in the MOSNUM. Figuring that out – transforming the responses into new MOSNUM verbiage – still lies ahead. My personal preference would be for the second RfC to be junked on these grounds, but I do not foresee many editors agreeing with me and so I am not seriously proposing it.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 10:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't snow close things that have been this disputed in less than a week, especially when the wider community still isn't even aware there are RFCs over this issue. Given the dualing nature of the RFCs and the fact that most of those opposing in Tony's RFC seem unaware of the current situation re: date formatting (note many of the comments) it's clear to me that Carnildo's approach would be the ideal one for all involved. Also Goodmorningworld, I'm sorry you dislike the wording of the second RFC, perhaps you should have weighed in while it was being discussed? Certainly it didn't seem to be an issue for the dozen or so editors who participated in it's development. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe you (Locke) and User:Carnildo are used to coitus interruptus, but I suspect "pulling out" would incur the wrath of the over 50 people who have partaken in the RfC so far, as well as perhaps countless others who have not yet commented. When I suggested snowing the debate, I did so in jest responding to your cry to close it after the attempt to blank it failed. Strange volte-face from you. Oh, sorry, you only wanted to close Tony's RFC! How daft of me for forgetting... It is on record that I did participate in commenting while the second RFC off the starting block, but Masem rejected my suggestions because he wanted the RfC to consider all the options. I also know any attempts to change any of the text would have been reverted and attracted protests for attempting to spoil it, so I only commented. I always have a good laugh reading the "camel" you created, I don't blame you for being a bit sore seeing the horse tony built - speeding away and sending a very clear message. Arriving at a consensus based on the responses received in the second RfC will be long and drawn out. Good luck finding the outcome you were looking for! Ohconfucius (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• And you lost me at "camel". —Locke Cole • t • c 14:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd guess it's a reference to the expression, "A camel is a horse designed by a committee". --Dweller (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Precisely. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Signpost?

If we could get a prominent mention of the RfCs into the Signpost, that'd help ensure the widest possible participation and the lowest possible "WTF" effect if in a few weeks bots start running removing bluelinks from dates. --Dweller (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The best method would be what I've suggested before either RFC was launched: put a notice in MediaWiki:Watchlist-details. On the talk page (MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details) there's a message with links to both RFCs ready to go, an admin just needs to edit the interface message. That would get far more exposure than being included in the Signpost (not to say doing that also wouldn't help, it would, but I think it's a given that far more people would see the watchlist notice). —Locke Cole • t • c 14:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link - I'll go discuss it there, but FWIW, I disagree with that proposal and still believe Signpost is a good idea. --Dweller (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The consensus is: no consensus

One thing that is obvious to me is that there is no consensus. Therefore there should be no widespread linking or delinking, the parties should go away and talk until they come closer to agreement. This ridiculously escalated dispute over a matter of unbelievable triviality has become farcical and disruptive. No votes, that is just a way of trying to replace lack of consensus with mob rule, let's see if they can't identify what the hell it is they can't agree on and fix it. And if they can't fix it, just delete the damn page and leave people to get on with business. MOS wars are the lamest of the lame with a side order of lame. And some lame for afters. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• FWIW I agree and I wouldn't have bothered with participating were it not for the fact that people were using WP:MOSNUM as an excuse to delink all dates in thousands of articles via automated means (see Lightbot (talk · contribs), Date delinker (talk · contribs), etc). This is also why I supported Carnildo's proposal above (the cooling off/ban of linking/delinking). —Locke Cole • t • c 00:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• I think the above two posts are beyond absurd. I see now that well-known terminology like “clear, wide-spread consensus of the user community” has been replaced by terminology like “mob rule.” Other than some unhelpful, uhm… *intervention* by Locke Cole, wherein he archived a competing RfC after only 14 hours of comments, the behavior of editors who are actually responding to the RfCs has been extraordinarily civil and peaceful.

  Other than the fact that the general consensus is clearly contrary to the wishes of some proponents of one of the RfCs, there is no reason in the world to call a halt to it all (in the name of a “cooling off period”). Such requests amount to nothing more than wikilawyering and are a clear attempt to circumvent the clear will of the user community. I could use some other analogies here to express what I really think of such tactics. Such analogies would use words like “censorship” and would mention “China.” Notwithstanding that this would be my fair and honest opinion of these tactics, I would no-doubt be accused of “failing to assume good faith” and “engaging in personal attacks.” Perhaps these words accurately convey my thoughts: the above two posts and this thread’s section title of “The consensus is: no consensus” are pure bull shit. (indeed, that conveys my sentiments very precisely). Greg L (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Ugh.. please read WP:CIV. Especially in light of comments like this. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• A link to “whine-fest”? I can’t think of a more appropriate term to describe your behavior and arguments. I’ve read WP:CIV. I’m pointing out the serious shortcomings of your absurd arguments. Watching Tznkai delete Tony’s RfC and watching you try to archive it after 14 hours (both, bald-faced attempts to silence talk you disagreed with) and your endless sniping about how it is all meaningless is extraordinarily childish behavior. So perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. There—I did it again—I attacked your *behavior*, not you as a person. Greg L (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Or try ad hominem since apparently you're not understanding WP:CIV. I'll note you've already received responses regarding the issues you're raising, but apparently you like to repeat your grievances everywhere you go. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The RFCs are getting a lot of !votes and comments. (Well over a hundred editors.) The first RFC and some sections of the second RFC show that date linking is very much out of favor. Some sections of the second RFC appear to have been designed for open ended discussion and are unlikely to produce a consensus. Linking for date autoformatting is failing by more than 25 to 1. Linking of years and other dates is strongly opposed but some would allow it to be used "rarely", "very rarely", "very, very rarely" or "very, very, very rarely". The RFCs are working and will show that most issues have a consensus and a few details have to be revisited. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 04:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank God these discussions are evaluated not based on counting noses, but by weighing the various arguments. So far, arguments justifying date & year linking (e.g., in cases of dates of birth & death) have received no responses -- unless blanket dismissals like "links to dates are useless" can be considered to be adequate refutations. -- llywrch (talk) 07:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at the discussions - and you're wrong, I can see why Gene Poole deleted your comment as it is seriously misleading. But on the other hand, I wouldn't have chimed in there otherwise perhaps! dougweller (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Cabal?

I would like to bring your attention to this:

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Micronations#WP:MICROCON

I am unfamiliar with the protocol regarding elevation of pov essays to "official guideline" status, but I can see clear WP:CANVASS and WP:DEMOCRACY issues here. Which groups of lunatics are allowed to run which bits of this lovely asylum we call 'Wikipedia'? --Mais oui! (talk) 06:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Not yours, obviously. --Gene_poole (talk) Today, 03:53 am (UTC-5)

Editing frequency

Some new stats on Wikipedia editing frequencies for the curious: Wikipedia:Editing frequency. Dragons flight (talk) 10:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:BEANS

Resolved

 – Local copy is protected. — CharlotteWebb 11:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:AngloZanzibarWar.jpg needs protection - and the main page needs purging somehow, since it should have gone back to the real image immediately upon reverting. --NE2 04:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It's already cascade-protected. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it's on Commons. --NE2 07:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I uploaded a local copy, so it should be protected by the cascading protection now. WODUP 07:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Request closure of old sockpuppet report

Resolved

 – Report closed.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Can an admin officially close Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mdsummermsw? It was a spurious allegation made over nine months ago by a real sockpuppeteer as retaliation for the genuine allegations against her. It never went anywhere because of the utter implausibility and obvious retaliatory motive behind the allegation, but I'd appreciate if the case could be officially closed by an uninvolved party. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 08:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)]

 Done--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Motion: re SlimVirgin

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

The discussion was completed. JodyB _talk 12:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

---

The motions above have been closed at the request of the Arbitration Committee. By motion, administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, no enforcement action relating to Giano's civility parole shall be taken without the explicit written agreement of the Committee, and SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) is desysopped for a period of six months. The final text of the discussion and motions can be found at the link above.

— Coren ^(talk), for the Arbitration Committee, 18:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• No wheel-warring over arbitration enforcement is good, no blocking Giano without consulting the arbs first is waaaay overdue. How dare the ArbCom undermine the drama potential of Wikipedia like this? Fie on them! Or something. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not no wheel-warring - that was already forbidden. This is new: no undoing any admin action taken to enforce an arbitration ruling. And of course, SlimVirgin is desysopped for unblocking Giano, and it's now forbidden to block Giano. What this means in practice, we'll see. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually it only says no blocking Giano to enforce his civility parole. Other than that, Giano is subject to blocks for disruption, vandalism (not that he ever has), or civility just as any other user is.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Wait--it says "no blocking Giano to enforce his civility parole", but "...(he) is to blocks for...civility just as any other user is" ??? Am I being dense here, or do these two clauses contradict each other thoroughly? If this IS a loophole, it's big enough to drive a busload of Wikilawyers through...GJC 13:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No, as I understand it, if I turn up uninvited on you talk page and say "Gladys, you are a fool, beacuse you don't find me attractive" then I can be blocked by anyone because that is general uncalled for invicility. However, if I turn up on an Arbs page and say "XXXX, you really do talk the most hypocritical crap I have ever heard and guess what I am going to say next" then the Arbs must race each other to block me because no-one else can. Then no-one else can unblock me, no matter how much they agree with me, or want to know what I may say next. Is that right? Giano (talk) 13:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this, and my understanding is as follows; no blocks for violation of civility under ArbCom Enforcement without ArbCom approval - therefore if you believe he is being uncivil you can either request permission of ArbCom or you can warn Giano, and if he continues you issue a final warning, and then if he violates the policy you can issue a block. The same warning structure applies for all other policy violations (as it would for any other miscreant editor). It is messy, but it may mean that blocks - certainly those without warnings - of Giano will not cause the drama they have because they need to be tested first, or at least Giano will need to disregard or not contest (or have contested on his behalf) various warnings. If the conditions are met then any block should not be contestable, and the circumstances that lead to SlimVirgins desysop will not occur. It isn't pretty, and it remains to be seen if it is workable. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Well of course that is very complicated, perhaps someone who knows for sure would be kind enough to pop up on my page and explain it. I wonder though, was SV de-sysoped for unblocking me - or is there another reason such as hurting the "Arb" FT2's pride or just annoying him, was it that she has annoyed the Arbcom in general over a log period of time or another reason all together. In the era of tyranny and oppression that now prevails, these things cannot be explained. I for one shall doubly bolt my door and hang out the garlic as darkness falls tonight. Giano (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You do that. It might protect you from hyperbole. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Giano, all ya gotta do is be civil in your comments. That way, ya avoid being blocked. At least ya haven't been using any of George Carlin's 7-words. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

To my reading it parses as "for glod's sake, people, use a bit of intelligence!" - the repeated Gianodrama is by now acutely unfunny. It is obvious to everyone that, to take the most charitable interpretation, the terms of the parole are not being interpreted as they were meant, so leave it to the arbs to interpret it in future. That seems fair to me. In my view, Giano is simply abrupt with some people, and many of those people just need to get over it, since in the real world there are people whose approach to being "corrected" by those who manifestly know vastly less about something than they do is waaaay more tetchy than Giano's. As long as everybody thinks of things in terms of the product, which is an encyclopaedia not a social network, then there should be no problem. And if anyone has a problem with Giano they can usually talk to Bishonen about it and Bish will give sound advice or ask Giano to calm down. I have always really struggled to see why this is a problem. I don't think any of the sitting arbs are the kind of people who would be inclined to block Giano for venturing an opinion on the soundness of their judgement in any given case, either. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Well civility, humour and truth are a very mixed race. Would you like me to behave like an American, a German, a Briton or an Italian, or just generally tow the line and genuflect to the Arbcom no matter what their antics are? Now rumour has it, that FT2 is going to stand for re-election - dare we hope it is true? Giano (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahem, I think you'll find it's toe the line... Anyway, this is a pertinent comment. Remember that Giano is not American and does not have English as his first language. His English is astoundingly good, but his cultural background is absolutely not as the US, and the ore closely I work with my American colleagues the more puzzled I am about some things - some Americans will react with horror if you use a cuss word but think nothing of carrying handguns in the streets. Vive la difference, as they say. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll tell you what, I won't cuss on their streets, if they don't wear handguns on mine. But do we allow both,or neither, on wikipedia?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh, Guy, in 50 years of living in the US the only people I can remember seeing carrying handguns in the streets are police officers. Anyone else producing a firearm, AFAICS, will be regarded with an understandable amount of shock & surprise. US culture is far more complex than that. -- llywrch (talk) 07:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

"Outside their pants" is the key qualifier here, and has unhelpfully been omitted. — CharlotteWebb 12:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia wants to pretend to be cosmopolitan and intelectual, but actually have the social mores of a small town in the back of beyond. This extends to going so far as wanting to bury something that is distatsteful - the truly imoral flourish in such environments, it is their breeding ground. Giano (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that we end this discussion as there is likely nothing useful that can come of it. Maybe when can all just step away and work on an article. JodyB _talk 23:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

...as they say in the outback. Giano (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Meh, articles are overrated, and they tend to distract from the important things. (Oh I love typing in archive boxes too.)--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Articles related to Mumbai Attacks

There are at least three AfDs underway on articles related with recent attacks (1, 2, 3). Two of these AfDs are already crowded with first time and anon users. There is a host of articles being created related to or stemming from these attacks. Many of these articles are those of victims who weren't particularly notable prior to this event. Here's a list of articles created within last three days, mostly as a result of this event. The list is probably incomplete.

