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. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Current issues

Problematic user User:Donreed

This was declined at AIV - but it seems like something should be done, so I'm raising it here. Donreed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) He makes reasonably decent copy edits most of the time - but these appear to be aimed at hiding edits like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Professor&diff=prev&oldid=173019441 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun-type_fission_weapon&diff=next&oldid=173235680 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Urban_legend&diff=prev&oldid=172270300 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alice_Guszalewicz&diff=next&oldid=172267384 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sally_Bedell_Smith&diff=prev&oldid=172257513. I'm not sure it's worth anyone's time to trawl through this user's edits to dig out the nonsense he is inserting. I would suggest blocking as the user has been warned many times before Megapixie (talk) 08:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't say that there is a good deal of salvagable encyclopedic content in the diffs you provide, but neither can I say that any of the edits is strictly nonsense or is plainly vandalistic; indeed, in the absence of something compelling to the contrary, one would do well to conclude that each is made in good faith. To be sure, we (generally) block users the net effect of whose contributions on the project is negative and appears likely to remain negative, even when those users act, by any measure, in good faith and simply cannot (or elect not to) act consistent with our policies and guidelines and mission, and so this isn't so much a comment on the propriety of a block here as on the characterizations of the edits adduced as nonsense and of other copy-editing work as having been undertaken to "hid[e]" the offending edits, which seem, even if it matters little to the disposition of the underlying issue, a bit off.

On the underlying issue: David Broadfoot has suggested to the user, rather sensibly, IMHO, that the latter might do well to confine his Wikipedia involvement to reading articles. Joe (Wake me from my food coma) 10:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is a problematic pattern here. I'm sure Donreed's anecdotes are entertaining at parties, but they aren't exactly encyclopedic. I have asked Donreed to join in this discussion and explain what he thinks the purpose of Wikipedia is, and why he thinks these edits fit with that purpose. ··coelacan 10:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

He's ploughed ahead with 40 edits since you wrote on his talk page "Please do not make any other edits to Wikipedia until you have joined in the discussion on the administrators' noticeboard." --David Broadfoot (talk) 06:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

And another 18 edits since then... ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY OF THE PACIFIC: The fairly aceptable "volumes which they have purchased in hard copy form" has been mangled into "volumes that have purchased been in hard copy form"; BERETS: a detailed exposition of the difficulties matching sizes between continents; a crushingly boring anecdote about LINUS PAULING: "In 1992, a Silicon Valley technical writer got a call from his former girlfriend, asking him to pick her up at the airport. When he approached the jetway, wearing his usual leather jacket and beret, he saw her talking with an elderly man wearing a blue suit and a beret. He later found out that Laura had been seated randomly by the airline-reservation computer next to this mysterious man. She had asked: "Are you Linus Pauling?" "Yes," he replied. She learned that Pauling was returning from his wife's funeral in Los Angeles; Laura had returned from a family visit herself."; an edit premised on the misconception that being a Unitarian Universalist and being an atheist are mutually exclusive; a supposition about AEROBIC EXERCISE; and, finally, some good copyediting on BLACK HOLES. --David Broadfoot (talk) 09:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Despite six requests, from various users, that he use Edit Summaries, I note that he has only done soonce for the last 100 edits. And that was to assert "I've corrected this fictitious quote to the way it is most often quoted.", when in fact, as I wrote below, that it was most often quoted the other way, but a factor of 1,000:1. --David Broadfoot (talk) 06:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This takes the cake [1] (all but the first paragragh was added by User:Donreed, and reverted by User:Megapixie). We've got it all here: chatty conjecture; questions; suggestions; discussion of his Google searches; a list that contains one numbered entry, and one bullet point; and to cap it all off, a suggestion that the much-published journalist in question may never have been born! Lucky he only touched on what is "not known" by him, else the article would have exceeded the size limit (of the Internet.) He even ended those edits with his nickname: 'disinformation' --David Broadfoot (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Donreed - a two-day synopsis (phew!)

I'm quite sure that User:Donreed's multiple contiguous edits are not designed to hide previous edits, but they do make it very difficult to revert - forcing one to either throw out the good with the bad (as I've seen several editors doing with Donreed's contributions), or waste a lot of time correcting them. The multiple edits are a result of lack of thought and preparation: many typos are subsequently fixed in dribs and drabs; additional nonsense and anecdotes are added in dribs & drabs; invalid internal links he has added are repaired; etc.

I am convinced that Donreed's edits are all made in good faith. It's just that he has no idea regarding what is proper (style or relevance), and he is extremely careless and presumptive. I have trawled through his edits of the past couple of days, and note that nearly all of his edits, especially those of a substantial nature, have been reverted by other users - so he is really wasting not only his own time, but that of many others as well.

His contributions include:

• numerous edits to swap "that" for "which", his use of the appropriate restrictive or descriptive pronoun always being correct.
• insertion of commas, mostly in the appropriate places, though often far too heavy-handed with them.
• re-phrasing attempts that are sometimes good, sometimes resulting in worse phraseology, and, very worryingly, attempts that end up changing the meaning of the sentence to inadvertently change its meaning to one that is incorrect.
• inane chatty comments like these: [2] and [3] (reversion by User:Ryulong) and [4] (reversion by User:Megapixie) and [5] (reversion of Amazon shopping advice and other crud by User:David Broadfoot) and [6] (reversion by User:Key to the city)

• careless entries like [7] (wrong book title corrected by User:David Broadfoot)

• this pay-for-porn--amazon-is-best--no-it's-free-after-all sequence (which was all reverted by User:Megapixie) is a classic:
  • at 17:49 he added useless chatty info about an adult site's details and price of $950 (when what he should have been doing was deleting the link to the copyrighted text instead) [8]
  • at 17:54 he added Amazon pricing/buying tips [9]
  • at 17:55 he decided that you don't have to pay the porn $950 after all to view that link - it's free [10]

• in [11] he contributes legal advice regarding copyright, that is not only US-specific, but also incorrect in any case. (See [12] - one only needs to deposit works in the Library of Congress to avoid fines; and even then only if the work is "published". The requirement, as loose as it is, does not even extent to private/secret copyrighted works.)

• [13] included fluff like "It is surprising that dozens of men and women who deal with aviation emergencies or possible air war every day had not read Tom CLancy's novel Debt of Honor".

• In the article 'Professors', he launches into a lengthy diatribe about Silicon Valley real estate prices, and the 99-year Hong Kong lease and the quality of campus libraries here [14] which he further elaborated into a comparative analysis of various libraries here [15] and then launches into a completely uninteresting account of how libraries handle the problem of overdue books; followed by a self-admitted "apocryphal tale" ending with "Apparently, he was never charged with an indiscretion, much less a crime." ending with an admonition to himself to cite a reference - fascinating reading here: [16]. Yes, that was all in the Wikipedia entry for Professor!

• More false information contained in an alleged "correction" by Donreed here [17] where he asserts that his version of the alleged quote is more the more common one. However, a Google search shows that the allegedly less common quote is actually 1,000 times more common. Reverted by User:David Broadfoot

• in [18] he added two commas to the sentence: "The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National Archives had slightly different capitalization" to give: "The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, which hangs in the National Archives, had slightly different capitalization" which imparts a different (and incorrect) meaning to sentence. He then added more junk, misspellings, and missing punctuation.

• his entry [19] was deleted by User:Flowanda as unencyclopedic.

• his entry [20] is unencyclopedic, contains unnecessary edits, incorrect punctuation, and even an aside inserted into middle of a quotation!

• [21] he mistakenly believes that "non-mainstream" is the same thing as "not peer-reviewed" and edited the article to include this mistaken 'information' as a clarification. Furthermore, he presumptively adds that those reports were all in "physics journals" - a mere assumption, and an incorrect one at that. He is turning Wikipedia into a collection of conjecture masquerading as fact.

• in [22] he edited a literal quotation to correct grammar / punctuation.

• his contribution [23] was reverted by User:TEB728 with the comment: "(this is true but irrelevant to an article on English)"

• in [24] he changed "Indian literary and vernacular language" to "Indian literary and vernacular languages" - subtly changing the meaning.

• his contributions [25] and [26] and [27] and [28] and [29] and another addition as well, were all reverted by User:Brianyoumans here: [30]

• in his edit [31] he added the words "electorions", "engaglged", made an unnecessary reword from an acceptable "were once" to a tautological "had formerly been". He also changed "malpractice" to "malfeasance" because he thought it was more appropriate - it would have been better usage, except for the fact that they were actually charged with "malpractice".

• in [32] User:Cloonmore reverted what he called Donreed's "unsourced claim that the song's about a Jane from Tudor English history"

• in [33] he changed the sentence: "She was never crowned because of an epidemic of plague in London where the coronation was to take place" to a very torturous, and comma-loving: "She was never crowned, because London, where the coronation was to take place, was hit by a plague epidemic." It was reverted by User:Secisek here: [34]

• User:David Broadfoot reverted [35] to remove classic Donreedian gems like "elderly people often die, even if they are not killed" and the word "differinging".

• [36] and [37] and [38] were all reverted by User:Secisek with the comment "(Tell me you didn't just add WP:OR and then fact tag it yourself. Revert)" here [39]. Yes, amazingly, Donreed makes a habit of introducing 'original research' and opinion - and fact-tagging it himself.

• [40] and [41] and [42] and [43] and [44] and [45] and [46] and [47] (containing classic Donreedisms like "A person with unlimited funds could simply buy all back issues of Penthouse,—except for a few that have been withdrawn from circulation or become extremely rare, like the Vanessa Lynn Williams and Traci Lords issues—read them all, and maybe find the article." were all reverted by User:Oneiros here [48]

• in [49] he ventures into the finance world, changing the accepted accounting phraseology "General Media had been cash flow positive for the prior 10 years" to an obtuse "General Media had had a positive cash flow for the prior 10 years". Reverted by User:Oneiros here: [50].

• [51] was reverted by me with the comment that 'his pen name wasn't "Latinized to" anything... his real name was Latinized to produce his pen name' - another well-meaning attempt to copyedit that actually balls things up.

• in [52] he changes "money" to "themoney". Another undesirable edit, even if he had bothered to write "the money" instead.

• in [53] he gives us shopping advice for "goatskin leather jackets" from LL Bean - very inappropriately included in the "Memorials" section too, but let's just dump the trash anywhere. Reverted by User:Dbrodbeck.

