Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

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 [1]. 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)

"List of programs broadcast by" mess

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 [2]. I almost had hope. It went a day and a half without being challenged. But, the prod got removed [3], 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)

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.[4] 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.[5] 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)

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)

Stubs

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 say "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)

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[7] (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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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, [8] 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)

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)

Community ban request

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)

Template vandalism on Yttrium

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)

Persistent Copyvios from User:Rockyobody

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sanity Check requested

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)

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)

User:Ceiling Cat

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)