• Leopold Cafe
• Ralph Burkei
• Black Tornado Redirected.
• Vijay Salaskar (AfD discussion)
• Ashok Kamte
• Deccan Mujahideen (AfD discussion)
• Cama Hospital
• Sandeep Unnikrishnan (AfD discussion)
• Michael Rudder
• Andreas Liveras (AfD discussion)
• Hemant Karkare
• Havaldar Gajender Singh

With majority of above articles stemming from a single event, there's a likelihood that most of these articles would be marked for deletion sooner or later. I am posting this here as a possible precursor to results of such deletion discussions. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 17:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• It will be easier if you wait a week or so, then start nominating the non-notable articles for AfD after much of the excitement about them has died down. Cla68 (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Or start a merge discussion - certainly on some of the BLP articles. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

For our most active supporters, I would suggest that they consider helping on the smaller foreign language wikis, especially ones for the region. It might give them a real outlet for their energy and would really help expand on universe of knowledge. The Hindi article seems to be going well, but other smaller languages could always use their help. Better to be the big fish in the small pond sometimes, I guess. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Conversely, it would be good to have some more established Wikipedia editors participating in the current AFD discussions. Please pay particular attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandeep Unnikrishnan#finding, citing, reading, and evaluating sources, where some of the results of my pushing quite hard for the novice editors to cite sources can now be found. Please show the single-purpose accounts and novice editors how established Wikipedia editors will have a proper AFD discussion, focussed upon looking for, citing, reading, and evaluating sources in terms of their independence, provenance, reliability, and depth. Uncle G (talk) 01:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Cla68's point that deletion (or merger) discussion should begin after the event's heat has slightly died down. It is obviously one of the most prominent event not only in terms of local media but also international media and gathering a lot of notice at the moment. Putting related articles on AfD at this moment would result on discussions such as this one, where the idea of a focused debate has completely vanished. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 04:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

These article creations are exactly the kind of thing wikipedia needs, especially given our lop sided coverage of UK/US at the expense of the rest of the world, including India. I ma baffled as to what this thread is doing here, well done to all those doing this addition work. Telling people top edit in other languages is not only offensive but shows a complete lack of understanding of India. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Another one under AfD now. There either needs to be some sort of injunction on creation of such AfDs or a speedy decline. This sort of thing would only add to the chaos that is already present in one of the discussions. Such AfD nominations are leading unfortunate comments and other AfDs set out in a way to make a point. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 18:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Matildas!

Hello admins! Recently the new user The Quill has moved around Empress Matilda, Matilda, Duchess of Saxony and Matilda of England (among others). Leaving the fact that he didn't discuss first aside, the problem is that he did cut-and-paste moves rather than using the move function. Would someone mind terribly cleaning up the edit histories? Cheers! DBD 14:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Best place for this in future is Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Stifle (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Appeal of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman

Ease of editing section break

This is also posted to the Arbcom page. However, this case was handled so badly by the arbcom, that I would like a parallel community re-evaluation. Thank you. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

A few months ago, Newyorkbrad encouraged me to open a new request related to the core of this case, but the wounds were too raw, and I was unable to set out my evidence calmly at that time, so delayed.

I ask that we reopen the matter now.

In this case, the arbcom, while I was suffering from severe depression, illness, and on the verge of nervous breakdown from the monetary situation at the time - I was literally faced with being homeless - opened a case with no prior dispute resolution - I had never had so much as an RfC on me - and chose me to be a test case. In the end, combined with the other events, this forced me to drop out of university. I left Wikipedia over it, and it was only the active, constant encouragement of User:Newyorkbrad, User:Durova and a few others that brought me back after several months.

A sitting arbitrator launched a campaign of harrassment throughout the case pages, unchecked by the other arbitrators. Here are some samples. This all took place over a single bad block, made two months before the Arbcom case was opened.

In the initial lead in to the case, I had offered to let Charles Matthews take over the block, in e-mail, because there was no way that I could review it competently at that point in time. He said that was "not good enough", so I put it up on ANI.

Charles Matthews specifically says at one point that my refusal to simply to defer to his judgement is why he opened this case and pushed so hard for my desysopping:

Bear in mind, please, my approach. I intended to get Vanished user to correct this mistake, voluntarily, in such a way as could appear a personal realisation that something had not been right, something had been excessive. In such a way that no review process had been needed. An admin had reconsidered an indef block, had read the log - "gosh, that was too strong - a month is enough - didn't mean to put it that way". Unblocks, leaves a Talk page note to MH. Vanished user and I would have had a little secret. End of story: MH might have left the site, but the matter would have ended in no fanfare. Why do we have a test case? For precisely this reason: the indef block was made in such a way as to obstruct this entirely humane and non-accusatory private review, discussed as between colleagues. Now, I would treat the next bad block just the same way: private email; talk page note, "did you have a mail from me?", no topic mentioned; another private mail, saying more clearly waht the issue is; another private mail asking for attention to the matter; a further mail saying you really ought to give this some attention, and, no, we should talk before you take this to any forum. Tell me, please, whether I'm not acting in the interests of everyone? As opposed to - I start an AN/I thread saying "Vanished user blocked badly here, and here's my case", and we get an adversarial discussion. Charles Matthews 21:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[N.B. I used to edit under my real name. I will be censoring it wherever it appears, and would ask that if anyone mentions it that it be immediately deleted]

As he did not get my consent immediately (though I did unblock in the end), Charles Matthews then launched a campaign of harassment against me, using the power of the Arbitration committee to harass without fear of rebuttal. A complete read through of the case pages would be necessary to see this in full, so I'll just give a couple typical comments by Charles.

• Really, I'm upset now. This is just crap we are listening to about how the admin bit makes you a demigod, and it is death to become an ordinary mortal once more. I can't think legalistically about all this. I came here to Wikipedia to write articles, not to deal with moral pygmies. Too right I can't AGF of the AN/I shower. Charles Matthews 21:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC) (and that in response to an appeal by Carcharoth that he calm down!)

• No doubt you do object. I have highlighted quite a number of misleading statements you have made. You're hardly coming across the truthful, conscientious, responsive type. You just pass the buck and excuse yourself, endlessly. "Harsh" is interesting - very interesting indeed; but you will have due process, and a chance to defend yourself. (You indefinitely banned a user by saying "good point" to a load of old rubbish.) And User:Jehochman has it wrong. Prevention of further misuse of admin powers is the idea, rather than punishment. Charles Matthews 19:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

His harassment was not devoted to me, he also referred to other editors in the same over-the top terms:

• At best User:Moreschi regards policy as an inconvenience for admins. And User:Jehochman here is a meddling hypocrite, at best.

To quote MastCell's response to the last:

“ Since this case seems to be focusing an unusually intense magnifying glass on the minor failings of everyone even peripherally involved (see Chaser above), it seems fair to note that describing an established, good-faith editor as a "meddling hypocrite, at best" is remarkably poor conduct for anyone involved in an arbitration, much less an sitting Arbitrator. Unless that makes me a meddling hypocrite as well. MastCell Talk 18:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

... and really. Describing someone as a "busybody" and a "meddling hypocrite" for voicing an opinion on a block at WP:AN/I? What sort of message are we aiming for here? MastCell Talk 18:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

”

However, Charles did not act alone, he was aided and abbetted by the other arbitrators, who actively defended his right to harrass me:

• "Let's try and leave Charles Matthews out of this. He's recused. The case isn't about him, at least not to me." - Uninvited Company, 20 December.

• "You've missed UC's point, I think. The issue at hand is what to do about Vanished user, not what to do about Charles. And, as an aside, I can't imagine any reasonable editor thinking that Charles needs anything done about him. Paul August ☎ 18:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)"

Furthermore, the arbitrators were clearly not interested in anything I had to say in my defense: The case opened on 17:40, 2 December 2007 [51]. Within 13 hours of this, and before I had had the chance to provide a single word of evidence in my defense, Uninvited Company set out proposed decisions saying my statements were not borne out by the facts, to sanction Chaser for not having unblocked Matthew Hoffman, and to suggest I be desysopped.

The problems with this case have been pointed out for several months, but the Arbcom have refeused to deal with it, even to simply remove the harrassing comments by Charles Matthews.

A proposal I made during the case that I be desysopped immediately, in exchange for the case stopping, because of the health and RL problems being severely aggravated by having this case going on as well, was rejected by the Arbcoim in favour of dragging it out, coninuing the case, then opening an RFC. However, in July, the personal details I had volunteered in an attempt to get them to agree to my proposal were thrown back in my face:

"Since the full circumstances of the de-sysopped user were disclosed to the AC in confidence, the only appropriate way for this user to regain the tools is to convince the AC – the only group of users with full knowledge of the situation – that the circumstances have changed such that we have confidence in his ability to handle adminship without problems." - Morven, on WP:RFAR, 23:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC), seconded by Kirill.

The arbcom have very consciously put me in a situation where only a full discussion of my private problems will prevent them from using them to say that the community is unable to comment on my situation, and that they should have the sole right to discuss what should be done with me. I do not trust myself to comment on their behaviour regarding that matter. Suffice to say that when I DID make a disclosure of some of the health problems of that time, e-mails I received from them afterwards criticised me for not being detailed enough, because I had still wished to maintain some sense of privacy.

Other users have agreed that there are problems with this case:

“ At this juncture I wish to remind the Committee it has been my opinion for many months that the Matthew Hoffman case was the worst-handled arbitration I have ever seen, and rather than remedy any of its numerous errors the Committee appears intent upon compounding them. Hollow apologies mean little; I would like to see for starters Charles Matthews withdraw the repeated personal attacks he posted to the case pages. Ideally you ought to be vacating this case because it was requested in a non-emergency situation with no prior attempt at dispute resolution--thus outside your mandate.

Virtually the only other recent case that closed with a prohibition on RFA was the Alkivar case; the off-wiki evidence regarding Alkivar was entirely or almost entirely my own submission and I assembled it from public records. I have been never been under any pledge of confidentiality regarding that material. Until now I have chosen to handle it with discretion because of its sensitive nature; that does not oblige me to remain silent. DurovaCharge! 23:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

”

Likewise Raymond arrit et al, Filll, and numerous others, see the last third of the Proposed decision talk page.

I do not care about getting my adminship back, and I accept that the block was incorrect. However, for my own mental health, I want to put this behind me. Likewise, the campaign of harassment is a blight on the arbcom, and I ask the arbcom to vacate it, in full. As it stands, this case remaining is a statement that, if you upset an Arbitrator, the Arbcom reserves the right to open a "test case" against you with mno proevious dispute resolution, and allow the arbitrator to harass you off the site.

Furthermore, the Arbcom's self-regulation is clearly not working. A basic principle needs to be put in place that all Arbcom decisions can be appealed by the community.

I will gladly provide more evidence on request, however, I believe that this thread is already quite long.

Thank you,

User:Shoemaker's Holiday, a.k.a. Vanished user. 14:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I was not involved in or even aware of the "Matthew Hoffman" case, and I have no opinion about the merits of this appeal (the lengthy and somewhat confusing submission above does not help). However, as a procedural matter, I strongly suggest that this thread be archived without action. For one thing, Shoemaker's Holiday has also submitted the matter to WP:RFAR, which is where it should now be considered, not here. Moreover, WP:AP provides that "remedies and enforcement actions may be appealed to, and are subject to modification by, Jimbo Wales." Shoemaker's Holiday has not shown that he has exhausted this venue of appeal before coming here. Finally, there is currently no policy providing for an appeal of Arbitration Committee decisions to the community. This means that any discussion here would probably only lead to fruitless drama. Nonetheless, I wish Shoemaker's Holiday all the best with respect to any personal problems the arbitration may have caused or aggravated. Sometimes, it's best to just let things go. This is only a website, after all.  Sandstein  05:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

SH has a right to ask the community's input IMHO, I've not read the details but note that a recent RfC made by Charles Matthews is meeting with a very different fate.:) Sticky Parkin 03:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Sticky Parkin. The issue here is oversight - who polices ArbCom wehn ArbCom screws up? The ultimate oversight is the community as a whole, and AN provides a location for editors, especially admins who as a rule have been around longer and have demonstrated commitment to the project, a venue for discussing anything of concern. Clearly this is an example of something of concern to us. This is a website afte all - a website that functions only because of the voluntary labor of its editors, and we always need good editors. In fact, there are many essays on the problem of losing good editors. Shoemaker is or at least a valued editor and a good example of the kind of editor we should fight to keep and not hang out to dry, in my opinion. Am I wrong? Let us administrators review the facts and weigh in with ideas and opinions and suggestions. It is nice to think ArbCom has second chances to reverse its own mistakes, but when a real travesty of justice is possible, the community ought to examine the case and weigh in. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm afraid this looks to me like venue shopping. It is as good as stated above that the main reason for asking for "community" input is that ArbCom won't change their minds. Anyway, what are we being asked to decide? Even if the block of MatthewHoffman was 100% solid there were other FoF points as well. Sure, people have got away with worse, including me, probably, but this seems to be a simple case of an appeal based on not liking the outcome rather than any policy grounds. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Reformatted to a transclusion of Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Appeal of Matthew Hoffman in the interests of preventing forest fires.--Tznkai (talk)

(time to archive. Fram (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC))

Oliver Cromwell

Old Ironsides is seeing a fair bit of edit warring... DBD 15:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

So I see. Protected for a week, hopefully they can settle the dispute by then. If other Admins feel it doesn't need to be protected, let me know. dougweller (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd go with semi. It doesn't look to me like a classic edit war, but more like the anon 86.45.0.170 is being fairly disruptive, and being reverted for it. Simply forcing 86.45.0.170 to create an account—or, ho hum, to log into their existing account—might be enough to hike up the level of the discussion substantially. It seems a pity to lock down the article from serious editing as well as from the nonsense. Did you notice 86.45.0.170 arguing on the talkpage that the trouble with the article is that it doesn't make it clear that Cromwell was "pure evil" and "was fighting for a fake religion"? [52] To make these facts clearer, the anon is persistently changing the first sentence of the lead—that Cromwell is best known for his involvement in making England a republic and his role as Lord Protector—to instead assert that Cromwell is best known for his genocide of Irish Catholics. Note that there is already a (reasoned! sourced!) mention of genocide at the end of the lead, along with some other assessments of Cromwell's over-all historical significance. It's not clear, then, whether the anon read beyond the first sentence, and even though s/he's presumably trying to help Wikipedia, it's IMO cruel to waste the serious editors' time trying to reach a compromise with such drive-by hastiness. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. (Btw, if it's the same individual behind IP 86.42.69.218, s/he is also adding some factoids on the lines of "Cromwell was born out of his mother's arse".[53]) Bishonen | talk 19:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC).