• in [54] he moved into the field of Corporations and Securities advice when he changed "traded on the public markets" to "public companies". However, there is no requirement that a public company has to be listed, so his edit left the article factually incorrect.

• [55] and and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jean_Paulhan&diff=next&oldid=173356028 were reverted by User:Megapixie for "uncited additions". Actualy, by this time I think that Mexapixie was simply exhausted.

• in [56] he changed "hydrodynamic and hydromagnetic stability" to "hydrodynamics and hydromagnetic stability", but that changes the meaning: the scientist didn't work on "hydrodynamics" - he worked specifically on "hydrodynamic stability", as stated in the original version of the text. Also, his addition of "((The footnotes themselves do not reveal the contents of the papers cited. Any scholar with access to a good university library can track them down)" here [57] is again unencyclopedic, apart from the unmatched parentheses. Those two edits, and another two were rolled back by User:Megapixie.

It's very easy to make voluminous edits to Wikipeda when you don't have to concern yourself with getting the facts right. If User:Donreed restricted himself to changing "which" to "that", he would be providing a useful service - almost free of danger. If Donreed continues how is is, and the Admins don't step in, then (to maintain our sanity and have some time left for more important things, like drinking beer, or even scratching our arse) our only recourse will be for all of us to automatically delete any of Donreed's edits on sight (without first reading them), on the basis of probable cause! We need a WP:DONREED tag. Hmmm... "DONREED" is awfully close to "DONTREAD" anyway. -- David Broadfoot (talk) 05:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to two-day synopsis

I can understand your frustration with this user, but there is no need to conclude your account with the words you have chosen. If he does read this detailed critique, those words will simply insult him, & we'll have one more disgruntled user -- if not a vandal -- on our hands. And have missed an opportunity to educate him about how to write an encyclopedia. As for insisting that we Admins do something about a user who is making marginal contributions to Wikipedia, Admins don't have any abilities that a competent, articulate editor doesn't have -- except for blocking him, & I'm not convinced that blocking him is the proper solution in this instance. -- llywrch (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

1. I think "DONTREAD" and "delete on sight" are reasonable responses. Not pefect, just reasonable.
2. You wouldn't have a disgruntled vandal on your hands if he is blocked (he would be blocked.) You have many disgruntled users on your hands because he is not blocked.
3. I never insisted that Admins do something about it.
4. His contributions aren't "marginal" - they are disruptive.
5. I am convinced it he needs to be bocked. He is ignoring all feedback from the Wikipdia community, and he is doing more harm than good.

Cheers --David Broadfoot (talk) 09:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

So in effect, you are proposing that "too stupid to edit" is a proper critereon to block/ban people from Wikipedia. That is, in effect, what you are proposing -- & you can't state in one place that he's "editing in good faith" while in another claim that he's being disruptive. Need I explain why banning people for marginal or mediocre edits is a bad idea? -- llywrch (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's no need to characterise it as "too stupid to edit". You should just stick to the facts: no matter what the cause/reason leading to all the disruptive editing, it's a simple matter of violation of Wikipedia policy, so I can't see why you are so keen to defend it (and you are the only one posting here who is not in favour of blocking.) Others have also characterized it as "disruptive editing", so why do you continually downplay his disruption by describing it as "marginal and mediocre edits" when a more accurate description is "voluminous and unencyclopedic". And I can state that I think that his edits are in good faith (though I could be wrong) and also claim that he is being disruptive - the two things are not mutually exclusive. For example, as in this case, (a) the user repeatedly fails to satisfy verifiability, and (b) rejects community input - both examples of grounds for being blocked as stated here. The Wikipedia policy on that is clear - why don't you wan't to follow Wikipedia policy? --David Broadfoot (talk) 10:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Because I don't think that it is Wikipedia policy -- pure & simple. (I'll also admit that some of the points you criticize him for are so subtle that I don't see where he errs, for example the difference between which/that. Maybe that's why I have some sympathy for this person.) Remember, part of the concept behind be bold is that an editor shouldn't have to worry about being second-guessed by another editor who, without prior warning, decides all of his mistakes are disruptive & calls him to be banned -- perhaps permanently. This editor is clearly showing a lot of bad judgement -- I won't deny that -- which is why I call his edits "marginal and mediocre". I don't follow your reasoning, however, why his mistakes are disruptive: contributors to Wikipedia have their edits reverted or changed all of the time, & often for mistakes. For example, many of my own edits are modified due to typos, misspellings -- or because I have quoted some fact incorrectly from memory. Does that make me disruptive?

However, I think Guy has shown the proper solution below: focus on the fact that people have offered to help him improve his edits, but because he has ignored their offers to talk with him, he is blocked until he opens a discussion -- which was my original point. You would have us block him for punitive reasons, for of his mediocre or "disruptive" edits; Guy extended a good-faith block to get this user's attention, to get him to talk about his contributions & see if someone can't educate him about this problem. And I'd go a little further, & state that if this block doesn't get him to talk about the quality of his edits then perhaps he be given an indefinite block (and not a permanent ban) until he does talk with another Wikipedian.

One last point. Wikipedia is not a democracy: the fact it appears that I'm the only one disagreeing with you should not be a factor in this discussion. Until now, I have not set forth in detail my argument, so it may be that other people reading this thread are waiting until I did so to either agree -- or disagree with my opinion here. After all, I am not saying that this user is a problem -- obviously he is; I am instead saying that taking the time & effort to pillory a user here for his mistakes -- which is what you have done -- is not a constructive way to handle this. Because it is hard not to read the final paragraph in your lengthy post on Donreed as an unnecesary, & perhaps disruptive, personal attack. -- llywrch (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Re your answer: "Because I don't think that it is Wikipedia policy -- pure & simple." is not much of a response given that I had pointed out the specific policy breaches causing the disruption when I wrote: "For example, as in this case, (a) the user repeatedly fails to satisfy verifiability, and (b) rejects community input - both examples of grounds for being blocked as stated here"

Re your comment: "I'll also admit that some of the points you criticize him for are so subtle that I don't see where he errs, for example the difference between which/that" - I did not criticise him for that - I complimented him for that. You might categorise certain grammar rules as subtle, but incorrect use of of the restrictive and descriptive pronoun can result, at worse, in the wrong meaning being imparted, and, at best, anoyance for those who know the grammar rules. The other subtle change he made, compounded by another user's even more subtle edit, resulted in a sentence that put a positive spin on something (Cold Fusion) that the sentence had previously put a negative spin.

The issue has nothing to do with being bold - it has to do with the quality of the contributions and the refusal to accept commuity input. You keep trying on straw man arguments.

Your justification "This editor is clearly showing a lot of bad judgement ... which is why I call his edits 'marginal and mediocre'." Well... a lot of bad judgment is quite different to marginal and mediocre.

I didn't decide that "all of his mistakes are disruptive" - I decided that many of his contributions are disruptive due to their unencyclopedic nature and his repeated failure to satisfy verifiability along with his rejection of commnity input.

I respond similarly to your next question: "because I have quoted some fact incorrectly from memory. Does that make me disruptive?" Donreed didn't just quote some fact from memory incorrectly - Why do you repeatdly try to distort the facts? Another straw man argument.

You contradict yourself when you say that Guy did the right thing by blocking the user, when you had only just argued "I'm not convinced that blocking him is the proper solution."

Where do you get off making an accusation like: "You would have us block him for punitive reasons". Another straw man argument.

You then state that if this block doesn't get him to talk about the quality of his edits then he should be given an indefinite block. That's not necessary. It is only necessary that changes the way he edits.

As for accusing me of making a personal attack, I have only made three ad hominem comments:

1. "I'm quite sure that User:Donreed's multiple contiguous edits are not designed to hide previous edits"
2. "I am convinced that Donreed's edits are all made in good faith."
3. "It's just that he has no idea regarding what is proper (style or relevance), and he is extremely careless and presumptive."

The first two support him - quite hte opposite of an attack. The third is a direct deduction based on the evidence.

On the other hand, it was you who categorised him as "too stupid to edit".

I make no apologies for stating that his disruption is causing a great waste of our time, and that his contributions are not worth reading. Meanwhile, you continue to be the only one arguing that Donreed is not being disruptive even after he was blocked (which makes me wonder one what basis you now agree with the block.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Broadfoot (talk • contribs) 15:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) You seem to have overlooked the following comments (emphasis mine):

It's very easy to make voluminous edits to Wikipeda when you don't have to concern yourself with getting the facts right. If User:Donreed restricted himself to changing "which" to "that", he would be providing a useful service - almost free of danger. If Donreed continues how is is, and the Admins don't step in, then (to maintain our sanity and have some time left for more important things, like drinking beer, or even scratching our arse) our only recourse will be for all of us to automatically delete any of Donreed's edits on sight (without first reading them), on the basis of probable cause! We need a WP:DONREED tag. Hmmm... "DONREED" is awfully close to "DONTREAD" anyway.

After reading those words, your claim that you complimented his work cannot be read as anything other than disingenuous. And it is this kind of commentary that muddies the waters in conflicts, leads to those passionate edit wars which make Admins reluctant to get involved, & which wind up in ArbCom. At this point, it is obviously clear that you apparently do not want to listen to gentle suggestions along the lines of honey, flies & vinegar, so I'm discontinuing this thread. Enjoy editting Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You have overlooked everything else I said. I did compliment what good work he did (though through your lack of comprehension you took that as a criticism) and I did not overlook my "DONTREAD" comment (in fact I referred to it in my response.) You continue to be obtuse and repeat your claims (without giving any reasons) that Donreed is not being disruptive, when everyone else says that he is, and even though the Wikipedia policy specifically refers to what he has been doing as being disruptive. --David Broadfoot (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: Here is Wikipedia's definition of disruptive editing. --David Broadfoot (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Does any of this guideline ring a bell in light of Mr. Reed's edits? I'm giving him a final warning. Raymond Arritt (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• So, he's continuing to add uncited content to articles, and has not responded to two comments on Talk. Blocked 24h. What next? Guy (Help!) 16:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Donreed's last words

Last words before being blocked: "After Sears was bought by [[KMart]], many customers believe that Lands' End's quality has declined: navy-blue blazers are not the very dark midnight blue they formerly were.... {{fact}}"[58] (yes, a fashion statement, complete with a 'fact' tag.) --David Broadfoot (talk) 02:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Donreed still at it

Well, he's back. This edit is just another anecdote, but on the other hand, this edit is sensible. Graham87 06:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to learning or responding to the comments left on his talkpage - take his two most recent edits - This level of violence, although not directed at people, was surprising in a group of gay men that had been expected to act like "sissies" and It is possible that she culd have taken over Sandra Day O'Connor's role of basketball coach in the Highest Court in the land. Blocking is intended to preventative rather than punitive - I suggest he's blocked again until he engages with dialogue with other editors about concerns. It's not malicious but his editing is disruptive. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Another example of this ongoing problem - having to follow the guy around reverting over 85% of his changes is a waste of everyone's time. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. This user has used an edit summary 10 times in his last 1,000 main space edits (1% rate). He has made three talk page comments in his 1.5 years with the project. (2 to his own talk page, 1 to a category talk page.) Can we say failure to communicate? I've undone this set for WP:BLP violation. He needs at the very least to notice discussion and modify his behavior based on it; also joining the discussions would be even better. GRBerry 15:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Also...

1. in the article on Neil Young, he added: "His nearest neighbor for many years was chemist Carl Djerassi, who owned an adjacent property. After 1978, Djerassi's cattle ranch became the Djerassi Resident Artists Program, an art colony, which is owned by the Djerassi Foundation."[59] reverted for unsourced and irrelevant guff about a neighbour's property.
2. getting into problems again by writing on technical issues that doesn't understand, he added this sentence "The name Auric refers to the one valence state of gold that allows chemical combination." For a start, "Auric" gold has valence 3, not 1. Valence 1 is "aurous" gold.[60]
3. added unencyclopedic language in Chemistry set: "dangerous—even in the hands of idiots"[61]
4. and added "antisterrorisn police agencies usually looked only in the wrong part of town"[62] both reverted by User:Fredrick day
5. added another unsubstantiated anecdote on hacking, reverted by User:Graham87 [63]
6. in the article on Cyanide he added: "According to the fictional [[forensic pathologist Dr Kay Scarpetta, the ability to smell HCN is a hereditary trait possessed by about one third of the population. {{fact}}>"[64] so we have fictional input to science articles.
7. He change "The urethra is the tube that carries urine from the bladder to the outside of the body." to: "The urethra is the tube that generally carries urine from the bladder to the outside of the body; during ejaculation, the male urethra carries semen outside the body (and typically into another person's body.)" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cystoscopy&diff=prev&oldid=173872687] reverted by User:GRBerry for including an inappropriate comment.

   The comment was later in the diff; the sentence beginning "Doctors will feel... GRBerry 21:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

   Oh I hadn't even read that far down to "Doctors will feel nothing—it's not their body being penetrated" - I wonder why he thinks it appropriate to insert tired old jokes in Wikipedia. One could be forgiven for thinking that he's a troll from a rival encyclopedia, sent to see how much garbage he can inject into Wikipedia, or how slowly the admins react. --David Broadfoot (talk) 03:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

8. inserted a comma between the subject of a sentence and its verb[65]

I echo what User:Fredrick day said: "having to follow the guy around reverting over 85% of his changes is a waste of everyone's time". Even then, I've still come along afterwards and found more clear examples that had been missed. User:Donreed he edits full-time from 9am to midnight every day. There must be lot of old stuff that's slipped through the net, undermining the quality of Wikipedia. --David Broadfoot (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Is it possible to block a user from editing the main namespace, but still allow him/her to edit Talk pages? If it's technically feasible, such an action might encourage Donreed to engage in a conversation with other editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • No, it is not. --Deskana (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to endorse all of the comments above about user Donreed. I have been reviewing some of his edits over the last month or so, since I encountered him around mid-October, and I have reverted edits of his that were unreferenced, chatty, off-topic, POV, and just wrong. For instance, see this edit of his - a story I was unable to verify anywhere on the web; this pointless anecdote that I removed from the Anthony Hopkins article; these almost-completely off-topic additions to the Auction article; and this addition to Lingua franca that I found frankly unlikely. I also agree that it is highly disturbing that he fails to respond to comments on his page or on talk pages. He does a great deal of harmless or even helpful grammatical cleanup, but his edits can be most damaging when they are on-topic, plausible, but apparently unverifiable (or possibly untrue), as with the story about the Apple company meeting. Brianyoumans (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have put a number of suggestions and warnings on Donreed's talk page following his edits of the past several hours. Unfortunately, it's unhelpful that one Administrator (User:llywrch) is providing effective support to User:Donreed's behaviour by still arguing here that it is not disruptive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Broadfoot (talk • contribs) 01:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked again

I have blocked Donreed indefinitely and left a message at his talk page explaining the situation. The unverifiable edits and probable violations of our policy on biographies of living people, coupled with the editors lack of communication, are good reasons for an indefinite block, despite the helpful copyediting. All parties in this conversation implied this was coming eventually - I don't see the point in letting the disruptive editing continue. Be on the lookout for possible sockpuppets. Graham87 09:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Also see the contributions of 38.119.251.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which is apparently his IP address and was autoblocked. It's a real estate company so I doubt there's much collateral damage there. Graham87 08:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Swalwell, Alberta

A few of you will be familiar with the history of Swalwell, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a hamlet where Wikipedia Review has decided one of their pet targets lives. This article has been recreated many times and then used to harass various individuals (for example linking it from their user page). This time a slightly different approach has been taken; the article was not deleted, even though it is plainly deliberate trolling (wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=13578&st=0&p=60109&#entry60109 as an example) but it has been protected, along with its talk page. I have left a note asking for edit protected requests to be brought here. Guy (Help!) 10:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The version that I restored was not created by the WR lunatics, but by an established editor with 24K+ edits who is active in the area. I was reluctant to bring this to public light because of its sentitive nature, but since the cat's out of the bag I welcome review and comments. east.718 at 11:23, November 24, 2007

Yes, I noticed that's what you did. It needs to be said because the talk page is protected through two protected transclusions and a protection, which might cause confusion. Guy (Help!) 11:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The assumption on your part that any creation of an article on a particular hamlet is "plainly deliberate trolling" is an assumption of bad faith on your part, and untrue in this case given that the current version was actually created by a legitimate editor unaffiliated with the "attack sites". Since Wikipedia normally aims to have articles on every populated place no matter how small, the history of knee-jerk deletions of this one as "trolling" is the sort of thing outside media might be interested in when they're looking for examples of WikiAdmin pettiness. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

...except that every single creation except for the last was trolling. Somehow, I don't think articles created by accounts impersonating the editor in question or containing "LOOOOOOOOL <redacted>! <redacted> LIVES THERE!!!!!" are good-faith contributions. east.718 at 16:46, November 24, 2007

That and the thread on WR which outright admits to it, yes. And Dan, the current version isn't a troll becuse it's not the last one that was created, the history was reviewed and a veriosn found - the ony version as far as I can tell - that was not actually trolling. The creator of yesterday is blocked as a sleeper sock, his version is gone. Perhaps we should invite Dan to quietly remove that comment and these replies, to save his embarrassment. Guy (Help!) 16:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Dan, could you please, please, please cut it with the histrionics, and actually educate yourself on the issues before you go on one of your rants? It would make the editing atmosphere so much more pleasant. --Iamunknown 19:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm perfectly well educated, thank you. And all that that WR thread admitted to was tweaking the noses of the oversensitive admins by writing a perfectly reasonable page about that locality and having it predictably deleted as "trolling"... so the admin deleting it was actually feeding the troll in this case, since that's exactly the action they were trying to provoke. And WR actually has a point when they say that this sort of knee-jerk deletion (even in the absence of any direct evidence that it is actually written by a troll, or any actual problem with the content) shows a silly tendency to put petty grudges over improving the encyclopedia. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's not the whole story is it, Dan? The list of blocked usernames of past creators, for example, which features variants on the supposed RWI and Wikipedia usernames of some of those "oversensitive admins", means that is not quite as hilarious as perhaps you think. Maybe you've mistaken us for a site where it's fine to do these things "for the lulz"? It's not. Seriously, it's not. I know it's a kind of game for your mates over at WR to try and get this laughable theory into Wikipedia, and I'm sure they either know it's false or don't care whether it's true or not, but actually it does matter because someone is being harassed and this "tweaking the nose" of "oversensitive admins" is a part of that harassment. Guy (Help!) 20:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Now I would ask you to consider posting in the manner of your 20:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC) post rather than in the manner of your 16:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC) post, and to continue engaging in discussion (i.e. reply, as opposed to hit and run) ... its amazing what can be done, and how much more productive discussion can be, when you cut the histrionics, and actually engage in discussion. --Iamunknown 20:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious how Dan claims to know so much about this page, if the edits are deleted? When I first glanced at the deleted edits, I was wondering why the page was deleted, as it seemed perfectly harmless. But then I took a second look, and the accounts involved usually went on trolling sprees or otherwise showed their "true colors" within a few minutes/hours of creating the page. When I block a throwaway, harassment account, it strikes me as a waste of time to go checking their two contribs for usefulness, just revert/block/ignore unless something else comes to light. The page itself is harmless, I'd say, but some of the people (previously) editing it, the usernames and behaviors those people opt for, are nevertheless an important context. Who cares what WR says, here? Just deal with it as we normally would. "Special treatment," good or bad, isn't a territory I'd like to wander into. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It is true that the first few incarnations of the page were fairly blatant trolling; while the content of each was generally a benign stub, I can understand the desire to delete them given that the offensive usernames would be forever interred in the page history otherwise. Deleting the version by an established contributor on Alberta-related topics was a bit hasty, but thankfully this reasonable version is now restored, and we no longer have a hole in our coverage. Further protection seems fine, since it's obviously a troll magnet, and since it's a sleepy little hamlet with little to say on it, it seems reasonable to ask for an editprotected request. --krimpet⟲ 02:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where one would ask, given that the talk page is protected too, but you're probably about right otherwise. Nowadays, with the Durova scandal in full drama, all of the "innocent" mistakes in the course of pursuing the War on Terror Trolls are being scrutinized to an extent not seen before. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Bit of catch-22, unfortunately -- protect the article, disruption shifts to the talk page and renders the effort moot; protect the talk page, and where can we talk? Appreciate the insights, both of you. Hopefully we can unprotect the talk page, at least, eventually? – Luna Santin (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Dan, there's a message there that says to post here. If someone were to deface the talk page for the hamlet with "OMGWTFBBQ SHE LIVES THERE!!!!!" it would be dangerous; if somebody were to do it here it wouldn't last five minutes. At the same time, legitimate edits have a well-trafficked venue to be requested in. east.718 at 05:59, November 25, 2007