Yes, I can't figure out why I went for full and I've changed that to semi, thanks for the nudge. dougweller (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

"Cromwell was born out of his mother's arse" – perhaps warrants protection, blocking and/or a lesson in human biology. — Werdna • talk 22:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Unnamed TV pilots proposal

Assistance would be much appreciated in judging consensus as well as supplying more input on a proposal for naming articles about unnamed television pilots. It's a long discussion that starts here, and has a straw poll here. Any input is welcome! Dreadstar † 19:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Ireland (state)

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

See discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ireland_page_moves

---

Republic of Ireland has been moved to Ireland (state) but the history is broken. Could someone investigate, and if possible move back to Republic of Ireland as it is a controversial move. Help. Djegan (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

-- Please ignore the above - all fixed, for now. Djegan (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The original moving admin has reverted the reversion of his move and used his protect powers to protect it. Can someone have a word with him about using his protect powers in a content dispute in which he is engaged? --Narson ~ Talk • 20:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That admin isn't engaged in a content-dispute. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Move Category!

Move Category: Poschiavo to Category: Towns in Val Poschiavo. For some reason i cant. The Rolling Camel (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Categories cannot be moved in the same way as articles. Please follow the instructions found at categories for discussion if you believe a category should be renamed. J Milburn (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Bot's edit messing up an article

CommonsDelinker removed an image that made an article make no sense. Please see: this edit. Can't find any clear instructions for how to rectify this as it is being operated by someone off wiki (Namely commons). --Narson ~ Talk • 14:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The bot's userpage says problems should be reported here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems very odd, considering how little information they pass on to us, that we should have to go off wiki to deal with such things. But oh well. I will report it there. Thank you. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know it was valid to make an image tag span multiple lines. I also don't know what is meant by "considering how little information they pass on to us". Example? —Wknight94 (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

According to commons:User:Siebrand, the CommonsDelinker code is maintained by commons:User:Bryan. I've notified Bryan. Gimmetrow 16:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen any issues from CommonsDelinker. The problem here is that the image code on the article was spread across two lines for some reason. A very minor glitch, and hardly anything to worry about, imo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Resolute (talk • contribs)

I agree this one is probably fairly rare, as I don't think many image links spread across multiple lines, but CommonsDelinker leaves one fairly common issue which it would be nice for it to take care of.[54] Gimmetrow 17:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

If it comes across something that doesn't conform with what it expects, it shouldn't do anything. Better a red link image than confusing nonsense. Hell, if we are going to have bots from commons around, couldn't they make one that drops notifications onto wikipedia pages when an image is under discussion? At least that way if there is a fair use case for an image that it turns out isn't fair use, then it can be brought to wiki and dealt with. --Narson ~ Talk • 19:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Exceptionally rare: I don't believe either OrphanBot or ImageRemovalBot has ever come across one, over the course of hundreds of thousands of image removals. --Carnildo (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Scott Aaronson

Slashdot debate about Wikipedia → article → AFD. More eyes would probably be useful on all three. – iridescent 20:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I noted it was a IP that did the first edit on the Scott Aaronson afd. Is that a sock? The Rolling Camel (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The IP's only other edit was to a math-related article so it's not pushing the bounds of AGF to assume that it may just be someone with an interest in the topic. – iridescent 21:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Bleh. Slashdot debates about wikipedia. Boy those are always enlightening. I do want to point to a more adult debate in TFA, http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=367, some of the same complaints but maybe some legitimate issues where the community can get some feedback. Protonk (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Ban

Resolved

 – "No". Ooh-argh. --Dweller (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

Firstly I would like to apologise to everyone for my funny spell! And I would like to assure you all that I am back on my medication. I have been banned from editing and I am also on a 5 year Wikibreak so i am unable to log on to challenge my ban. I would like to appeal against my ban as I was not mentally stable at the time of the ban. Also a quick check through my history/details will show an impeccable account up untill the ban. Thanks. So firstly I would like an admin to remove the Wikibreak from my monobook.js and secondly I would like to challenge my ban. Thanks. user:Ponty Pirate 89.243.19.99 (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This is what preceded the block: [55]? If you want to remove the wikibreak, you can simply disable Javascript, log into the account, and blank the page. Without confirmation I'd rather not personally, though someone else may step in. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Cant edit my monbook.js as I am banned from editing. 89.243.19.99 (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

For more info, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here and especially here. This trolling has honestly got to stop. --Flewis^(talk) 06:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Those appear to be all within a span of a few days; if his story is true, he should probably be unblocked, since a quick look at his earlier contributions don't show anything bad. If that doesn't work, Ponty, there's always Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Clean start under a new name --NE2 06:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm notifying the blocking admin. L'Aquatique[talk] 07:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

(Blocking admin here) The block was for abusing multiple IP addresses -- one literally every few minutes. I ended up having to protect AN for a brief duration (16:15, 21 November 2008-19:15, 22 November 2008) to stop the deluge of frivolous requests. We don't delete talk pages, and bugging the hell out of everyone at AN and elsewhere with varying IP addresses is annoying and a waste of our resources. We conducted a courtesy blank, but that was layered with {{adminhelp}} and CSD tags. Abuse your talk page and it will be locked, which was done by another administrator. Here is a short list of his IP addresses:

78.150.57.14 (talk · contribs · block log), 78.150.17.75 (talk · contribs · block log), 89.240.115.33 (talk · contribs · block log), 78.150.29.130 (talk · contribs · block log), 89.240.119.134 (talk · contribs · block log), 78.145.90.190 (talk · contribs · block log), 78.145.174.100 (talk · contribs · block log) seicer | talk | contribs 12:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Messages such as this, this, this, this, this,

And he really doesn't get the fact that we don't delete user talk pages. And here, here and even here.

Frivolous admin report (I'm not Saucer, and I didn't protect his user talk page after he was abusing various processes). And you don't abuse your talk page over and over with this, this and this.

Oh, and this is a gem: "All morning nice got me nowhere you COCKHEAD. GO FUCK YOUSELF YOU FAGGOT.". At one point, he admitted to joking about suicide.

Far too many strikes for me to even consider unblocking Pointy Pirate. seicer | talk | contribs 12:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I have blanked his monobook but only as a courtesy. This way, we can check if it is Ponty Pirate, and then decline the unblock with confidence that it is him. Woody (talk) 12:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, like I said I was ill and now I am OK. Apart from the above I haven't done anything bad since I joined Wikipedia. Anyway. Isn't it better to unblock me and monitor me rather than force me to start fresh with a new account where I cannot be monitored? I'm coming clean here its up to you. Cannot edit Ponty pIrate talk pages after loggin in so Cannot prove its me. 78.150.54.4 (talk) 13:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I think enough of us have said "no", especially considering recent invicility and threats. Take this "no" as a "no". --Dweller (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with asking me if I am Bipolar? [[56]] 78.145.53.208 (talk) 06:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Bipolar disorder is not a very good excuse for bad behaviour, especially since some of our best editors work with it and never seem to have problems such as the above. Orderinchaos 15:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Good for them! 78.150.42.167 (talk) 09:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Open Proxy listing for 70.86.0.0/16 - The Planet

Resolved

 – Users granted IP-exempt permission to evade rangeblock--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

A big range at "The Planet" was blocked completely back in 2006. An entire /16 block!! Probably no body noticed because these are all servers for the most part and don't have much traffic going out. I left a message on User:Dmcdevit's talk page who did it but he left wikipedia a few months ago.

The Planet hosts managed servers. They do direct allocation of IPs to customers. I don't think we shouldn't block the entire netblock completely. It should be blocked on a case by case basis. I know people in China that get servers at The Planet to do their own private tunnels out. They are the largest ISP in the world now that they merged with EV1 (beating GoDaddy now). This block is specific to Dallas and is limits a huge number of servers in one data center.

My servers and my 16 ips (70.86.83.48/28 or basically everything from 70.86.83.49-70.86.83.62) I was allocated a few years ago surely don't count as:

70.86.0.0/16 - The Planet open proxy - web hosting company ThePlanet.com

Blocking out 65,534 ips is huge (more like a max of 16,384 in real unique ones being used though since the smallest block they give is a /29 direct allocation many with only 1 out of the 8 ips being used. Surely not many of them were hitting wikipedia since these are mostly servers. Those with open proxies should be few and far between and should be handled on a case by case basis. What is the best way to appeal this?

I use my server to evade my companies cooperate proxy and filter (by doing an ssh tunnel port forward to a localhost bound squid instance on my server) so that I can edit from work without showing it coming from my company ip and their silly filters won't catch me if edit something with vandalized crap on a page that contains some naughty word to get caught up in our filter. This block severally hampers that. --ZacBowling ^(user|talk) 09:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It was a severe issue that these hosting companies would be used by individuals to host proxies for whatever service was necessary. It came to pass that unscrupulous individuals used these proxy servers to edit Wikipedia anonymously or use an open proxy to produce many accounts. Thus, we responded by blocking the entirety of IP ranges belonging to various groups that were not ISPs (GoDaddy.com, ThePlanet, Best Buy stores, etc.). These ranges usually have only a few IPs acting as proxy servers, but when a hosting range is found, it is usually checked for other proxy or dedicated servers, and then blocked after the analysis shows that a block would be in the English Wikipedia's best interests (I know that I have blocked many ranges after finding that they belonged to hosting companies or other similar groups that should not have any IPs actively editing Wikipedia).

I believe that there was a software addition that allows for specific accounts to be granted autoblock exempt status such that if their IP is used by another individual, and that individual is blocked, the user with the registered account is not affected (as it would be the case for you when you edit from one of these proxy servers). I'm not familiar with the process by which you get this status.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm in a similar situation with 67.15.0.0/16. I've not been able to edit in over a week and I've had to use Tor just to post this message. I believe Wikipedia:IP block exemption might be useful to you. 4I7.4I7 11:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I have given both of you ipblock-exempt, that should allow you to edit underneath the proxies. Xclamation point 15:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually if you google for Ev1 and spam, you will see that Ev1 and similar hosting companies have a very high frequency of web servers misconfigured to act as open proxies for web browsing or as open relays for email, as well as a very poor track record of responding to complaints. These ranges have few if any IPs that are legitimately open for web surfing. If user:Smith leases a server and a particular IP address and wants to post (and it is not a proxy), then that IP can be unblocked and the single unblock will override the rangeblock. IPBE is also available for legitimate editors. But the entire range should not be unblocked without consulting the checkusers. Thatcher 16:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

As with many hosting services, there's a high probability the next edits will either be a vandal, spammer, or block-evading sock attempting to edit from a web proxy. Because those cases where someone legitimately edits from their personal server is vastly low when compared to the traffic from anonymizing proxies, it's better to leave the range blocked and grant IPBE (or softblock an individual IP to override the rangeblock) in those rare cases. Spellcast (talk) 07:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

South Korea and huge case of POV and edit warring

I would like to draw editors attention to the South Korea article. There is a shocking amount of POV (largest I've seen in 2 years of reading articles daily on here) and edit warring going on between fiercly pro-South Korean editors and those trying to make the article have WP:NPOV. I would be very grateful to any editors or administratorss who could take the time to try to help sort out the POV mess on that article. 88.109.226.107 (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This needs to go to dispute resolution. No administrator attention needed here. seicer | talk | contribs 05:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Kmweber ban proposal

Resolved

 – Consensus seems to be that this is Not A Good Idea® at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Anders Torlind (possible sock puppetry)

I want to report about the Userpage link of an abusive user, User:Anders Torlind is linked to User:Anders Törlind, a valid and contributive user. [57]. It might be best to de-link this redirect (I would do it, but I got no power over other's userpage), as it would damage the reputation of valid user, no matter if the user has been inactive for a long time. I also suspect User:Anders Torlind is a sockpuppet of User:Grawp by the style of editing (moving pages to "Hagger??" or similar to that). It seems that user has new editing style: finding a similar username, and linking it to that userpage. w_tanoto (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the redir; MBisanz blocked the user. // roux   editor review13:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Blacklisted page

Resolved

I created a page to redirect Suplatast to Suplatast_tosilate. I accidentally left off the # sign on the redirect. So I tried to edit the page and it gives the error about title blacklist.