I have restored the legitimate edits to Talk:Swalwell, Alberta and readded the banner in those edits. Extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary measures, and unprotection would cause many headaches for the oversighters. Graham87 12:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swalwell, Alberta. -- Jreferee t/c 15:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Not a chance on earth that AFD passes. Real places are inherently notable, no matter the size, as years of precedent has established. Resolute 16:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Nothing is inherently notable, but consensus is that real places get a directory entry regardless. Guy (Help!) 09:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Semantics, really. I've yet to see an article on a settlement deleted for failing to assert notability. Ther is more than enough precedent to state that the very existence of any such settlement is a claim of notability. i.e.: inherent. Consensus could change, of course, but the liklihood of it happening in these cases is remote. Resolute 20:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think a few lines should be added to the talk page to explain why the article has been protected. Those unfamiliar with the situation who in good faith want to add material to move it beyond stub territory should be given some context as to why they can't unless they're admins. 23skidoo (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

We should avoid feeding the trolls and also consider the sensitive nature of this issue. east.718 at 02:49, November 26, 2007

We could simply keep it protected, it's a straightforward 'keep' if it weren't for the unencyclopedic personal issues. Just protect or semi-protect, and keep it that way, maybe?Merkinsmum 19:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I reopened the AFD as it had been invalidly closed, though I expect it to result in a keep closure anyhow. Given how WR likes to beat dead horses beyond all recognition, the article would need to be protected for quite some time. It would probably be better just to leave a protected redirect somewhere given the lack of source material that isn't just one word on a short list. --Coredesat 19:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

A quick suggestion: close the afd (we know what the outcome will be), semi-protect it, use it as a honey pot and move on. spryde | talk 20:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Close the AfD, yes. Use as honey pot, no. The accounts were probably created specifically for this page (i.e. having it uneditable means no one will be creating accounts to mess with it). John Reaves 20:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a question. It isn't explained here why creation of this article is considered trolling if it has benign content? What is it about this geographic location that is so sensitive? Cla68 (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Plot Summary vs Teaser

I'm not involved enough with Wikipedia to try to solve this situation myself, but if someone feels like attempting it... I have noticed in many film and novel articles there is a plot summary, but it is not actually a plot summary at all. It is a 'teaser', ending with something along the lines of "and then things get interesting", or whatever. The point is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a movie and novel advertisement or fan site. There should be no fear of spoilers, of giving away the ending of a fictional work. At least, that's how I view an encyclopedia. I thought someone who knows how might want to create one of those boxes that goes at the top of an article saying "the plot summary is not encyclopedic" or something like that. Just an idea! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyandy68 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Call me a cynic, but we should've seen this coming when it became a crime to transclude {{spoiler}}. —Cryptic 22:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

-- Some of us did. Jheald (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a good idea. I've noticed this too — I don't think it's a result of the spoiler guidelines, but rather a result of people getting lazy and just copy-pasting from review sites, or being influenced by them. --Haemo (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe teaser plot summaries do have a higher chance, in practice, of being copyright violations than detailed plot synopses. Whenever I see a one-paragraph plot summary that reads like advertisement copy, I search for it on google to see if it was literally copied from a promotional site. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to say exactly what CBM said. This isn't a new trend at all, it's just inexperienced editors pasting in jacket blurbs and the like. --Tony Sidaway 06:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:FIGHT

A new essay decree essay. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The shortcut WP:STFU ("Shut the fuck up") should go. I can only see that upsetting people. The essay itself is ... well, I suppose if you found it funny it would have a purpose. Neil ☎ 10:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm slightly perplexed by this cabal decree, I mean everything it says is true, as in first degree truth. Normally these cabal things contain gross exaggerations based on the worst behavior observed. This one contains no exaggerations, it's a reformulation of basic policy, I don't know why it's a cabal decree. Jackaranga (talk) 14:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll take STFU off the page. I think it's funny and appropriate, but acknowledge it could be abused. Whether it's an essay or a decree is obviously still up for debate ;-) - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 17:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• The CABAL was unhappy with the wording on the page, and so has suitably altered it to more accurately reflect reality. Everyone is encouraged to edit war vociferously over this new wording, and to file no fewer than two requests for comment and one ArbCom case in response. For the CABAL, Şalom `alaykum wā-Moloch!, Haemo (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

whomever wrote that has far too much time on their hands and I have modified the page accordingly Jtrainor (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Bernard d'Abrera

Resolved

 – Eyes have been attracted, Talk:Bernard d'Abrera is the appropriate venue for discussion. GRBerry 14:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Bernard d'Abrera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

OTRS ticket 2007080210005311. Bernard d'Abrera has complained that his biography consistently belittles his work, which is a fair criticism - he is not, as the lead stated for some time, a "butterfly photographer", he is a respected taxonomist whose work cataloguing the Natural History Museum's collections has been cited in many independent works. A user, Hrafn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is rather hotly disputing this, and also inserting {{peacock}} into a section that (IMO) factually describes a very substantial reference work covering the collections of the Natural History Museum. The problem is that d'Abrera stuck his head over the parapet and signed a petition in favour of creationism. This has not affected his access to the museum, at which he has high level clearance, and has not prevented his publishing company from contracting with the museum to produce fine-art reproductions of the works of John Gould. Mr. d'Abrera freely describes himself as a polemicist. That does not mean we need a hatchet job, of course. Some additional eyes would be appreciated. Guy (Help!) 11:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Much of what is in dispute (the details about his career) seems to be sourced to the references that are already present in the article; there is simply a lack of footnotes, which can be easily remedied. Some of the language is rather flourished (throughout the article), perhaps I'll have a go at reworking it. --bainer (talk) 11:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Guy (Help!) 11:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• As the subject of this complaint, may I chime in? I was not venturing an opinion over whether d'Abrera is a taxonomist or not, merely that the statement that he is one was (and remains) unsourced. The peacock-tag was perhaps over the top, and I apologise for it. I have already reached a resolution with JzG on one of the errors contained in his edits (the official title of the NMH), the other remains the statement that "PhD researchers must embrace evolutionary theory" is a "fact", which appears to me to be a violation of WP:NPOV (and now that I think of it outright untrue, given a fair number of Creationists with PhDs). I am not a major editor of this article (three edits, one of which was a revert, prior to this incident), but was concerned with the addition of statements in advance of, and in two cases in contradiction of, factual support. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• In this case "NPOV" appears to equate to belittling the subject, in very many past revisions. He has published a scholarly review of the entire British Museum collection of butterflies and moths; he describes himself as a taxonomist and is cited by scholarly works on lepidopterae. Why would we have a problem with that? It's certainly a good deal more neutral than "butterfly photographer", which completely fails to do justice to the fact that he provably has a British Museum security clearance and a publishing contract with said museum. Guy (Help!) 14:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• If you have a reliable source for the statement that "He has published a scholarly review of the entire British Museum collection of butterflies and moths", then this statement should most certainly be included in his article. I have seen numerous misrepresentations of the qualifications and affiliations of people associated with the Creationist movement, so yes, I do have a problem with accepting d'Abrera's self-description at face value. Given that no organisation with the official name of 'British Museum (Natural History)' has existed for 15 years, I will admit to having doubts if he has current clearance or contracts with said organisation. Can you confirm that these were issued later than 1992? Finally, I have not expressed any objection to removal of previous material, and have only raised a NPOV issue over the statement, as fact, that "PhD researchers must embrace evolutionary theory". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Have you checked the citations of his work by independent authors? It is pretty clear that in the field he is respected. It looks to me as if your rather obvious bias against creationism (a bias which, incidentally, I share) is colouring your judgement. This level of rhetoric is not really appropriate when discussing a living person, especially when they are already sending complaints. Guy (Help!) 14:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have attempted to (finding full articles is problematic). The first I was able to find cited dA for the identification of butterflies, the second gave him as one of a long list of citations for diversity (including morphological) of a family of butterflies. This would be consistent with his book merely being a photographic record of the NHM's collection (and listing pre-existing museum classifications of that collection), which was my prior understanding as to their content. Taxonomy involves the assignment of classifications to new (or I suppose previously misclassified) species. While it is possible that dA does this, these citations are no evidence that he does so. Such evidence would involve him classifying of previously unclassified species, or discussing methods of classsification. You have provided evidence that his books are notable and respected (which I have not disputed), not that they contain original taxonomic research. Re: "level of rhetoric", if you don't want an honest answer, then don't ask the question. And you still have not addressed my NPOV issue. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest "biologist"? There appears to be a scholarly reference that him as such. A biologist who specialises in entomological taxonomy, or in the publishing of biogeographic catalogues, should serve as a useful compromise, besides being impeccably referenced. Relata refero (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with biologist, whether the subject will or not I don't know. He believes his work lies in taxonomical cataloguing. Whatever, it's being dismissed as a mere photographer that he clearly finds most offensive. Actually I think a good photographer is a great thing to be, and those collections are very fragile and kept in dark conditions to avoid fading, so it's almost certainly a very specialised skill, but that's what he complains of so let's do our best not to gratuitously offend him. Guy (Help!) 16:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, colour me confused. The above Google-books link was to a book by Philip J. DeVries, I could find no mention of dA on that page (let alone reference to him as a biologist). A review of this book states "The photographs are of high quality and were taken under the supervision of Bernard D’Abrera who remains in a class of his own when it comes to assembling photographic plates of butterflies."

I would have no problem with calling dA an "author of entomological taxonomic catalogues" or similar -- though why he should wish to be known primarily as such when it is his photography that is "in a class of his own", I don't know. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Search within the book for his name. He's included in a concluding list of relevant biologists, and the writeup says that his catalogues are "famous ofor their lavish illustrations" and are "the only readily accessible references to global butterfly diversity." Relata refero (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

He is mentioned on a number of pages: pXV, he is thanked for his help with "photographic techniques", p58, he is cited as a source of a photograph. I presume you are talking about p61 where he is listed as part of a section on "Modern-Day Workers in the Neotropics" as part of a chapter on "Butterfly Biologists and the New World". Citing the chapter title for "biologist" seems a tad tenuous, but I must admit that I'm tired of this argument, so if people are insistent I'll let it slide. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

<undent>As the primary author of the article being complained about above, I think it is appropriate that I weigh in. I am stunned at the misrepresentations here.

Where is the evidence that BdA is a biologist? He is in a list of biologists in some non-peer reviewed publication? He has no degree in biology. He has no position as a biologist. He never had a professional position as a biologist. As far as a I know, he has no peer-reviewed publications as a biologist in a mainstream biology journal. There is no and I mean NO evidence that this person is a biologist, or a taxonomist. Has he been responsible for any changes of the accepted taxonomies of lepidoperta based on published peer-reviewed taxonomies? Or has he merely provided the raw data used by lepidoperists by performing the invaluable support function of photographing these collections? I think the literature supports the latter, although I am open to correction if someone can find WP:RS and WP:V sources to the contrary.

RE: the statement This has not affected his access to the museum, at which he has high level clearance, and has not prevented his publishing company from contracting with the museum to produce fine-art reproductions of the works of John Gould. I am stunned at this. The museum has "high level clearance"s? What sort of clearances does the museum use or issue? Are these comparable to the cryptologic clearances of GCHQ? Of the UK military? Clearances for diplomatic security, such as those issued by Foreign and Commonwealth Office? What sort of state secrets or proprietary information are inside the Natural History Museum? What evidence do we have that BdA is in possession of such a clearance, if these clearances even exist? What sort of evidence do you have for his current "access to the museum", any more than a member of the public visiting the museum? I am curious to know if this putative evidence contradicts the official statements and unofficial statements of the NHM that I am in possession of regarding the past and current relationship between BdA and the NHM.

A lot of the other statements above I find so misinformed as to be comical. I researched the subject of this article extensively for weeks. I contacted several outside organizations and individuals about him, including his alma mater, the National History Museum, his colleagues at the NHM and other organizations associated with creationism that know him or have had contact with him. This is just ridiculous. If the subject has published third party statements for some of his claims, that contradict the official position of the NHM about his relationship with the NHM, let him produce them.--Filll (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that d'Abrera isn't a scientist, but rather a very gifted photographer who has photographically documented the BM's butterfly collection. However, calling him an "entomological taxonomist" is clearly a misuse of the term. In the course of normal usage, "taxonomy" is often used in a manner which overlaps with "[[systematics]" although, as the article explains, there is a distinction between the two. Occasionally, the term "classical taxonomy" (or something of the sort) is used to describe older, non-phylogenetic groupings. It appears (based on this note) that d'Abrera has taken this usage and run with it, creating what appears to be a "new meaning" for the term "taxonomist":

Since his earliest volumes, Bernard d’Abrera has steadfastly been concerned with the need for strict observance of the rules of philosophy in the science and craft of pure taxonomy, sensu Linnaeus, in the study of all orders of natural history, where the ‘species’ is the terminal taxon, because of its scientifically demonstrable natural fixism. He is thus an unapologetic Aristotelian in that he professes the axiom of typology, in which ‘like-begets-like’. Therefore, for the last 25 years, he has been an outspoken foe of all cod-scientific theories of ‘Origins’ (itself, by definition, a serious metaphysical concept, beyond the remit and competence of the physical sciences) that broadly comprise Evolutionism. Thus, he suggests that such baleful and irrelevant theories seriously compromise any true scientific study of the natural world, which should only be based on collection & curation, observation & measurement, laboratory experiment & prediction, and a generous helping of common sense.

In 2001, in his now famous Concise Atlas of the Butterflies of the World (Hill House Publishers (Melb.& Lond.) the author launched a systematic and scholarly critique of what he sees as the patently unscientific, profligate, and self-serving posturings of the quasi-religion of Evolutionism. He did so on the basis of wishing to free himself and his readers from the neo-Darwinian hegemony and hubris of the scientific establishment, and ‘the viscid, asphyxiating baggage’ with which that establishment continues to burden and impede the true and profitable study of the natural sciences. He further argues that genuine natural science should be based solely on the living fauna & flora (which is also represented in museums), and not on tendentiously speculative and unprovable theories of the past that are best consigned to the realm of pure science fiction.

While d'Abrera's books are widely used tools for identification, they do not appear to be taxonomic works - they are more akin to popular guides to trees or wildflowers. In a book review in the journal Ecology Arthur Shapiro of UC Davis characterises d'Abrera's work as

Butterflies of South America by Bernard d'Abrera (1984. Hill House, Victoria, Australia) was essentially a miniature, geographically restricted version of Lewis and suffered from errors, poor writing and an almost complete lack of biological information. The same can be said of d'Abrera's expensive series of color monographs of the Neotropical butterflies, which aside from being produced in lavish coffee-table style and priced out of the market are basically catalogues of species represented on pins in the British Museum. – Arthur M. Shapiro Ecology, Vol. 69, No. 3. (Jun., 1988), pp. 875-876

Gifted photographer - yes. Entomological taxonomist? I see no evidence to support that assertion. Guettarda (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Why is this on AN? This is what talk pages are for. John Reaves 04:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Strange

Can anyone explain why when I checked this diff yesterday, as well as the actual edit being highlighted, I think all the categories were replaced by the word "personal" (which is why I reverted as vandalism)? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a problem with the diff engine, I'm not sure precisely what. The same thing's happened to me on occasion as well. The diffs tend to fix themselves after a while, making figuring out what happened difficult. It doesn't cause any problems on the actual page, though, unless (as has happened many times) a user sees the diff and mistakes the software error for vandalism. --ais523 15:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks FTE. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

New users impersonating Rokus01

Resolved

 – Since these are stated to be impersonators not doppelgangers I have blocked all. Guy (Help!) 18:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rokus01, it seems there have been new users creation that impersonating your user name and they only edited once of an unsourced fact about the Netherlands. I guess from your user page that you're a Dutch. Here are the new users and you can check their contributions:

• Rokus00 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• Rokus02 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• Rokus03 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• Rokus04 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• Rokus05 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)

If they are in fact a vandal and you know who (s)he is, then perhaps you can report them at WP:ANI. Dekisugi (talk) 11:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously this is a vandal and a sockpuppet of someone that somehow must have a record of opposing my edits. Other sockpuppets may have been created previously just for this same purpose, like Schonken (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count). If this has any relation: to this sockpuppet I might have a clue since he performed edits like this: [66], that after being addressed from my side, was answered "(AFG has nothing tro do with it)" and restored by User:Paul Barlow : [67]. The strange thing about this action was it was withdrawn shortly after: [68]. Maybe because he discovered he was not logged on as Schonken? The last edit of Schonken was ten days before I denounced him as a sockpuppet, so "maybe" the person discovered too late this puppet account was invalid? Just speculation, because my opinion was asked for explicitly and I am not an administrator that can check accounts or ip-numbers. The last action of sockpuppet "RokusXX" accounts was followed by this comment of, again, P.M.: [69] Why he should comment anything on what is none of his concern? In other instances I silently suspected him of alliance or aspirations to WP cabalgroups and crypto-fascist ideologies, although before I never esteemed this urgent enough to dedicate much of my time. I have strong indications he fears my intervention or even anticipated my intervention by already putting the ideological suspections on me. A strategic move that lately might have been taken over by a possible cabal-grouping around Dbachmann, according to some loose accusations of some of his most vocal protegés and corresponding to the last incident I recently opened because of such an unwarranted accusal by him directly. Sorry for brainstorming in public, I just want to comply to the explicit request for giving information in order this abuse can be tackled in a proper way by the proper people. To be sure: I am not interested in Atlantis at all, and I am not aware of any sourcable claims of Atlantis being located in the Netherlands. Rokus01 (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Now I've really heard it all. Wow. "possible cabal-grouping around Dbachmann". cryptofascist cabals at that. Perhaps do some more brainstorming in private first, yes? I have no idea who is behind these RokusXX edits, but I must say they are doing a rather funny impression of the general gist of the original Rokus :) dab (𒁳) 19:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I am not bothered. Just curious how far opponents would go when they run out of arguments. By the way, do I sense here in you some kind of intermediate state of an evolving "faculty" towards humor? Rokus01 (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

are you implying that your "crypto-pov-pushing" was of a humorous nature all along? I must admit I hadn't spotted that, but the case is quite compelling in hindsight. dab (𒁳) 14:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Has Rokus gone completely bonkers? I added the comment to the Rokus04 page because Olmec happens to be on my watchlist, so it was "my concern" that someone was vandalising the page to make a point. I reverted Rokus's removal of the tag on the Beaker culture page because I thought it had been placed there by an uninvolved editor reacting to the content, and that Rokus was simply attempting to conceal evidence of his nationalistic editing. Hence my objection to Rokus' claim that it should be removed because of AGF. AGF would have nothing to do with it if the tag had been added honestly. In fact the removal would be a breach of AGF, not the addition of the tag. Hence my comment. When I discovered that the editor had apparently just tagged several Rokus-influenced pages, I removed it. As for cabals promoting "crypto-fascism", that's just laughable. BTW, I have never edited as anyone other than myself. Paul B (talk) 15:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In addition, I might add that the "ideological suspections" of Rokus arise from his editing and have been made by many separate editors. Oh sorry. It's really one big crypto-fascist cabal. Paul B (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Any more discussion needed? (Deeceevoice)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Deeceevoice. I added archive tags there after the link from the main noticeboard (ANI) got archived because the thread had gone inactive. Deeceevoice has queried this, so I am noting this here to help decide how to handle this. There is confusion at the moment over whether subpages should be used at AN and ANI at all, and if so what for. Are they are to separate out large threads, or to encourage (or discourage) continuing discussion? My view is that they should be archived as normal if no new discussion has taken place for 2 days, hence my placement of the tags and the note to continue elsewhere or start a new thread. Thoughts? Carcharoth (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

First banned from editing Afrocentrism, then banned for a year, then temporarily reinstated for commenting on the ANI -- and not for article main spaces? And on ridiculously trumped-up/completely unsubstantiated charges? U betcha there's more discussion needed! deeceevoice (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As I understand the terms of Wikipedia:Probation, any editor placed on probation can be blocked from editing certain articles or content. As the question seems to be about the editor's conduct regarding certain content primarily, I could see the one-week block indicated in the ArbCom decision (I think this is the first incident since that decision was handed down, right?) and perhaps blocking the editor from problematic content for a month or longer, however the rules apply in instances like this. I am, however, not an admin, and want it noted that I'm not so familiar with these matters that I might not have made a mistake in what I said above. John Carter (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That might make sense -- except the diffs used to substantiate the charge of POV pushing have been roundly debunked as essentially bull. The entire case is flimsy as hell. With all due respect, you might want to bother to familiarize yourself with the case before you suggest any sort of "remedy". Indeed, if you're taking the time to comment on a case, then I should think you have a responsibility to do so. People offering uninformed opinions about precipitous admin actions are not helpful;indeed, quite the contrary -- and are precisely how this case got to where it is now. deeceevoice (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