Grika (talk · contribs) already fixed it for you. CIreland (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:TfD backlog

There is a large backlog of discussions that need closing at WP:TfD. Several have been around for weeks and appear to be open and shut cases. --Farix (Talk) 17:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Geez, y'all can't get on without me. I might as well announce that I'm unretiring. I'll take of the TfD backlogs! RyanGerbil10(Unretiring slowly...!) 19:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Update: Backlog down to 2 weeks, but I have to put up Christmas lights with the family now. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 20:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I recommend double sided sticky pads, but each to their own! LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I tried that one year, but they still fell down after 15 months. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Terrible way to treat your family. 86.44.21.140 (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please could you Full Protect my page until my Wiki Break Ends

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

Resolved

 – not sure why it needed to be brought to a noticeboard as well as several talk pages. Enigma ^message 23:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please would an admin be able to Fully Protect my page and talk page until the 1st of jan 09. The reason for this is i am taking a wiki break to review my performance and to regain my Status and hopefully be trusted again with the tools. If you could do this for me it would really be appriciated. Regards [ Rhodes416 ] [Talk] 21:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If an admin Generously Decides to Full Protect my Page Could you remove all comments on talk page apart from the wiki break notice. Thanks [ Rhodes416 ] [Talk] 21:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The page has already been semi protected. I see no need to full protect it. Tiptoety ^talk 22:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Conduct of User:Wondergirls & User:Lakshmix

I would like to bring to the attention of administrators the unacceptable behaviour of User:Wondergirls and User:Lakshmix on the South Korea article. The pair both dominate the article, refusing anyone else to edit it, and have turned it into one of the most POV articles I've read on Wikipedia in 2 years. They refuse anyone else to edit the article[58] as to keep their excessive POV in place and are at odds with almost every other editor who tries to edit the South Korea article,[59] hence edit warring accounts for almost every edit made to the article. Almost all editors other than these two users state on the Talk page that the article is far to POV and have tried to change this or add a tag to the article but are met with reverts of their edits every time by these two users. As such the Talk page is almost exclussively filled with other editors stating the article is too POV, as any attempts to change this are stopped by these two users. I hope an administrator can help resolve the problems on the South Korea article, namely the behavior of User:Wondergirls and User:Lakshmix. 88.109.226.107 (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Edits and image uploads of User:Cacarlo92

Resolved

 – User blocked for one month. — Hex (❝?!❞) 05:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting slightly fed up with Cacarlo92 (talk · contribs). For the past month or so he has been uploading a *lot* of cover art images that do not meet WP:SOURCES, or are fake covers created by blogs or forums. You can see the sea of red links in his upload log [60]. The other part of this problem is that he is constantly blanking his talk page of all warnings against uploading these images, and attempts by other users to personally ask why he's uploading these. [61] (he might have forgotten to log in) [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67]. Worse yet, I believe he doesn't even speak English as a first language ([68]) which may be contributing to the reason why he isn't speaking to anyone that talks to him, or reacting to his warnings. Thank you for your help.  AcroX  14:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is the same person as CarloPlyr440 (talk · contribs) and would advocate a block. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Admins should also be aware of this discussion I had with another editor who tagged Cacarlo92's images for deletion. Cacarol92 has been removing deletion tags. I made a report against this editor before but it got no reply. Worse yet, he has been using IP's to blank his account talk page and remove images he created from the image for deletion discussions. — Realist² 17:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: Given that the activity for that IP is only six edits that happened on one day almost within a single hour, I'm willing to assume good faith and say that it was Cacarlo92 being logged out by mistake. There are no simultaneous edits from his user name. — Hex (❝?!❞) 20:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite sure he has an ever changing IP, when I've tagged images of his in the past an IP creeps onto the images page rather quickly making alterations and removing tags. Hey, but lets go with AGF and give him the opportunity to explain why he thought this was acceptable. — Realist² 20:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

True, that's not acceptable at all. I just wouldn't want to accuse him inaccurately of socking. — Hex (❝?!❞) 21:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Didn't someone just say they thought he was CarloPlyr440 (talk · contribs)? Anyway, so are there any grounds to block him? He isn't interested in listening to warnings I'm afraid. The problem with this is it seems to be a long term case of disruption. — Realist² 22:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

True. But since that account stopped editing over a year ago (after being blocked for a month), it remains a suspicion only. Either way, I've just spent a little longer looking through the contributions for Cacarlo92 and have decided to apply a similar block. It's clearly a long term case of disruption, as you say. — Hex (❝?!❞) 02:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, if he continues to upload images in that fashion after his block expires would it be possible to contact you directly instead of starting another ANI thread? — Realist² 02:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing, not a problem. — Hex (❝?!❞) 18:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete this please

Resolved

 – By MBisanz. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:PNT50, all the articles this template link to were deleted ages ago, looks like someone forgot to delete the template? — Realist² 14:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Admin deletes article per Scottish police