To make it easier to find the archive, I renamed it to be included in the normal AN/I archive hierarchy at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive332. I do think that if further discussion is needed, a new thread should be opened. Thatcher131 17:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

And what is the sense in opening a new thread? Simply de-archive the old one. This is time-wasting and counterproductive, further buries the matter and convolutes things. deeceevoice (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the first post of this thread to see the rationale. Really, for someone who offers as much "advice" to others as you seem to seek to do, you yourself have apparently acted without familiarizing yourself with the opening statement of this thread. And, with all due respect, the violations of civility seem to even be possibly continuing here as well. John Carter (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I read the rationale here and the one the user gave when he archived the ANI. That rationale assumes a lack of interest in continued discussion, and such clearly is not the case in this matter -- which is why I inquired about the matter, which is why we're discussing it here. And with all due respect, carter, you have absolutely no basis for any concern about violations of civility -- unless, of course, you're referring to your own comments. ;o deeceevoice (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If the thread had been on ANI, instead of a subpage, a bot would have archived it. The discussions on subpages shouldn't be prolonged merely because the bot doesn't cover them. ANI is not for prolonged discussions. If a discussion needs to be moved elsewhere, archive the ANI discussion, copy and paste the discussion to a new venue (or link to it), and notify the original ANI thread of the new location. If ANI is still the right location, start a new discussion or unarchive the original discussion. But beware of forum shopping. Carcharoth (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that de-archiving the discussion thread is the more sensible route. It's direct and uncomplicated. This business was already spread across two, separate venues. No sense in adding a third. People already have to read what's been said about this matter in two places. Adding a third is just counterproductive/pointless. deeceevoice (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to dearchive it then and see what people say. Just make sure you do it properly. And archive this disucssion at the same time. Personally, I think a summary from you, starting a new thread, would be best. Then we can be clear on what you want from this, and what issues need to be examined. People are more likely to read a summary than re-read the entire discussion again. Carcharoth (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You have been unblocked, what is the purpose of continued discussion? To beat up the blocking admin? Wrong web site. To discuss ongoing poor judgement by the blocking admin? Open an RFC. To have all your editing restrictions lifted? Appeal to ArbCom. What else needs to be discussed at this point? Thatcher131 18:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not exactly correct, Thatcher. As it stands now, I've been unblocked only temporarily to comment on the ANI, with the proviso that I not edit article main spaces. There has been absolutely no formal decision reached with regard to the ANI. The bogus charges haven't been withdrawn. I'm still in limbo. My accusers need to come up with something meaningful/legitimate -- or formally drop this. If they've backed off, and my editing privileges have been reinstated in full, then someone needs to make that plain, and if "discuss[ing the] ongoing poor judgement [sic] by the blocking admin[s]" for abuse of their authority is the result of continuing this until some sort of reasonable resolution is reached, then so much the better -- ;p -- because, IMO, no one is more deserving of a sound thrashing, figuratively speaking, than those who've wasted our time in this trumped-up matter. deeceevoice (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Perhaps the fact that the requisite three admins agreed to a block/ban, which seemingly is all that is required in this instance? But I don't see how that requires discussion. I can't myself see how any sort of "innocent on all charges" verdict is even a remote possibility here. Presumably the request was made to allow the editor to be allowed to edit mainspace articles again, based on deeceevoice's first comment here, but that would be appropriate to ArbCom as stated above. I agree there doesn't seem to be a real rationale to keep the discussion open, other than simply to keep denegrating those who disagree with the editor. Having said that, it would be nice if this page had at a dedicated subpage for prolonged discussions, particularly for cases like this one where discussion may have been reduced due to the civil holiday in the United States. Alternately, just keeping discussions open over 3- or 4-day weekends might help as well. John Carter (talk) 18:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Those on the other side of the pond can forget things like Thanksgiving. Carcharoth (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If three admins agreed to blocking for one year, then they should reimpose the block and all sign the log at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice#Documentation_of_blocks_or_bans. In which case Slrubenstein or any other admin who wants Deeceevoice unblocked needs to appeal to Arbcom. If, following the discussion (which died on the vine), there are no longer 3 admins willing to block for one year, then Deeceevoice should consider herself free to edit everything except Afrocentrism and ask Slrubenstein to clarify whether he meant to lift the topic ban as well as the block (and if so, ask him to log it). In this case I would advise any other admin who thinks you need to be reblocked to file an Arbitration request, since that is the appropriate venue for good-faith disputes among admins. Thatcher131 18:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There was no clear decision reached from what I can tell; the discussion just petered out, and that's the problem. Since I remain unblocked from Afrocentrism, the charges not having been substantiated, and from editing article main spaces -- again, the charges not having been substantiated, I will assume the status quo (my freedom to edit wherever I will) unless and until I hear otherwise. Because the unblock by User Slrubenstein was from both these venues, and because he never recanted either -- and in fact specifically addressed the matter of alleged POV pushing at Afrocentrism, I must assume that was his intention. If someone has another take on this matter, then say so now or hold your peace. deeceevoice (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of procedure, please ask Slrubenstein to confirm on the Arb case log page that he also recinded the topic ban. Your talk page is not clear on the matter, and it could be read either way. Best to avoid any ambiguity. Thatcher131 19:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what I'm going on is the ANI discussion page, because it is subsequent to Rubestein's posts on my talk page and informed by discussion from all sides. For this reason, I think it is a clearer reflection of where he stands on the matter of the bans.[70] deeceevoice (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Done, Thatcher. Request made. Thanks for taking the time. :) deeceevoice (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Unrevertable vandalism

Resolved

For the second time this month [71], I find myself unable to revert vandalism on the Wonders of the World article. Every time I try (using either the undo link or by editing old versions of the article from its history), Wikipedia just times out. If someone could revert back to the pre-vandalism version (diff), I would greatly appreciate it; warning notes ([72], [73]) were already left for both anonymous editors. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Will ^(talk) 19:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A bot problem

I think that BetacommandBot is acting up. I'm pretty sure it placed a deletion temp when it shouldn't have. [74] I don't know if one mess up is grounds for blocking it, but thought you should know. Icestorm815 (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There was a ":" missing in the article title in the fair use rationale because the page was moved back in August. The bot wasn't wrong; it was just useless. I've added the ":". GRBerry 20:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I didn't know it would be so technical and mark it because of a missing ":". Happy editing! Icestorm815 (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not resolved ... BetacommandBot is tagging logo images WITH existing Fair Use Rationales for all articles where the image is used. An example is :this. Apparently, BetacommandBot can't figure out that an article has been removed to a new title since the rationale was provided, and assumes that there is no rationale.

Betacommand needs to test his bot before unleashing it in Wikipedia. --Ragib (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I request a temporary block of BetacommandBot until Betacommand figures out how to fix this "can't read simple redirects"-Bot. --Ragib (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The bot tagged the image and a human fixed it. That is not useless, now the image is tagged right. That is the use of it. This is a good thing, we now have a properly tagged image. If the time it takes to fix it is to much for you, then you do not have to do it. It cannot follow redirects as it does not know if the redirect is accurate for the rational as written. 1 != 2 21:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This is proper behavior. If the rationale does not list the exact correct article name, the image is in violation and should be tagged. Whoever moved the page should have fixed the redirects. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 21:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That's plainly ridiculous. Just because someone hasn't bothered to fix all redirects during page move would cause an FU-image with proper rationale to be deleted? I don't see any justification in this argument ... this is causing a lot of images with proper rationales provided in their description pages, to be removed. This is in no way proper behavior ... Betacommandbot can't be so DUMB to be unable to check for this scenario. --Ragib (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(ecx2)The FU image must link directly to article it is used in as part of the rationale. Anything else is a copyvio. Your issue is with the person who moved the article and didn't check the image links, not with BcommandBot. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 21:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(ecx4) Who on earth thought up that "rule"? That's just plain silly, and has absolutely nothing to do with copyright law. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

And there is an obviously superior form for the bot's activity to take instead of what it is doing now. When there is a rationale for a redirect to the page the image is used, post a specialized note indicating that 1) the rationale applies to a redirect to where the image is used and 2) the rationale needs to be checked for applicability to the redirect target. A lot of the noise about this bot would be eliminated if the coder applied sound judgment. GRBerry 21:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If only I had a nickel for everytime someone made a forceful statement confusing copyright law with wiki policy... Written rationales are not required for fair use to legally apply. Links certainly aren't required by any copyright law. These are entirely inventions of Wikipedia's non-free content policies. Their presence or absense is entirely irrelevant to the legal question of whether or not the image would be a copyright violation. Dragons flight (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Huhh, if I had a (GB pound/Euro/AUS dollar/NZ dollar/sheckel/groat/goat/camel/US dollar...etc) for every misplaced complaint against BCBot, I'd have enough for a skinny Mocha. A gallon or two of the stuff. Come on people, read the small print. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Having the bot follow redirects to check if an article has been moved is a no-brainer, in fact it is typical bot-work. It's also what Betacommand claims the bot does. Haukur (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Another bit which doesn't work as advertised is this: "if you feel that this bot is malfunctioning or isn't running correctly follow this link to shut it down. Any user can force the bot to stop." The fact that this doesn't actually work forces us to block the bot all the time... Haukur (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I asked Betacommand for an explanation 20 minutes ago. He has not responded and the bot is still going strong. I recommend a block until Betacommand can clear this up. Haukur (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A block based on what? It is doing what it should. What kind of clearing up do you need? It did not mention the article it was a rational for, it was marked, and it has been fixed. What basis would this block have? 1 != 2 22:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Because the bot operator has been asked to make the bot follow redirects, has agreed that the bot should follow redirects, has said that it now does follow redirects and in this current run it doesn't actually follow redirects. Haukur (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Why couldn't the bot just fix the title of the article in the rationale to point to the correct one, if there's a redirect? Wouldn't that make everyone happy? Grandmasterka 21:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a great idea. --Masamage ♫ 21:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