Resolved

 – This is becoming off-topic, article issues were resolved, go to the talk page

Secret ^account 18:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article Peter Tobin has been deleted by an admin named User:AlisonW, replaced with content that says: The article on Peter Tobin has been temporarily deleted during legal process. cf. Sub Judice On the talk page, she says that this was due to being contacted by the Scottish police, but I think this needs review. This fellow appears to be an already notable convicted rapist and killer--see Angelika Kluk murder case and this BBC article on Tobin. At the least, there should be consensus or OTRS decision making for this, not some unilateral kind of thing. Is there support for this? Leaving a note on the Tobin talk page and on AlisonW's talk. rootology (C)(T) 16:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC) what legal process is being conducted where the wikipedia servers are hosted? Every time I've seen content removed on the basis of the a case in the UK being sub judice, the answer has always been the same - that doesn't apply here because we (being the foundation) aren't subject to UK legal process (which of course applies to editors based in the uk) and the content has been reverted back in - why is this being treated any differently? --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC) And also, now I think of it, isn't the message in the article space acting as a disclaimer and therefore in clear breach of the general disclaimer clause? --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC) This is nonsense. Have the police made similar approaches to the BBC? Or are we considered a soft touch for this sort of censorship- because that's all it is. --Rodhullandemu 16:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I'd restore the article myself but I guess we should have a clear consensus here first. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC) (ec)Agreed that this seems a bit odd. If the decision came from on high here, then fine, but I see no indication of that. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I'd say restore it. If there was any sort of legitimate reason for it to be deleted, the authorities would contact the foundation directly. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC) (ec)Well let's find out if that did happen first. That would be my suggestion. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I say restore it, and let the authorities contact the foundation directly. The servers are in the US and thus subject to US laws/regulations, which means that the government can't tell us to delete content. Now, if there is something more to the story, then that is up to the Foundation and its lawyers to determine. In otherwords, deleting the article is above the paygrade of us mere editors/admins.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 16:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC) (ec) In the absence of an assertion that WP:OTRS approved this deletion, it should be undone, and any problematic content removed. We don't delete for fear of what might be added. If there are problem edits, we revert them, block any persistent users, or protect the article if it is being attacked by multiple editors that we are unable to control. Speedy deletion does not seem appropriate here. As for UK legal process, we are not lawyers, and we are not in the UK. Refer them to the Foundation. Jehochman Talk 16:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC) FYI I am on OTRS and do sometimes deal with matters which come via direct means to me (as a WMUK/WMF-in-the-UK contact) on that basis. I consider that this action was, indeed, on that basis. --AlisonW (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Alison, it would be helpful for you to say prominently on your userpage that you are a part of OTRS and a press room official chapter. This would be very useful information to help people understand your future actions in these regards. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Apparently Alison is listed as a contact (see wmf:Press room#Official chapters). So with this information, I'd of course assume that there is some legitimate reason for this and to leave it pending discussion with her. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I haven't had an opportunity to review the situation or even look at my email before this was brought to my attention, but as you can see here: Alison Wheeler is an official press contact for the Foundation, pending the reformation of the Wikimedia UK chapter. It's not at all unlikely that the Scottish police would have contacted her in that regard, and as the offices of the Foundation are not even yet officially open (it's 8:49 AM on Monday in San Francisco) I'd suggest you assume good faith with her action until you hear otherwise from us. -- Cary. Bastique demandez 16:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC) FYI, I emailed the Foundation Lawyer at the same time as I made the temporary deletion (now all some four weeks ago!) who agreed with me that it *is* a consensus matter. I took this decision in what I believed are the best interests of WP and, until now, that appeared to be backed up by other editors. --AlisonW (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC) WTF - the talkpage says to not even discuss the matter - if we allow this through, we might as well shut up shop. Where do we stop? When the iraqi police ask us to delete content? when the authorities in Sweden contact us? Do we start applying local codes on every basis? --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I, as the person contacted and who made this decision, take on board that it was and must be considered an exception to our usual practice. The information I was presented with, albeit received at a point in time where I had to respond in either direction quickly, was that there were very strong reasons and expectations that the quality and detail of our content was such that it had been stated to me (and about to be to the Scottish court) that it not only could prejudice the jury, but would do so, and that the case was within hours of being thrown out of court. Now, in that internet standard acronym, 'I am not a lawyer' and, as such, I do not have any special knowledge of whether this was accurate or not so, as an individual editor acting on her own, I had to choose whether or not to accept the information presented to me. I confirmed as much as I could regarding the status of the person contacting me and their involvement in this matter and was satisfied of their bona fides. I then considered whether the temporary deletion of this article would permanently harm WP/WMF in any way. My conclusion was that no harm would come in the long term to WP/WMF by temporary deletion but serious harm to our public image - and legal standing - might occur if the article remained available to all and the court case concommitantly fell apart *because of our (in)action*. To my mind this made the decision easy, and I deleted the article for the duration of the case. As regards whether this is a disclaimer, it isn't (or isn't intended as such in any way.) The page needed salting for safety for the duration and this 'message to editors' is there on that basis. --AlisonW (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC) So you are not a lawyer but made a judgement about the damage to our legal standing? even though there is no legal issue that affects the foundation or the project. right. Your actions have just made us a tool of the CPS and compromised our impartiality in regards to a foreign legal system - it's unbelievable. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC) She said harm to our legal standing "might" occur; fair enough — she was erring on the side of caution. Worth noting the first explanation in that sentence, though: "serious harm to our public image". While not a lawyer, AlisonW is apparently both an official press contact and has OTRS access. I consider that her judgement as to what might seriously affect the Foundation's image likely to be sound on that basis. It's certainly worth assuming a bit of good faith here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC) AlisonW doesn't seem to be speaking for WmF. I'd suggest restoring the page. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I'd suggest giving the Foundation a day or two to comment. The page was deleted nearly a full month ago. There's no need to jump in and guess about whether or not AlisonW was acting in accordance with the WMF's policies and desires when we can just wait a little bit and ask.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC) (ec) I don't agree with the outrage of Cameron Scott - AlisonW needed to make a snap decision, and she did so, and barely anyone noticed until now, so how bad could it be? But now that the issue has been (re-)raised, consensus appears to be that the page should be restored. I think the Foundation should first get a chance to at least somewhat officially weigh in, but if they have no objection, it seems the page should be restored. And then, of course, it should be very carefully examined for any WP:BLP violations. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC) This situation raises a host of profoundly important issues and calls for further guidance from the Office both as to how to proceed now regarding this specific article and also as to how official or quasi-official requests for restraint of our content should be handled in general. I am confident that AlisonW used her best good-faith judgment when confronted with what was presented to her as an emergency situation, at a time when she was not able to consult with others or to evaluate all of the information being laid before her. Given the action already taken, the page should be left as temporarily deleted pending input from the Office (or the Office's declining to provide such input). Under all the circumstances, on my authority as an administrator I direct that this BLP article not be restored pending the Office's input (or its confirmed declination to provide such input). See if necessary, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes. This does not represent any determination by me as to the merits of the deletion, a comment on any legal issue, or a finding that any BLP issue is or is not actually raised by the article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC) My recommendation as an editor, I would suggest you should all feel free to discuss the matter on the article's talk page, to allow the editors some idea of the issues surrounding. I have to agree that the disclaimer on the article looks rather poor form, and should probably be replaced by an article stub. I will disagree with Gwen Gale in that if Alison, being a chapter contact, discussed with Mike Godwin, the foundation's attorney, this matter, then it seems that we should at least wait to hear from Mike whether or not the foundation has a special interest. The article's been blanked for 4 weeks (am I right?) I'd like to also provide a caveat to Alison in that I'd feel much more able to discuss things like this intelligently if I were copied in the email, so I have some bloody idea of what this is all about before I get poked on IRC. Cary Bastique demandez 17:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I believe AlisonW acted in good faith. The article can always be undeleted. I hope the issue can be resolved ASAP so that the article can be restored. As much as I want to assist in proper justice I also want Wikipedia articles to remain intact. I am curious about the articles Bible John and Angelika Kluk murder case. They both contain information about Peter Tobin. Why is that information still there? Won't those articles also prejudice a jury? Or is the assumption that jurors won't be savvy enough to make the connection? I am not being devil's advocate here. I honestly want to know. Kingturtle (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC) It seems to me that some non-UK editors are taking this "personally". Granted, Wikipedia's servers are outside of the jurisdiction of Scottish law, but the ability of people in Scotland and the rest of the UK to view Wikipedia cannot be disputed. This is something of an exceptional set of circumstances, but it seems that there has been a very real danger that the court case currently under way could have been prejudiced by whatever was on the Wikipedia page for the defendent. For the trial to be halted on that basis would do incalculable harm to the standing of Wikipedia in the UK, which could manifest itself in ways that would have serious consequences for UK-based editors. I would note that the trial in question is now in its final stages, and we may very well have a verdict by the end of the week. Is it too much to ask to have a little patience? Nick Cooper (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Yes. Otherwise we would have to start paying attention to saudi arabian and zimbabwe judgements. In order to avoid appearing hypocritical we have to ignore all non US court ruleings (we've done so in the past with regards to canadian ruleings). Given the UK's hair trigger libel laws paying any attention to it's courts would set a deeply dangerous precedent.Geni 17:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC) which could manifest itself in ways that would have serious consequences for UK-based editors. in what way? I've never heard anything so silly - what applies beyond the normal law of the land for UK based editors which have long been understand by long-term editors --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC) It could create issues for scotish editors editing the article. They are free to avoid doing so.Geni 17:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Support temporary deletion per "do no harm". It costs us nothing not to have this for a few weeks, and given that we are more accessible in Scotland than any local print newspaper, we should respect this. To undelete this may contribute to jepordising a murder trial, to the detriment of the accused or of society if the case should be dismissed due to media bias. I'm amazed at the disrespect for a legal system just because it is not American! for goodness sake, when it was your silly elections we broke every usual principle to be fair to all the candidates, despite the fact that Wikipedia shouldn't care about any election either way. We put two FA on the mainpage out of respect for US constitutional sensibilities, we can at least pause before jeopardising a Scottish murder trial because our wikirules say something else. Something are more important that us having a low notability biography, and just because we legally can do something, doesn't mean we should. "Do no harm" is the overriding principle here. And really, people above who called for immediate restoration without discussion or hearing AlisonW out, should reflect on their attitude.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC) So let's be clear about this - I can start blanking sub-judice articles? Why haven't we blanked Bible John and Angelika Kluk murder case? Why haven't we blanked Shannon Matthews yet? The jury might read it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC) That would be a WP:POINT - we've received no request on these, and aren't likely to. Slippery slope arguments suck, take cases on their merits.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC) It wouldn't be pointy, it is a question. What information exists on that page that exists nowhere else? What other "emergent" requests do we accept in order to censor content? Why is it judicious to blank articles on request but silly to blank articles preemptively? Protonk (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Support temporary deletion - per Scott Mac's excellent summary. // roux   editor review17:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I'd keep this thread targeted on the single article. There is clearly no consensus to restore for now. I think clarification from WmF is needed. AlisonW is clearly acting in good faith and to help the project, by the way. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC) (ec x lots)Basically, at least from what I understand, it all comes down to this. Alison was informed, by a person who appears to be legit, that should the Wikipedia article on Peter Tobin was removed, there was a strong chance his trial would be thrown out, presumably with the implication that he would be freed, whether we now know that to be true or not is irrelevant. So now we come down to Alison's choice, on the one hand, she can ignore it and leave up a mostly insignificant article on a website which people take far too seriously, or alternatively, she can temporarily delete the article so that it doesn't result in a man who it would appear is a very very dangerous rapist and murderer, however small that possibility may be. Now answer me this, all you people arguing that Alison was out of line, if you were faced with the same choice, the reliable contact told you that you had to make a decision on the spot and you were unable to contact the foundation, what would you do? Alison made a decision based on the information available to her at the time, and I believe she should be commended for it--Jac16888 (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC) undelete if Godwin doesn't comment in the next few hours then this should be undeleted. We are not subject to Scottish law. Period. There's no plausible reason that we should be treated any differently than the BBC or any other media source that is fine reporting on this. Wikipedia is not censored. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I agree w/ NYB that this was a good faith action carried out by AllisonW. However, no portion of the deletion log nor the history of the page states that this was an action taken on behalf of the foundation (either expressly or implied). If WMF decides to accede to scottish law they can do so officially (or at least someone can state as much in the log). Until that time we should see if there is a consensus to undelete and restore the material. Protonk (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I guess I should clarify that I feel the article should be undeleted. Wikipedia falls under US Law. Not Scottish law. Or Russian Law. Or Sharia. And the "jury could see this" argument is weak tea. Presuming that scottish juries can get to the internet, wikipedia should by definition not be the only place they can find this information. Protonk (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I have no fundamental problem with Alison acting cautiously in the face of direct contact from Scottish authorities, though I do think it would have been better if this had been announced at the time and more plainly directed to the WMF for final disposition. Moving beyond the specifics of this case, can anyone comment intelligently of the principle of sub judice? I would have assumed that the UK doesn't routinely declare mistrials in the face of things stated in the foreign press. Do they contact the NYTimes to take down articles? It all seems very weird. The only thing that might make sense is if the article's content had actually been influenced/edited directly by parties to the case? Aside from something like that, it is difficult for me to see why a Scottish court would consider a Wikipedia article's content as having special bearing on the case. Dragons flight (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Off the top of my head, the trial of Ian Huntley was almost abandoned in similar circumstances[69] although it eventually went ahead, while the trial of Jonathan Woodgate and Lee Bowyer was abandoned following media reports and the newspaper in question charged with contempt[70]. – iridescent 17:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC) (ec)Do nothing now. It's obvious that we should wait for rapid advice from Mike. Absent that I would restore it. Such restraint only occurs in this country (where the servers are located) in the most extreme cases. We really don't want to head down this road of bowing to governmental interference in Wikipedia publishing. While I think this could have been handled differently from the beginning, I think the admin acted in good faith. I'd say a few hours should suffice for Mike to comment but apart from a subpoena I'd tell the Scots to take a hike. JodyB talk 17:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Most EMPHATICALLY undelete pending notice from Wikipedia counsel to forcibly remove the article. Wikipedia relies primarily on secondary sources of information for supporting statements of fact in its articles. I.e., if we have to take down this information, then so should every news outlet that holds information we cite. We should never EVER be in the business of trying to aid or hinder a legal process. We are in the business of building an encyclopedia, period. If the judge in the case is so concerned about polluting the jury, s/he can choose to sequester the jury. Even if we have conducted original research in violation of our policy against doing so, at the very minimum the take down should not occur until there is a court order to do so having been properly delivered to the Foundation and its counsel. Alison did make a good faith decision, but the decision was a poor one and sets an extreme precedent that I sincerely hope is never repeated. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Except, of course, it wasn't a Scottish court; it would appear to be the police, who are prosecuting the case. If they had concerns, they should have raised them in the judge's chambers; that judge may well have issued an injunction prohibiting publication, but that would have been of no effect, and indeed beyond his powers, outside Scotland. This was a back-door attempt to remove our content, maybe with the best motives, but out of process and invalid in law. (disclosure: IWAL, specialising in crime, procedure & civil liberties). --Rodhullandemu 17:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Only to be clear, without direct word from WmF I think the article should be restored now and that WP:BLP supports this, but I don't see a consensus here to do so. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Speedy undelete - This wasn't even a request by the courts, but rather by the police. If the Scottish courts want to keep their juries from being misled, then they should sequester them. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I suspect that the subtlty of the fundamental issue at the heart of this case is passing by those editors who are pointing to press coverage of the current court case as justification for the Wikipedia page on the defendent. The UK press is reporting the current case, but is making no linkage to a specific previous case. In fact, the website of one major UK newspaper (i.e. The Sun) is currently blocking access to its past coverage of the previous case. The BBC has not, but is not linking the two. I presume the problem was that the Wikipedia page clearly made that linkage. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Restore pending legal process actually binding on WMF. Reasons: (1) per AlisonW above, WMF counsel has already stated this is a consensus matter, not a legal direction from the WP:OFFICE. (2) This is a request from a police agency, not even a court order. It has no legal authority in the United States, and (while I am a California lawyer, not a Scottish one) I'm not sure it even has legal authority in Scotland or elsewhere in the UK. (3) Wikipedia is not, and should not be, in the business of favoring one side or the other in litigation. We report encyclopedic matters, based on citation to reliable, established media sources. If a court needs to limit information available to persons under its jurisdiction, it has means of doing so that have local effect, such as ordering those persons not to access outside information. It is not Wikpedia's mission to accomplish that on a global scope. (4) Wikipedia should not, except in the most unusual circumstances, accede to censorship attempts by governments that do not have jurisdiction over its servers; that is an unwise and slippery slope. (I can conceive of exceptional situations, such as where life is in danger as in a hostage situation, but this is not nearly one of them.) Based on what I've read here, the article should be restored and retained, unless there is an office action. --MCB (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Undelete: AllisonW acted in good faith, but the arguments for reinstating the article are compelling: not censored, request not reviewed by a judge, no jurisdiction. Having the article appear is more likely to promote justice than not. —EncMstr (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC) One thing I must make explicitly clear is that I took this decision on my own and on its merits. It was not taken on behalf of what the Wikimedia Foundation, nor Wikimedia UK, might have considered the 'right' thing to do (indeed, to do so would open legal avenues we do not wish opened) This was my decision though I believed I made it on behalf of the WP community (and, indeed, with the recollection of the events User:Iridescent refers to above). In his reply to me Mike (WMF Lawyer) was explicit that the Foundation would take no position on this as it is/was a matter for the project. I agree with this. --AlisonW (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Further, the request was *passed on to me by the Police* from the Court, not *made* by the Police. --AlisonW (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Then this is over - there is *nothing* stopping any editor editing that article as long as it is sourced material and complies with normal policies. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Restore: While AlisonW took this upon good faith, this is a matter that should be resolved with consensus, not corporate-mumbo-jumbo. The request came from a court passed onto a police agency (how in the hell is that even verifiable?), and holds no legal binding. We are not subject to their requests, and as already noted, Wikipedia is not censored. With all of this shroded in secrecy (you know, for the good of Wikipedia), it makes me doubt moreso that the page protection is needed. There is nothing that is stopping from anyone coming in, restoring the article, and editing it as long as it is not obvious to any BLP vios. seicer | talk | contribs 18:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Don't restore, those with contempt for Scottish law really need to rethink what theya re doing on wikipedia, this isn't about editors being under sub judice its about allowing the conditions for justice to be done. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC) That is not our responsibility. That is the responsibility of the court. Our responsibility is to write an encyclopedia. If we're to be in the business of allowing conditions for justice to be done, we should delete any and all articles regarding BLPs of criminals. Why stop on this article alone? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Courts all over the world such as the United States work just fine without making every little thing sub judice. The notion that we are somehow interfering with justice in any serious way when the same facts are being reported in easy to reach online sources is simply not credible. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Restored I've restored the page and unprotected it. It's not a WMF action and consensus is relatively clear here. Protonk (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Thanks, you beat me to it, I agree consensus had shifted. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Now I feel sheepish. I wasn't trying to race anyone. :) Protonk (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I disagree that consensus is clear. We've only been discussing this for a few hours, some of the calls for undeletion and wrong about the facts "if was the police not the courts", and there are huge issues here. Please reverse your undeletion immediately. There is certainly no harm in having it undeleted for a few more hours whilst this is discussed.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC) When things are deleted, even without these circumstances, we allow 5 days on DRV. This got 4 hours, and is quite outrageous.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I'm not inclined to. I honestly don't see the huge issues. Every source in the article (almost) is web available and we don't need to wait days for it to be clear that WP is not under scottish law nor are we inclined to maker administrative or editorial decisions on behalf of the prosecution or defense in a case. Protonk (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC) The article should be re-deleted and then taken through WP:DRV. Kingturtle (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC) (ec) If one wants to bring up process, the article wasn't deleted through CSD or AfD, hence I'd think AN trumps DRV. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Also, we aren't a bureaucracy. This is a perfectly legitimate venue to discuss this particular deletion. Protonk (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC) ...We aren't a bureaucracy that's shielded in secrecy. If there is a legitimate concern, it would have been outlined from the start. I don't appreciate learning little details here and there, especially when they hold no legal bearing to WP or to this article. seicer | talk | contribs 18:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Redeleted Now deleted again. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Peter_Tobin rootology (C)(T) 18:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Absurd. Protonk (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC) If this is recreated, please do not restore it in the state it was deleted. I just removed several paragraphs of poorly-referenced content from the most recent version (Protonk's restoration). This needs to be built up from scratch with every single claim referenced to a reliable source. A noindexed sandbox would be best. Regards, Skomorokh 18:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Point of fact: it wasn't "my revision" and it was open to editing by anyone. I know you didn't mean to suggest that I took a favored version, so I'm just bringing that up. Protonk (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I said your restoration, not revision, meaning the version you restored. Mahalo, Skomorokh 20:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Intentional 'Straw Man' argument: How do we (general editorship / readership) know that the person(s) pushing for undeletion are not working on behalf of the defendant in this case and will now seek to have the case thrown out on the grounds that this 'prior acts' information is now public? Clearly, the answer we hope for is that it is not the case, but to what evidence? --AlisonW (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I'm not working for the defense. Protonk (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Um, this stuff is all over the internet already, including UK media, and in various print sources, including UK media. Why are we special? Why can't a UK juror just walk down to the library or flip on any international news source online or on TV? rootology (C)(T) 18:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC) The UK press is reporting the current court case in isolation of any previous events. This is the important distinction. Having viewed the page when it was briefly available again, it clearly did not do this and could therefore be potentially prejudicial to the current trial. The latter is almost over and there is not harm in being patient, but plenty to Wikipedia's standing in the UK in not. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Yes, this is exactly the problem. Just to clarify a point, obviously Wikipedia is subject to Florida law, not Scottish or UK, so this is not a legal problem; it's an issue of social responsibility. If there is a real danger of causing significant harm - which would also harm Wikipedia's own reputation - we need to err on the side of caution in this matter. There's nothing to be gained by having an empty article for the week or so that the case will take to conclude, but plenty to lose if we harm the outcome of the case. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Chris, I don't want to get into a lecture about WP:CENSOR. I know you know it. I know you feel strongly that we have some social responsibility to ensure that this case is unaffected. What we are trying to say is that there is a stated, prexisting social responsibility for us to build an uncensored encyclopedia. That is a reputation which may be damaged through changes in content on the basis of government requests. Specifically, the people of Scotland have a responsibility to ensure their trials are fair and speedy. We share in that responsibility as humans, insofar as we shouldn't make efforts to deliberately sabatoge that. However, there has been no claim advanced that the existence of an article like this represents deliberate, willful sabatoge of those goals. The right response (not to bash allison who made a perfectly valid call at the time) is to say "We respect your request but the right way to ensure the jury is not impacted by summary of material in Wikipedia is to sequester the jury". Not to delete the article. Certainly not to re-delete the article once objections have been raised about its deletion. Protonk (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC) For crying out loud, stop voting - this isn't a matter to be decided by the community. For what it's worth, I agree with AlisonW's actions here. As an admin, I'm able to view deleted edits, and I've also had some personal and professional involvement with sub judice issues (IANAL). Some of the material that was in the article was, IMO, clearly prejudicial. While it's not difficult to pull that material together through Googling, Wikipedia's unique advantage (and vulnerability in this case) is that we provided all the information in one place. Scott Mac has it exactly right: we have a responsibility to do no harm, not only to individuals, but society as a whole. There's no pressing reason for us to have this article available in the short term. The trial appears to be about to conclude; waiting a week or so for the verdict will not harm anyone. We've been advised that having the article available will risk serious harm. If the trial gets tossed because of our actions, we will be in a very deep hole indeed; it will cause very serious harm to Wikipedia's reputation. Accordingly, I've re-deleted the article and fully protected it until the WMF's legal counsel has had the chance to advise us on this situation. A legal issue has been raised, an article has been removed on the grounds of a serious and apparently well-founded legal concern, and the disposition of that article is something that will have to be decided by the WMF - not by a baying mob on the admin's noticeboard. Just please wait until (a) counsel has advised us or (b) the case finishes. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC) until the WMF's legal counsel has had the chance to advise us on this situation. they already have - Alison mentions it above - they pushed it back to the community. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC) (pssst) What can you read here? Oh, let me snip it: "FYI, I emailed the Foundation Lawyer at the same time as I made the temporary deletion (now all some four weeks ago!) who agreed with me that it *is* a consensus matter." seicer | talk | contribs 18:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Yes. Meanwhile, baying mob? Working for the defense? Wheel warring? Spare me. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Hmm. Thanks for the quote. Alison, just to clarify this, what exactly did the lawyer say? I see lots of people saying above that we need to have a clear steer from the WMF, I'm uneasy about going by a second-hand paraphrase. I'm mindful of the Chinese whispers problem here. Can we have some clarity about what exactly the WMF has said about this? (A direct quotation would be nice, direct input from the WMF here would be better.) -- ChrisO (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC) From Alison above - In his reply to me Mike (WMF Lawyer) was explicit that the Foundation would take no position on this as it is/was a matter for the project. What is unclear about this? --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC) That is clearer - thanks. See #Unprotected below. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Unsourced or poorly sourced material in a BLP is a matter for immediate removal of that material (In this case most of the material appears properly sourced from reliable sources regarding prior convictions and allegations). If you want to undelete the article and remove material that you don't think is properly sourced, please do so. But in this case we saw an admin make a good faith deletion a month ago and a consensus determination that this action should be reversed. I reversed it. There is no WMF issue, as stated multiple times above. There is no "legal" issue because Wikipedia editors and admins are not supposed to make edits on the basis that they bring wikipedia in compliance with non-US law. There is no moral issue because we don't have a moral obligation to support the prosecution or the defense on either side of the trial. On what basis was my deletion reversed? Protonk (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC) No contentious BLP should be undeleted without consensus. AN is a place of drama-mongering, not consensus-building. Just put it up for DRV and let it be discussed for 5 full days. We don't need everything right now, or even next week. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 19:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC) The case will quite possibly be over in 5 days - the Crown has been doing its final summing-up today. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Or it might not be - nobody has presented a single policy based reason why I cannot start editing that article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC) The reason for deletion seems to have shifted. When I undeleted the page, the reason for deletion was that it was requested by Scottish police. Now it appears that the reason for deletion was that it was a contentious BLP. Where was that determination made? Protonk (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC) It's an article about a living person, prolematic to the level it had to be deleted. I see no contradiction. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 19:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC) The contradiction presents itself when we realize that it wasn't deleted because of some problematic biographical material. If it was, we wouldn't be having this discussion. We can't justify the deletion (either deletion) post hoc on the basis that it was a BLP vio if neither reason for deletion was because it was a BLP vio. Personally, it means that (if we accept this shifting rationale) I just undeleted a BLP vio rather than reversed a deletion based on legal concerns with the conensus of a group of admins and editors. There is a big difference between the two. Protonk (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC) A long time ago, in WP:BLP: "The rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm.". But it's moot now - see below. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I was hoping for an explanation of how this turned into a BLP issue and how a rough counting of heads above showing ~13 to 4 favoring undeletion (myself included) doesn't represent some consensus to undelete. I'm aware of the contents of WP:BLP. Protonk (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Consensus doesn't (can't) override legal concerns. A consensus wouldn't override a decision to delete a blatant copyvio, for instance. But as I've already said, since the WMF has apparently said it doesn't see an issue here, that point is moot now. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Right, and that was clear when I undeleted the material. IF this was an OFFICE or COPYVIO or ARB issue, it wouldn't have been undeleted. So, following an administrator executing a consensus decision to undelete an article, why did you reverse my action? Protonk (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I've already answered the question, Protonk, and I've reversed my own actions following others' clarifications above. As far as I'm concerned, that's an end to it. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I'll be more clear. Would it be a wheel war if I reversed your deletion before you stated below that you had no reservations against it? Protonk (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC) NVM. Action self reversed, not a big deal. Protonk (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC) If the administration of Scottish law is irretrievably encumbered by the existence of WP, I fail to see why it must be WP that changes. If we accede to the demands of Scottish jurisprudence in the name of expedience, then why not to those of Singapore, or Saudi Arabia? Ronnotel (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC) A few thoughts. I am concerned that this issue is being framed above as a purely legal matter. Saying WP:NOTCENSORED and "It's not forbidden by U.S. courts" has never been a sufficient argument for inclusion of content in Wikipedia. This matter touches on a number of facets of Wikipedia's mission, goals, and philosophy. We have serious questions here pertaining to the ethics of posting this material at this time, and shouldn't be trying to rush this question to a conclusion. We have a good-faith request (apparently) from the courts of a fellow common law nation. Is Scots law different from U.S. law? Yep. Is that a reason to treat polite requests with contempt? I don't believe so. In order to (hopefully) ensure the fair trial of a man charged with serious, abhorrent crimes, we've been asked to hold off on publishing our article until the verdict is rendered. This is not the permanent removal of the information from Wikipedia, nor a demand to whitewash an article, nor an attempt to distort the public record. It is a step being taken to try to avoid tainting a jury — period. If we go ahead with undeleting this article now, we face several risks. The most serious is that we interfere with an ongoing trial, possibly preventing a serious criminal from being convicted. From a selfish standpoint, Wikipedia risks being blamed for such an occurrence. Even in the event that the trial ends successfully, we still look terrible. The cost to Wikipedia of complying with this request is that the article remains deleted for about a week. I'm willing to pay that price — not because we are under a legal compulsion to do so, but because it's the right thing to do. On Wikipedia we have WP:POINT, wherein our editors are advised to avoid doing destructive, counterproductive things solely to make a point. Surely some similar principle ought to apply in our interactions with the 'real world'. I acknowledge that this approach means we will need to look at similar cases in the future on a case-by-case basis, as I don't think that there's an easy answer in these matters. I will say, however, that I think the strawman arguments about compliance with Sharia law are absurd. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I'm not arguing that WP:CENSOR is a sufficient condition for inclusion. I'm arguing that an otherwise acceptable article (notable, meets WP:NOT, etc.) should not be deleted at the request of some government that doesn't exercise legal authority over the WMF (unless the WMF chooses to do so officially). I'm arguing that wikipedia has a responsibility to not sabatoge the justice system in scotland and that responsibility is satisfied completely through our core content and inclusion policies. Also, the comparisons to Sharia law, while hyperbolic, are not out of bounds. We get requests each week to take down images of the Prophet Mohammad. Images which would be illegal in some interpretations of Sharia. Our continued refusal to remove those images represents a claim that wikipedia is not influenced by outside demands. We can laugh at that, but are the religious mores of millions of muslims (presuming not all muslims are upset by the images) more important than whether or not a rapist gets another life sentence? Are either important enough to accede to demands like that? I'm not saying that the original deletion was wrong. Allison received a good faith and verified request from someone in her capacity as a press contact. She acted on that properly (IMO). However, once the foundation said it was a consensus issue and once consensus developed surrounding the page, the right answer is no longer to leave it deleted (or to redelete it). This isn't a case where we can oppose "social responsibility" with some internal code. We aren't selfishly disregarding the welfare of others. We are just acting as any organization in the states should in the same situation. If the NYT were given a D notice about this case, would they remove content? Would we? No. Why is it different now? Protonk (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC) TenOfAll, no one is advocating that we should have "contempt" for Scottish law. We should of course respect it, as we would respect any country. In this case, they have made a request which we have respectfully decided not to comply with. And as to your comment about this being different from "Sharia" that one legal system is somehow different than another that one must be treated with respect and another not so if the height of imposing a personal POV about the validity of various legal systems. That's why we just stay uncensored. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC) The NY Times has in fact been in this kind of situation - see [71]. Unfortunately we don't have the ability to selectively block users from particular jurisdictions. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC) The foundation could completely block UK readership from Wikipedia if they so desired. Though I don't think the bugfix to selectively block per-page has been enacted (it's a neat idea tho). Protonk (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Unprotected Thanks to Cameron et al for the feedback. I've unprotected the page. I'm not going to restore it myself because of the legal issues, but if another administrator wishes to do so then I have no objection. But I would strongly advise any UK editors not to try editing it before the case ends! -- ChrisO (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Can someone explain to me why DO NOT DISCUSS CASES OR HISTORY OF THIS PERSON HERE. Content is sub judice. is allowed to remain on the talkpage when it is in clear breach of WP:LEGAL? and the general disclaimer? --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC) How is that a legal threat, it seems nothing of the kind to me. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC) It's been removed now, but I don't think it falls foul of WP:LEGAL - who is being threatened? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Anyone who edits the article - Do not discuss because of LEGAL THREAT - can I roll my eyes at this point? or should I add that disclaimer to some other current cases and see how long it lasts? are we able to time for less than a second? --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I don't know where you're getting these words from, but it's not anywhere I see. There are no legeal threats. --Deskana (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Same here. Are you looking at a copy that your browser has cached, Cameron? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC) No I'm looking at the copy that people keep reverting to. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Reading through this discussion, it appears to me that the consensus was to recreate, and I have recreated the article. However, in line with the serious concerns raised by this case I have cut this down to a stub, removing any references to this man's past history. I hope that this avoids any possible legal issues. I did not restore the full page history and I suggest we keep this as a stub for now, and proceed with the RfC once the case has been decided. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Please restore Can someone not beholden to UK law please restore? Why have we not restored the previous content? Whats the point of starting the article over from scratch and tossing all the prior work and sourcing? rootology (C)(T) 19:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I can see some agreement above that an article should exist, but I can also see people raising concerns about the wisdom of bringing together multiple sources and including facts that may cause serious consequences in the court case currently underway. Until people can come to agreement about what content we should have, I think it would be wise to err on the side of caution. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I agree, but it's not a good precedent. When the next high profile legal case comes through in the UK, will we do the same? Or in France? Or the US? rootology (C)(T) 20:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I know, I can see the arguments on both sides of the issue. We have a moral responsibility to present all the facts that do no harm. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Suggestion - RfC This is a complex issue and we've already got a long thread here in a few hours, with much repetition. I'm wondering whether a Community Requests for Comment might be a better way of ordering this and setting down facts and views. Whatever is decided here is likely to be quoted as a precedent one way or the other. UK editors are likely to be logging on soon, so I'm guessing we've a lot more to talk about here. What say you? (It is also a matter for non-admins too, so the admins' noticeboard might not be best.) How about taking this to RfC. Alison can put here case, and others their's will less repetition.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I don't think there's any real value in this. A legal question was raised, the WMF has apparently answered it, and the article has been unprotected (though not yet undeleted - I'm not going to do this myself for reasons of legal self-preservation). What issues remain to be resolved? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC) How about While Wikipedia is not compelled to accede to requests made by courts in other (non-U.S.) jurisdictions, should we take such requests into consideration? Can we bend our policies a bit where such flexibility is likely to protect the integrity of a criminal trial? Should we take into account the likely effects of such actions on Wikipedia's reputation? Has Wikipedia ever been named as the reason for a mistrial in a murder/rape case before? Would we like this to be the first case? What is the harm to Wikipedia of leaving the article deleted for one week? You know, those issues. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC) In response to ChrisO, this wasn't ever simply a legal question. If you don't at least understand that there are other concerns (whether you agree with them or not) then I give up.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Scott, I do understand very well that this is about more than just the legalities, and I've already said so. However, since Mike Godwin has apparently kicked this issue back to the community it then becomes a matter of community consensus. If the consensus is that the article should exist then we have to respect that - we don't have to be happy about it. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC) What went wrong It seems to me that what went wrong here wasn't the deletion - an admin was contacted regarding a possible legal issue and made a temporary deletion to deal with the problem while waiting for a response from the WMF general counsel. That seems completely correct to me. The mistake was that, after Mike had said it was a community matter, the matter wasn't brought before the community. We should have had this discussion 4 weeks ago over at AFD (the article could have stayed deleted during the AFD, it's a little unusual, but I don't think it's unprecedented). A temporary deletion was fine, a deletion for a month before there was any discussion was not. --Tango (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC) That's a complete reasonable, moderate and calm analysis. What are you doing posting on WP:AN? JoshuaZ (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC) My apologies, I will endeavour to abide by community norms in future. --Tango (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC) To clarify, I didn't 'delete it pending a response from Mike', I advised him that I had done so as I made the temporary deletion but I did not ask for a formal response from him as the Foundation lawyer. Indeed as WP is a product of those who edit it and *not* the legal responsibility of the Foundation per se (who only host the service) it would have been very wrong to do so. Similarly I - as a WMF contact in the UK - was approached on behalf of the court and, after advising them that WMF/WMUK could not take any action on an 'official' basis for legal reasons I - as an individual editor and administrator - could review the article and choose to prune it severely so as to not impact the court case or stop it proceeding. Upon inspection I found there was so much information about the past history of this individual (no BLP issues; all well-sourced) that there would be minimal article remaining if I were to remove the past activities information (ie that which UK - both England and Scotland - have the problem with). As such, deletion for the duration of the trial appeared to be the logical and sensible conclusion and that is what I did. Note for Americans (et al) is that juries are not sequestered here except once they have been sent by the judge to consider their verdict, ie only after all the presentation of evidence. --AlisonW (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Comment – the deletion was in good faith but the legal response seems odd. It would have made more sense to delete the problematic article, create a new article carefully based on reliable sources, using the quality press with care, and then fully protect that version to prevent dubious content from being added. As it is, a google brings up the current page as the second hit, which highlights this situation, with a Scotsman article at no. 1 and the BBC at no. 3. Given that both articles contain information which presumably meets their legal obligations, it seems absurd that we are going to extreme lengths to avoid displaying that information. A legal discussion with the Procurator Fiscal would seem advisable to establish ground rules, and ideally establish the legal situation which could be displayed in the article rather than making assumptions. By the way, Scots law is neither English law nor Common law. . . . dave souza, talk 20:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC) In that case, I think you probably acted incorrectly (although, clearly in good faith). This isn't a one-off thing, it will occur for any reasonably high profile court case, so it's a matter to be dealt with by policy not on a case-by-case basis (even if it is done case-by-case, each case should be brought to AN or somewhere for review). If you feel it was correct to delete the article, please propose an appropriate policy for discussion. --Tango (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC) What Jimbo has just said " I strongly recommend against restoring the article hastily." [72] I think at least it needs full protection now. The article was restored in quite a rush, there was no need for such speed. dougweller (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC) ...No offense to Ten, but the summary he gave jimbo wasn't the most complete or accurate picture of what happened. Protonk (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Either way, cautioning against hasty action is generally good advice. --Tango (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Let's wait and see if a consensus develops on its content over the next few hours before deciding if full protection is required. Reaching a consensus is always preferable to protecting articles. --Tango (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Of course cautioning against hasty action is good advice. But unless we all agree to accept what Jimbo has said as just "Advice", there is a problem in asking for some declaration on the subject and leaving out key elements like: Mike Godwin said it was up to the community and the article has been deleted for a month. Protonk (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Do we not all agree to accept it as just advice? Other than his vote in board meetings and he role with ArbCom, Jimbo doesn't have to power to do anything more than advise. His advice carries a lot of weight, but it is still just advice. --Tango (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC) It would be nice if Jimbo commented here' regarding the incident, to receive the full picture and not to make decisions based on outdated and incorrect information. seicer | talk | contribs 20:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Yes, but looking at the length of this discussion, I don't blame him for not reading it! --Tango (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC) If he's giving advice without reading all the documentation regarding the question then he would do better to remain silent on the issue. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Semi-protected I have semi-protected the article for one month. From my perspective as a completely uninvolved admin, this is how I see the situation. We had an apparently poorly-sourced article about a defendent, and it was so poorly sourced that it almost caused a case against him to be thrown out because of the possibility of prejudicing the jury. Until consensus can be reached on what to do with it, I think it's incumbent upon us to take whatever measures we can to prevent prejudicing a jury--something which judges and law enforcement are very skittish about. It's sad that it takes a court case to reveal BLP issues. Blueboy96 20:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC) No one has claimed that anything inside the article was poorly sourced. Please let's not wreck the signal to noise ratio anymore. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC) That wasn't the issue - it was what it revealed about his past (which was sourced). In a UK court case, previous convictions are not mentioned - that was the issue. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Indeed, the content was very well sourced (!) and that was the problem. If the court finds out that a jury has been made aware of a defendants past history (ie convictions) then the case can be thrown out and although a retrial is possible it rarely happens (cf. comment above about previous cases where history was detailed in the media) --AlisonW (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC) So on that basis are we going to adopt stubbing of uk court cases of people already convicted of a crime as SOP? because all of the issues here would apply to each and every one of them. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Well, maybe I did read the thread wrong ... but at the very least, we have to do what we can to keep information from being inserted that may prejudice a jury until we can figure out what to do with this article. TenofAll raises a valid point--we can't allow Wikipedia to potentially be held responsible for altering the outcome of a criminal case. Given the circumstances, whoever contacted AlisonW must have seen the "anyone can edit" notice and panicked. Blueboy96 20:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Blueboy, there's no reason to believe that anyone had any concern about the ability for anyone to edit at all. You seem to be stuck in viewing this issue as part of a certain paradigm (the problem of addition of unsourced or poorly sourced information). It has nothing at all to do with that. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Indeed. It seems to be the exact opposite. --Tango (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC) The courts must know that in the "information age" they can't really expect jurors to not know anything other than what they hear in court. Jurors are told not to read the papers or do other research, if they choose to ignore that and look the person up on Wikipedia, it's not really our problem. --Tango (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Like I said, I admit I may have read the thread wrong. But given the circumstances, we don't want anyone to say, "If they knew that they could affect the outcome of a trial, why didn't they do something?" So maybe my original reasoning behind the semi-protect may have been wrong--but the result based on what the NYT had to do is probably correct. And even though we don't have a sub judice rule here in the States, cases have been thrown out because the media (and like it or not, we're considered part of the media) created an atmosphere that made a fair trial impossible. Blueboy96 20:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC) We aren't part of the media - Wikinews is. We're an encyclopedia. We provide information on notable individuals that has been previously reported by reliable sources, such as actual members of the media. And in this case, even if we decide to keep the article down during the trial, that material is all going to be available in the various reliable sources in which we had found it in the first place. I don't see that taking down our article is going to do any real good as far as keeping members of a jury in the dark. Right now, our article is the #1 Google result for Mr. Tobin's name. If someone looking for information on him and his criminal past isn't able to find it on our site, they can go all the way down to the #3 result, a BBC News article entitled "Sex killer Tobin's violent past", which describes his past convictions for rape and murder. Regardless of what we do, the genie isn't going back into the bottle. As such, since the police's goal here is patently impossible, I'd tend to focus on our primary mission - which involves putting together a fair, thorough, and scrupulously accurate article on Mr. Tobin, with appropriate citations. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Normally it should be fully protected in case involving the Foundation, so I made it full. Secret account 20:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC) It's not involving the foundation, though, Mike apparently said it was a community matter. --Tango (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC) "...in cases involving the Foundation"... How many admin actions on this article does that make today by people with no firm grasp of the situation? If you're going to act on an article because of an AN thread, at least read the entire thread. --barneca (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC) At a minimum, it should be reduced back to semi protection. Tango's correct. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I have an interest in this matter as, when I was doing my masters, I lived next to the high court of the justiciary and I used to attend the Angelika Gluk court case. Anyways, that aside, JW's comments are wise and I'm baffled people decided to act so quickly on this thing. Just weigh up the potential harm gained every second the article is not visible to non-admins versus the potential, if unlikely, alternatives. The Scottish police of course, acting on their own, do not have the authority to permanently remove content from an internet encyclopedia based in servers in Scotland let alone in Florida, but that's neither here nor there in the short term. Given Alison's lack of competence (and this is the WF fault for being disorganized) she acted, as we want our kids to act when they hear fire alarms, on the side of caution. And yes, it would have been helpful if Alison had indicated her position as normal admins should feel safe doing their jobs without wondering if there's some secret WF issue (yes, I read "It was not taken on behalf of what the Wikimedia Foundation", but that should have been stated also if you can be found by other admins as a WF contact). There should be no problems restoring this article ... though obviously the verifiability of most of its assertions will probably be stricter now and its size probably cut down. A Scottish WF, for interest, and any wiki editor based here, would not likely be vulnerable to any legal action as long as there was a reasonable attempt to ensure that any potentially damaging information was true. That's of course a different matter from the moral issue of prejudicing a jury. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I feel I should point out that our article on the Angelika Kluk murder case also includes (with citations) a partial description of Mr. Tobin's criminal past. So even if Mr. Tobin's article is (unwisly, IMO) stubbed for the duration of the trial, anyone running a simple search of the site will still be able to uncover the true state of things. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC) That material is fine, since it does not explicitly link him to the current murder case. You would have to know about that past case in order to find that article, so the article wouldn't have told you anything you didn't already know. The problem would come from adding a link from the Peter Tobin article to that article on his past history. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Actually, if you type "Peter Tobin" in the search box and then click "Search" instead of "Go", the Angelika Kluk murder case page is the fifth result. You also find several other pages (HMP Peterhead, Donald Findlay, Tobin, and Bible John) that reference Tobin's past crimes and/or convictions. Alternately, you could just use the "what links here" link on Tobin's article and get the same information. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC) We are an encyclopedia, and our job is to present sourced information.,Given the previous crimes, he meets the standard for notability. Given the sources for the information, it's well sourced. There is no further action necessary except to guard against the insertion of information that does not meet the requirements. Taking any action of this sort on request from a police force is an abnegation of our responsibilities for NPOV . To what extent the foundation would want to deal with legal action taken about them is their concern. In this case, they were consulted and said they did not wish to take legal action. That would seem to settle the matter. It does not violate our own policies, and there is no legal requirement to remove. point out this was a rquest from the police, not the court.To what extent we want to deal with police requests in public safety emergencies might possibly be another matter, but this was not one of them. The UK legal system will do what it chooses to do, and people in the UK may prudently wish to consider its restrictions in their own editing, but they cannot take action that interferes with the content submitted by others. One question I have not seen addressed--what is the current status of the case? I can see possible removal for a day or so during a trial, but if a country has a policy of blocking news for weeks or months or years unti ;lfinal decision of a case, that amounts to censorship, and we do not do that or we forfeit our creditability. I therefore propose the following policy: Requests for removal of information during an ongoing legal case should be referred to the foundation. if they do not choose to take action, we do not remove material, but we do make sure our own BLP policy is enforced strictly. DGG (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC) The case is currently in its final stages; the prosecution and defence have given their closing statements, [73] and I would imagine that the judge will sum up tomorrow. The jury will be sent out after that and a verdict can be expected a few hours or days later. There's a reasonable chance that it'll all be over by Friday. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure this incident is particularly problematic (the guy is a convicted multiple rapist and murderer, the jury will know that anyway without the wiki article having any additional effect on their factual judgment about these particular other crimes). Legal action won't very likely happen here either (I would though be interested to know who specifically made the request), but, ignoring the fact that it is up to particular countries to protect their own juries from prejudice, we should surely have moral concerns and perhaps then specific policies about trials and the effects our articles could have, even beyond the current BLP stuff. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Zimbabwe also has sub judice laws - if we get contacted are we going to stub articles around individuals that in court there? There are a whole raft of questions. Can anyone/someone kick off a discussion in a suitable place because I don't think that we are going to settle them all here in this AN thread. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Deacon, having moral concerns about the effects of our articles is the exact opposite of NPOV. We would then publish no articles unless good would come of it--depending on ones viewpoints, all articles on crime would emphasise the penalties, all articles on politics the virtues of democracy. We would eliminate any link to a site that was morally dangerous, would not cover X rated movies or pornography, and would not describe sexual or violent scenes in books. To decide whether to cover a possible criminal, we would have to decide whether or not he was guilty. to be sure, this is where the logical extension of do no harm would lead us. Myself, I hold to the strict but very narrow interpretation of BLP as the only precaution against degenerating into censorship. DGG (talk) 00:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC) For my part, I think the article should have been deleted and immediately recreated as a stub, not just deleted outright. Blueboy96 23:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC) BLP discussion I've started a general discussion of the principles raised by this case at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Current_legal_cases. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC) This discussion seems to be moving towards consensus. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Summary of discussion Since this is a long discussion, for the sake of those arriving late to the discussion I'm writing a brief summary. Feel free to edit. Dcoetzee 22:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Peter Tobin, the accused in the Vicky Hamilton murder case in Dundee, Scotland, is currently being prosecuted in a trial by jury. The article Peter Tobin was temporarily deleted by an admin named User:AlisonW after being contacted by the Scottish police, who were concerned that the information presented in this article was likely to taint the jury and lead to the case being thrown out in the near future, because it discussed Peter Tobin's inadmissable prior crimes. Although she is a United Kingdom press contact and OTRS agent for the Wikimedia Foundation, WMF explicitly takes no position on the action and she deleted the article of her own accord. Users supporting the deletion believe that we have a moral obligation to avoid tainting jurors; that causing a mistrial could have a negative impact on public relations and possibly incur sanctions for contempt of court; and that the temporary nature of the deletion makes it tolerable. Users opposing the deletion view it as an act of censorship that sets a negative precedent, and believe that no information should be in the article that is not already available elsewhere online. The article was restored based on this discussion as a protected stub, with any prejudicial material removed. There is general agreement that any concerns should be based on the current state of the article, rather than fear of what might be added; and that the issue will be moot when the case wraps up in the next few days. It may be a fair summary, but to call it "government censorship" is an absurdity - the police are not the government, and the inadmissibility of prior convictions is an established principle; previous cases have been declared mistrials because of prejudicial reporting by newspapers. This will all be sorted out well before the deadline. Guy (Help!) 23:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure I agree with the contention that "the police are not the government". The police are (or at least represent) the government in most countries I know. If we are waiting for that moment where Mao will rise from the dead and command the politburo to censor wikipedia in order to call it government censorship, we will be waiting a long time. Most censorship is mundane, like this. fighting it means making the right mundane decision each time. Protonk (talk) 02:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC) To correct elements in your summary: (a) As a matter of policy - and to retain the rights of editors - the Foundation would not get *formally* get involved as that would suggest a legal liability of a sort which does not exist, and whilst I was contacted as a representative of the Foundation (and WMUK) I could not and did not act in that capacity. (b) This is not in the strict sense about our (WP) legal liability or responsibility, but about our ethical responsibility to see no harm done and, imho, if a temporary deletion while process of law continues assists our meeting that ethical standard, then I say it is a good thing. (c) There was at no time any question of 'censorship'. All of the (well-sourced) information is safely stored away in the archives and can be retrieved as soon as the trial is over (and, indeed, the article added to, I have no doubt). (d) The argument that 'what do we do next; remove content at the request of Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, etc?' is rather a straw man. I would suggest - without prejudice - that each request be taken on its merits. 'Do no harm' is a great way to behave; there is nothing to be gained by us saying 'publish and be damned' if being damned means we lose our reputation - and our income donations. (e) I made the decision almost a month ago. That it 'exploded' today is, um, 'interesting', but the evidence would appear to suggest that great haste in overturning / revisiting that decision is not necessary and, indeed, may prevent a sensible decision being reached. --AlisonW (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC) As the user who first asked AlisonW about the deletion, I support the decision to remove past history pending the resolution of the current matter before the Scotish court. As Jimbo said, "The case will still be as famous and appropriate for an encyclopia(sic)... a week from now."[74] However, I disagreed that we couldn't expand the article to include some information about the current trial - certainly there can be no prejudice to report things that the jurors themselves are hearing. I apologize for not bringing it to the wider community earlier, but I thought who cares if it isn't there over the next few weeks, it will be there soon and then stay there for years! --Trödel 00:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC) I am disinterested in the outcome and I invite the summary to be edited; I was merely attempting to summarize and rephrase the arguments of others and make no claim as to their merit. I've removed the word "government". Dcoetzee 01:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Given that the protection template on the article links to this very discussion, I'm wondering what the point of the stubbing was. 86.44.21.140 (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Re: Doing no harm, what harm are we talking about? There is no evidence that Scottish court proceedings can be prejudiced by foreign websites, other than the assertions of a police officer. It seems to be the consensus that the police officer was simply wrong. If such a 'loophole' exists, then the possibility exists that a future case may be thrown out. Peter Tobin is already in jail for the rest of his life so I assert that it is better that this trial goes awry and lessons are learned/laws changed rather than a future case where the verdict has a real effect on the freedom of a defendant. The act of deleting the article may in a way have caused harm by helping to sweep what may be an important issue under the rug. 81.133.232.215 (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC) This is one of the more asinine cases of censorship I have seen on Wikipedia. The argument has been made that well sourced, highly encyclopedic and NPOV material about a notable individual should be removed from Wikipedia because members of a jury in Scotland might read it and their reading it might render a fair trial of the subject impossible. I have served on a jury, in the U.S., in a felony trial. The jury was not sequestered. The judge did not find it necessary to forbid all the newspapers from publishing information about the accused. He just instructed the jury to refrain from reading press accounts, or from discussing the case with others, or from going to the crime scene and trying to be a Crime Scene Investigator. Are judges in Scotland unable to instruct the jurors not to read up on the defendant in Wikipedia? Wikimedia Foundation is not subject to the laws of Scotland, and any well referenced NPOV material consistent with WP:BLP should be left in the article regardless of the demands of the legal system somewhere else in the world. Should a court in Iran, China or North Korea be able to censor the content of Wikipedia like this censorship by a Scottish court? I think not. If a juror somewhere in the world informs the judge that he is unable to resist reading up on the case in a foreign source such as Wikipedia, the juror should be dismissed and punished, and replaced by an alternate willing to respect the orders of the judge. Edison (talk) 04:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC) It doesn't matter. Things have changed around here, man. 2 years ago this would have resulted in a roaring fusillade of community outrage that WP:CENSOR was being being stepped on to please a foreign police agency. Nowadays, the pendulum has swung to where we have 300 editors and admins standing around wringing their hands and whining about the best way to "do no harm" to a cited, notable murderer. You people want to talk about loss of community support in the UK if we don't self-censor to please the Scots? How about the loss of community confidence in the neutral, monolithic, encyclopedic nature of this Project we've dedicated literally years of our lives to??? WP:CENSOR is not just another bunch of administrative, semantic crap; for some of us anyway, it's been an ideal that strikes to the very core of what the Project stands for. But, like I said, that was then, this is now. If the shifting winds of consensus have decided that WP:BLP should be placed first in our priorities, and it should focus on appeasement and "The squeaky wheel gets the grease, regardless of the merits", maybe it's time I take a long Wikibreak. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 06:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Unprotect Since it isn't a foundation issue, as was assumed when it was last fully protected, and we have decided not to delete it, can we get a consensus to unprotect this page. I don't think the position that content allowed by our BLP policy should be removed from the article--this represents some interpretation of BLP that I am wholly unfamiliar with. Further, the current article represents far less than can (or should) be summarized from emminently reliable sources as well as far less info than exists about the subject on other articles (e.g. articles on the various crimes he has or is alleged to have committed). As for the "no rush/no deadline" argument...sure. We aren't in a rush. And there is no deadline. But if there was no consensus to remove the material in the first place, nor any policy (or foundation direction) directing such a removal, replacing the content isn't a "rush" or a push to "finish" the article. Replacing the content is ensuring that we aren't actively making the mistake of offloading editorial decisions to judicial systems which have no legal authority over wikipedia. It is much less "getting it right" than it is "making sure we aren't getting it wrong". So what do we say? Unprotect and edit this article just as we would any other BLP? Protonk (talk) 04:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Endorse Unprotecting the article. Edison (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Bad idea. There is no deadline, let's just do the decent thing and wait a couple of days, since The Man asked nicely. It's not like we're saying this is permanent or anything, only until the jury returns its verdict. That really is not a big deal. Guy (Help!) 08:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Don't unprotect, it's not going to do any harm to wait. We were asked nicely. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Unprotection would almost certainly lead to an edit war. Editors who are worried about precedents and chilling effects can have a nice long RfC about this after the fact, but playing it safe for now seems wise considering that this is new ground for us. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Leave it protected. We need to pick our battles carefully and the free speech vs Sub Judice one isn't one we can hope to get any glory out of. Protection - and it's not for long, so nobody will miss Wikipedia's pressing deadline - allows for reflection. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 10:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Leave fully protected with understanding that those who can edit a protected article may edit it. This allows trusted users to make edits with the concerns/issues discussed here in mind. --Trödel 13:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Unprotect, and politely decline the Scots' request. Sequestering members of a jury is their job, not ours, and in any event removing the (well-cited) content from here will just funnel interested parties to other sites that have no qualms about hosting it, such as the various news reports we used to write the article in the first place. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC) The United Kingdom doesn't sequester juries. They go home each night. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 14:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC) To be precise - the jury can be sequestered if the judge thinks it's needed. It's not been done in the case, so I guess the judge doesn't think it's needed. Maybe we should wipe all of this discussion in case a jury member reads it? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Unprotect on the condition that we be very thorough on the article in references everything to the best of our abilities. There is nothing here that can't be found by anyone wanting to know elsewhere. As long as we're not putting opinions, and everything is verified, then it should be returned. Canterbury Tail talk 15:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Leave protected per there's no rush and it isn't permanent. Whether or not this is a precedent can be discussed separately, but atm we've not had that discussion. Let's for the mo just err on the side of caution and respect the request. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Do people not understand the basic notion that the jury can be warned not to read press accounts and not to discuss the case with anyone WITHOUT sequestering them? Is that concept unknown in the UK? Are jurors there so irresponsible that they must be locked up in a cheap motel to keep them from watching the news coverage of the trial on tv and reading newspaper articles or Wikipedia articles about the case or the accused? I find that surprising, to say the least. Edison (talk) 05:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC) Convicted Tobin's conviction has now been announced on BBC News 24. May we get this article back to normal? There's only one sentence he will receive, and the jury has no say at all in that. --Rodhullandemu 16:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Indeed - can this silly sorry episode conclude as it should? with a restored article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC) By all means. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC) But a protocol should be put into place for future court requests. Kingturtle (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Agreed, but not under the pressure of a brou-ha-ha. I've restored the article and it has now been updated to reflect recent developments. --Rodhullandemu 16:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC) The "protocol" should be NOT to delete such an article in the future unless legal process requires it, since only well referenced information should be in such an articlem, and an over-curious computer-literate juror can simpley find the sources via Google News search. It should be up to the judge to instruct the juror not to be an independent investigator, but rather to judge the accused based only on the evidence and testimony presented in court. This episode of excessive censorship was silly and detrimental to the project. Edison (talk) 05:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC) Here's the $64,000 question He's got another trial for another murder coming up (unless I've missed a news report somewhere) - are we going to be blanking it again or are we going to wait for our instructions from the crown ? Shall we sort that out now or shall we all edit war and war wheel when the time comes? --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC) We need a policy - if people believe it is a good idea to delete of stubify articles during court cases they should propose a policy by the standard method and we can discuss it, in the absence of such a policy we shouldn't do anything in future. AN is not the place to decide on new policy. --Tango (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC) As I understand the UK sub judice rule, there have to be legal proceedings in active contemplation or progress, and we don't know whether that is the case in relation to remaining matters. Certainly it would be so difficult for Tobin to receive a fair trial that my opinion is that they would not proceed anyway. I propose we deal with that issue if and when it arises. --Rodhullandemu 16:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC) 1)we really really shouldn't be blanking it on priciple 2)The coldly cynical fact is that he is a reasonable case to find out if any claimed problems are real. He's never going to be released whatever so the effect in that area is zero.Geni 17:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC) I don't understand all these posts about how we need a policy for this sort of thing. We've had one for almost a decade called WP:CENSOR. Why is it because the government asks nicely is it somehow different? Why are there not more people fucking furious that we just changed content at the request of a scottish police officer? Protonk (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Well, had the police come to me with a similar request, even purporting to emanate from a judge, I would have declined it on the basis of lack of jurisdiction. To that extent, whereas I am (professionally) annoyed that it was done, I am not surprised. Most moderate people these days tend to do what the police say and possibly ask questions afterwards; I still think that whatever Mike Godwin said at the time, it should have been brought here for review. However I see little merit in flogging a dead horse, however warm it happens to be. --Rodhullandemu 17:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC) You are right, there is probably a real risk of beating the dead horse. I guess I'm more surprised than anything about the number of editors who seem perfectly ok with this chain of events. Protonk (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC) I have read this thread and have several issues with the intent. We seem to have some contention with Scottish law. Any policy should balance both our mission and common sense removals. That being said, it is completely contradictory to whitewash past actions as that is what we write about. I fail to see how an neutral report of past publicly available information could be a injustice to a defendant. It is not our job to sequester the jury, that is the province of the courts. If the jury cannot follow the given instructions, that is not our problem. I would therefore use a policy of a NPOV check upon recent of any further sub judice claims. We should not be deleting stuff willy nilly because it makes the Court's job easier. Also, we are not subject to Scottish law and should not be considered as such. Just my two cents. Geoff Plourde (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC) As the old saying goes, it's not the point, it's the principle. I keep hearing "They asked nicely" and "We'd get bad press in the UK if we don't" and "It's only temporary". All of these are true statements which still ignore the much more important fundamental issue at hand: whether consensus supports voluntary extra-judicial abrogation of WP:CENSOR when dealing with WP:BLP issues, and if so, in what circumstances. If this is the case, then both policies need to be rewritten to reflect it, because the decision to voluntarily self-censor a BLP at the request of a non-US government agency, while supported by a limited consensus, is a Project-wide issue that currently is NOT supported by either policy (and indeed, seems to fly directly in the face of both the letter and spirit of WP:CENSOR). In the face of colossal and violent opposition, we were willing to literally risk rioting and bloodshed in the streets of the Arab world to uphold WP:CENSOR in the Depictions of Mohammed case, on a page that was getting half a million hits a month and international news coverage. It would have been just a tiny, tiny change to the article, and would have cost us essentially nothing, and all the furor would have stopped. But we held firm. I feel like it was one of our proudest hours and did a lot to prove to people we were a real, neutral Encyclopedia. It makes me sad to see how far we've fallen in the interest of public relations. We may as well call the Scotland National Police and see if they want to buy some advertising space. In for a penny, in for a pound, right? Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 17:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC) In an ironic turn, we were politely telling a muslim reader that we would never change the images of Mohammed upon request at the same time that we upheld the deletion of this article upon request. Maybe that will change if the Iranian government asks nicely. Protonk (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC) I'm pretty sure it's an offence to display images of Mohammed in Iran? We could be causing our readers to commit criminal offences by viewing the images. Sure, you could say, they don't have to view the images - but the jury in this case was 12 people - and they didn't have to view the article either. This is actually worse as we are talking about millions of people who could be turned into criminals because of our actions. We should remove them immediately so that we do no harm --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Do you know it's an offence to view the images, even if you aren't responsible for them being there? Let's not make wild guesses about the law in a given country and then start drawing conclusions from them. --Tango (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Let's not make wild guesses about the law in a given country - hasn't that been the basis of this whole sorry mess? --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Surely you don't mean that it is an offense to view the material in scotland, not publish it in america, RIGHT? Protonk (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC) I have no idea what you're trying to say there, but whatever it is is nonsense because my comment was in reply to a guess about the law in Iran, not Scotland or the US. --Tango (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC) This discussion is pointless. Let's wait and see if anyone actually proposes such a policy, we only need to detail all these reasons why it's a bad idea if someone actually takes the opposite position. So far, they haven't. (I should clarify, when I said above "we need a policy" I meant "we need a policy if we're going to do anything about such requests", in the absence of policy, the default would be politely declining such requests and telling the person asking to contact the foundation if they think they have a legal right to demand it.) --Tango (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion continued at WP talk:BLP

Undisclosed Desires

Hey I was trying to link the "Undisclosed Desires" page directly to the Muse page, and it said that I was unable to due to the exclusivity of its access. So I am requesting that you add in that link from the word "Undisclosed Desires" on the "Muse (band)" page to the "Undisclosed Desires (song)" page.

Very appreciative indeed, Sharks195

It is already linked in the External links section. — Edokter • Talk • 00:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)