How can a bot fix the title? That would involve knowing what title it should point to, computers are not humans and things that seem obvious to humans are almost impossible for bots. It marked it to be fixed, and it was fixed. 1 != 2 21:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Simple, BCBot has a list of places the image is used. It checks that each of these are referenced in rationales. If one is missing, but there appear to be "extra" rationales, then it would be desirable for it to also check to see whether any of the extras reference titles that redirect to the page it was looking for. If so, it can simply replace such redirect page titles with the actual page titles. Dragons flight (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Another set of logic: for each link: if the link is a redirect and the "linkshere" for the image includes the redirect target, then substitute the target for the redirect. This would catch most of the simple "page has moved" cases and lessen the fuss. It won't work, of course, when the page is moved and the original becomes a dab page, but that's where a human should look anyway. Gimmetrow 22:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

1!==2, did you actually look at the image in question? It had a rationale, and it blue-linked to the article. The only problem was that the page was later moved (to include an extra ':'), and the bot didn't follow the redirect, despite BC's assertions that it does so (the last time this came up). —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it's lazy to expect the bot to the job of the uploader. Uploaders should provide the correct FU rationale or else expect their image to be deleted. Simple as. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Can we have a requirement that you actually have to look at the issue before commenting? —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Plus, redirect or no redirect (and in most cases it isn't a redirect, just lazy rationale), it's no BIG DEAL for uploaders to modify their rationale whenever BCBot comes calling. Spend the time correcting the rationale rather than just whining about BCBot. Funny thing is, does anyone really think Betacommand does this for kicks? Come on. Oh, and if you want to know where to read about the issue, please read WP:FU. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If it is, in your words "no BIG DEAL for uploaders to modify their rationale whenever BCBot comes calling" then why are confused people coming in hard and fast on BetacommandBot's talk page? Perhaps because the message the bot leaves on people's talk page is very unhelpful? Haukur (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What TRM said. And also Wikipedia:Don't shoot the messenger, from my fingers to editors' eyes. And I don't even charge. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 22:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The image had a correct rationale. Someone moved the target page. After renaming a page, do you routinely check all of its images to ensure that any fair use rationales are updated to point to the new page name? I know I sure don't. Please stop engaging in fair-use-rationale paranoia and realize that a rationale for a page that was renamed doesn't magically stop being a reasonable rationale. It's a trivial issue that should be handled automatically rather than creating make work for others. Dragons flight (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Come on, how long does it take? This is pathetic. The bot is NOT responsible for fair use rationales, it's just doing it's job. If someone moves your target page and you get the message then do the business. It doesn't take as long to correct as it does to get all hot under the collar and all hissy. Fix the issues. Once again, let me ask, do you really believe Betacommand is doing this for laughs? I don't think so. If you have a better bot then roll it out. If not, get on with correcting the problems on the odd occasion you're asked to act. It's not going to break the bank is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, it's not about us. We understand the issue, we can jump through whatever loops some bot throws at us. But that's because we're admin wonks who've been here for years. The normal editors out there are having major problems jumping through those unnecessary hoops when we want them to have a pleasant experience so they can contribute useful content. Haukur (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well what do you suggest? The uploaders are carefully sent to policy.. Bear in mind the bot has to deal with thousands of mis-licensed images. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that the bot do what the bot operator has already agreed it should do - check for redirects. I'm also suggesting that the bot should leave specific messages for each case, i.e. if an image fails 10c then the bot should tell the relevant person about 10c and explain how it works - not post a template about fair use in general. That would be carefully sending people to policy. Haukur (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Programs have bugs. In general, that's nobody's fault. However, when you find a bug, the correct response is: "Okay, how do we fix the program" and not "Well that's okay, we'll just have everyone else cleanup for it all the time". The suggestion that the burden of fixing the problem ought to lie on the uploaders and other editors is silly. Dragons flight (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

arbitrary section break

Um, the uploaders _did_ provide a correct rationale. Then the article got moved out from under them. I log on often enough to catch the notifications: how many people don't?--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 22:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

All the bot does is provide a notification. It's up to an admin to act and delete the images. The notifications allow plenty of time to make that (one edit) adjustment. No big deal. 22:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that BCB is doing a thankless task (good thing as a bot it doesn't expect thanks), and most of the complaints about it are spurious. However, there also seem to be many complaints that are based on a misunderstanding of what BCB does, either because (a) people don't know how it works (e.g. the need for a link to the article in the FUR), or because (b) it isn't quite working as it's supposed to (e.g. this redirect issue). Perhaps if the bots tasks were listed clearly on a subpage (rather than links to cluttered bot request pages), explicitly stating what it's looking for and what it does when it finds things a certain way, then people will actually know when it's doing something wrong, and there won't be so many accusations of wrong-doing. (Will post same suggestion on BC's talk page.) Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

And again... Why can't the bot just change the links if there's a redirect? This is a manual, repetitive task, just the perfect thing for a bot to do. It would save a lot of grief. Grandmasterka 22:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobody, bot or human, should even need to do that. A page is unambiguously identified by referring it by a redirect. We talk about pages by using redirect titles all the time. That's what redirects are for. Saying "This image is used under FU on page X", where X is a redirect to Y, is just as valid a statement as "We are discussing this at WP:ANI" or "I'll take this to WP:RFAR". Also, a person who moves a page is not responsible for changing links to that page; the system is supposed to take care of that, exactly by providing the redirect. That's why we have them. Demanding that in this particular function redirects mustn't be used is simply bizarre. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this right, Betacommand has stated that his bot should and does follow redirects as evidenced above. There is nothing in the law to say that fair use rationales cannot be linked to the article in question via a redirect, yet some people believe that every time a page gets moved, the page mover should correct all links to fair use rationales on image pages. If this is the case, why isn't there a set of instructions to do this (and how) for the page mover. It is incredibly easy to move a page, I've moved dozens yet never recieved warnings that all of the images could get deleted, just that I should fix double-redirects. What if the image uploader has left wikipedia? Does the image just get binned if no-one fixes the redirect? If people feel so strongly that the bot shouldn't be programmed to fix redirects, I consider it entirely necessary that anyone moving a page should be warned that their actions could inadvertently lead to the deletion of the pages images, and given advice on how to fix the problem. Still all of this would be unnecessary if the bot could follow simple redirects. King of the NorthEast 22:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• I am pretty sure that the bot's tagging of Image:The Amityville Curse 1990 DVD Cover.JPG was incorrect in terms of wikipedia policy or the guideline at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. While the template for fair use rationale had not been used, the rationale had been provided although without the link to the movie, the movie was implicitly mentioned ("In the article about this movie") and the image name contained the movie title plus it is all over the image - any human could have seen that and the intent of the guideline had been clearly met.--Matilda formerly known as User:Golden Wattle ^talk 22:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Another problem which can't be solved by the bot simply "following redirects" is when a page is renamed and the redirect is replaced with a disambiguation page. For example, the image Image:KNUJ.png was used in KNUJ, which was then moved to KNUJ (AM) and KNUJ was made a disambiguation page. This bot, for example, needs to check the edit history of the article (either the one in which it is used, or the one which is named in the use rationale) to determine if a rename occurred, (or even simpler, just check for a link in the current page, as would exist in a disambiguation or a summary style content split), and either leave the image alone or fix the article name in the image description. It is unreasonable to expect everyone who does page moves and disambiguations to update fair use rationales as well. This is what bots are for, fixing (alleged) problems, instead of deleting things for minor technical violations of an already contentious policy. DHowell (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• It's really quite simple: Links to pages from fair use rationales are no different from all other links on Wikipedia. If a target page is simply moved, the automatic redirects work just fine, thus there should be no problem to fix, for either a bot or a human. If the redirect eventually gets overwritten by a new page, as you describe, then it is the responsibility of the person who does it to check all incoming links and correct them as necessary - which is something they need to do anyway, independently of whether the links come from article space or from fair use rationales or from wherever else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Except that normally if one creates a disambiguation page and forgets to update incoming links, that doesn't result in a bot tagging an article for deletion in 7 days. Eventually, a human will notice the link to a disambiguation page and fix the link. On the other hand, fair use rationales are typically never noticed by humans until a bot complains, then humans are forced to please the bot by fixing a "problem" which is not really a problem. Bots should be here to serve the community, not to force the community to serve them. DHowell (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I would suggest that the bot use a different tag than "disputed", since there really is no dispute over the image (and there can be no dispute when a bot is simply tagging), but simply a technical problem. Perhaps Category:Non-free images without proper article name? DHowell (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• See here for a similar move that caused problems. Instead of a missing colon, it is a set of extra spaces. Some articles get involved in move wars, and switch back and forth between titles. Fixing the links in fair-use rationales while that goes on could be, well, tiresome. Maybe that is another reason to discourage potentially controversial moves without discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

And then wheeeeeeeee all the bot's talk page gets archived while Betacommand still hasn't dignified any of the redirect questions with an answer. Haukur (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, they get reposted to Betacommand's own talk page. I suppose that's somewhat logical though rather unexpected. Haukur (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This is all ridiculous, people keep requesting BetacommandBot be blocked without ever giving the name of a policy it has violated. Please, please just give us the link to the policy (or guideline) and paste the relevant sentence here so we can see exactly what you are on about. OK I will do it for you WP:FU The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, there is no violation of this policy! Can people actually stop and read this sentence for one minute and understand each word, "name" does not mean "link", article does not mean article which redirects to the article in which fair use is claimed. The name of the article on this video game is Rome: Total War: Barbarian Invasion not Rome Total War: Barbarian Invasion, the later is the name of an article containing only a redirect. If the policy is silly, if you don't like it propose a change, but it's unlikely people will agree with you on this one, it's illogical to use a redirect instead of the real article name. Only request a block when a user or bot is violating policy. And if I were Betacommand I wouldn't feel inclined to answer constant accusations either, especially when you fail to mention which policy he is violating. Also as far as the occasional error goes, has any one of you made over 400,000 edits only to uphold fair-use policy ? No I didn't think so. Of course it's not perfect, none of you are either, and it's only a computer program. How would you feel if a whole bunch of people starting requesting you be blocked at every minor error. Should everyone who's AfD nomination closes as keep be blocked? Seriously ... Jackaranga (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Everyone complains that the bot isn't doing its job, when in fact it IS doing its job. Just because everyone HATES what it's doing doesn't mean it's doing anything wrong. JPG-GR (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This bot is violating Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy: "[R]ules are not the purpose of the community. Instruction creep should be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict. If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, you should ignore them. Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures." This bot is enforcing rules against community consensus, invalidating images based on procedural errors, ignoring the spirit of NFCC while enforcing its letter, preventing people from improving the encyclopedia by forcing editors to focus on rules-compliance rather than content, and not participating in discussions in order to resolve disagreements; violating nearly every principle of "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy", in both spirit and letter. DHowell (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, there is quite a difference between blocking a user for "every minor error" and blocking a bot for hundreds of "minor errors". No one is requesting the user Betacommand be blocked, just the bot BetacommandBot, until its problems are fixed to the satisfaction of the community. According to bot policy, the burden of proof is on a bot owner to prove that its edits are "harmless and useful". There are sufficient allegations and evidence presented here that the edits are both harmful and useless, to require that something be done about it. DHowell (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

FU rules are different then all others. There are legal issues here, not policy issues. JPG-GR (talk) 05:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Completely wrong. There is nothing in copyright law that demands fair-use rationales in whatever form, according to whatever formalism, so the "legal issues" are a red herring. Fair-use rationales are purely a self-imposed measure of Wikipedia-internal communication. As such, they work according to the same logic as all other Wikipedia-internal communication. In that context, "name of an article" obviously includes "aliases of an article", because that's how we do things in Wikipedia and that's why we have these aliases. Jackaranga's distinction between "article" and "redirect" above is an absurd piece of bureaucratic formalism for formalism's sake, with no practical value whatsoever. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I cannot believe that people are defending a clear malfunction due to shoddy coding. This issue already came up at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive103#BetacommandBot.27s notices becoming more difficult to parse, and BCB was actually blocked for it at the time. There are plenty of times when redirects are wholly appropriate: the use of macrons and other characters difficult to type on standard keyboards, for one. Normal page moves are another (as noted, page moves followed by replacing by a disambig page are tougher and would be a reasonable mistake). Merges are a very notable case, especially in the case of {{R with possibilities}}; a book merged to its author page, for instance, might well be expanded back into an article on the book eventually. Having the rationale reference the book title, though it is currently a redirect to the author page, is entirely appropriate; that way, it will be correct even should the article be restored. Three legitimate reasons to use redirects aside from simple mistakes seems like a very strong reason to respect redirects in rationales. SnowFire (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I got an idea....block the bot and fix it...or...don't and move on to something else. Otherwise we are going around and around in circles and no one is getting anything done. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 03:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Which would be following the procedure at Wikipedia:Bot policy which says, "Administrators should block bots if they are unapproved, doing something the operator did not say they would do, messing up articles, editing too rapidly, or running anonymously." (Emphasis mine.) Bc said "BCBot does now see redirects and follows them", if it doesn't do that, end of story, block away as desired. - CygnetSaIad (talk) 03:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The redirect issue ought to be fixed. Were the bot actively making bad edits, a block under WP:BOT would be OK, but this last block was handed out about 30 minutes after the bot stopped editing. Not necessary. Betacommand is more responsive to issues than might be apparent; in my experience, when issues arise he's adjusting the code rather than responding to every AN/I post.

Oh, for stats, I spot checked about 100 images tagged by BCBot, and 5 had the redirect issue. That's a pretty high rate considering the drama these tend to cause. A few more had {{Non-free use rationale}} but curiously lacked the "Article" field entirely. Gimmetrow 03:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

By my count, BCBot has tagged about 2500 images since the beginning of this thread. At a 5% error rate, that's potentially 125 images wrongly tagged during the course of this thread alone. Is BCBot going to go through and find these 125 or so images and untag them before they get deleted? DHowell (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

DHowell's got a point. Is BCBot going to correct it's mistakes?...and the answer is, probably not, but I have an idea. Why don't we find the mistake the bot has made and make Betacommand himself fix them. His bot, his bot's mistakes, he should correct them, manually. Maybe after that he will put his bot in to "spit shine" working order so he doesn't have it do it again. Just a thought, couldn't hurt. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 04:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

And my point is: the bot should either not tag images with only the redirect issue, or fix the redirects as it finds them if that's considered important. This would eliminate a big chunk of the drama. Then it might be nice for a bot to check images with {{Non-free use rationale}}, without an "Article" field, and used only once in article space, and maybe fill in that Article field. Together these two checks could reduce by as much as 8% the number of images tagged for admin review. Gimmetrow 04:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ha. BCB's job is, essentially, to find and point out the mistakes of thousands of users improperly tagging images. So, when BCB makes hundreds of mistakes, it's STILL it's job to fix them? I'd like to see more of the community do it right the first time so BCB can't make the mistakes in the first place. JPG-GR (talk) 05:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Editors are allowed to make mistakes. Bots are not, at least not without taking the responsibility to fix their mistakes. DHowell (talk) 09:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

in a perfect world there would be no need for BCBot, as for redirects BCBot normally follows them. Due to a API error it failed today. β^_command 06:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In a "perfect" world, we wouldn't have to deal with the headache of this damned thing every couple days. I think you need to take a nice, long look at the bot and correct the problems that people have addressed (hey, it would make other happy).

I would, though, like to get everyone's opinion on something.....

I think if you own a bot and the bot screws up, the bot's owner should have the bot blocked (while it is fixed) and then the bot owner should have to manually correct all the mistakes made by the bot before the bot is unblocked. Think of it as a tough punishment. Since bots can tag, post, correct, etc. a couple hundred of things every couple minutes, if it screws up, I think the bot owner should have to clean it up....by himself. Bot owners would keep an eye on their bots and mistakes wouldn't happen.

That's just this editor's opinion, what do you all think? - NeutralHomer ^T:C 07:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that 99% of the time, the complains re: this bot are because the complaining user isn't fully versed in WP:FURG. Mistakes happen from time to time. Just because BCB's edits are greater and its function is more visible does it get complained about. JPG-GR (talk) 07:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the 1% (probably even more like 0.01%, to be honest - we never hear about the times where it tags an image correctly and the user never complains, so the statistics will be skewed towards cases where someone complained, legitimately or not) gets overlooked. Look how long it took in this case, where BC did ultimately acknowledge the bot had (once again) screwed up. The mass of bad complaints makes people too quick to dismiss legitimate complaints, too quick to unblock the bot, etc. —Random832 14:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not base my error stats on complaints. I have an IRC logging bot so that when ever the bot's name is used in an edit summary I know about that, and I look into as many of those as I can. (Most of those are reverions of proper taggings, or are vandalism reverts) some I retag and others I can fix myself. Issues that are brought to my attention are less than 1/3 of my total numbers, I also do random sampling that is part of my normal MO. there have been a few issues never brought up, that I have found and addressed and added that into the bots error rate which at .1% is still better than any four humans. β^_command 15:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to concur and expand on Newtralhomer's comment. Whenever a bot error is found (which happens fairly frequently, because of the number of different tasks it runs, and the number of non-free images which are not properly tagged), βcommand himself must verify the last two runs of that task that all such errors are repaired, and the bot remains blocked until that verification is done. (If he would separate the tasks, or be more communicative than the bot, we could accept his word that he would not run that task until the reported errors are fixed.) This example (not following redirects) is a bot error, even if βcommand's statement that it was caused by an API error is precisely correct.

In fact, NFCC#10c is not clear on the issue whether redirects should be followed in the justifications. Furthermore, the instructions for article movers only specifies that double-redirects should be fixed, not image justifications.

Move vandalism could easily cause non-fair use images to be deleted, which is contrary to common sense, and not required by law, although it appears to be required by NFCC. It's possible that detailed instructions for the admin reviewing the bot tags could result in more of the bot errors being caught, but they are still bot errors.

And, in response to some legal issues above, WP:NFCC is a Foundation directive, so that it needs to be followed, unless it's illegal. Whether there is an underlying law requiring it (the law clearly requires some policy, but this is probably more strict than necessary) is irrelevant.

I concur with the block, although it should probably be lifted now if βcommand asserts that it's fixed and that he's repaired the previous occurances. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

To clear up a common misconception, WP:NFCC is not a Foundation directive, but English Wikipedia's current interpretation of the actual Foundation resoultion. Note that the Foundation resolution says nothing about article names being required in the image description or rationale. In fact, as one board member stated, "The rationale doesn't actually need to be stated explicitly, and boilerplate is perfectly fine if it is actually used correctly and applies to the particular media in the particular situation. There just needs to *be* a solid rationale within the licensing policy for using non-free media. If it's not absolutely clear that a rationale exists, it's best to err on the side of writing it down, and if en.wikipedia wants to demand an explicit rationale, then it's free to set policy that way." That's Kat Walsh, posting to foundation-l. DHowell (talk) 09:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I've also noticed that one of the bot's tasks is to remove non-coforming, but plausible, fair use justifications, and another task is to tag the image for not having a fair use justification. If the bot doesn't put a tag on the image and notify the uploader and recent editors on the first edit, and wait at least 48 hours before adding the speedy deletion tag, this is just wrong. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The bot does not remove anything from image description pages, Im not sure where your getting your facts. β^_command 18:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with its temporary block. As It malfunctioned several times (one recent example here), even after getting warning from other users.--NAHID 21:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Procedural question concerning searching/replacing shortcuts

Wikipedia:Avoid self-references has been renamed to Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid.

The new shortcut is WP:SRTA.

Is it acceptable to search for WP:ASR and replace it with WP:SRTA based on the above name change, or does another discussion need to be started somewhere?

I figured it would be best to clarify this issue before I use AWB to search/replace.

I look forward to your replies.

The Transhumanist    23:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Who cares? east.718 at 23:28, November 26, 2007

It is generally better to list the old shortcut on the page and not make the changes. If after a few months a new page wants the old shortcut, shortcut revisions can be decided upon at that time. GRBerry 23:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I was thinking that if it were updated, people would become aware of the name change faster. The old name was causing problems of misinterpretation, and still does for those who are not aware of the name change. The acronym "ASR" ("avoid self-references") implies that all self-references should be avoided, which is why the guideline's name was changed in the first place. Where are shortcut revisions decided upon? The Transhumanist    23:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. In this case, 1038 pages have links to the old shortcut. Unless another page urgently needs the shortcut, there is no need to fix this. Also, people need to get used to not using the previous short-cut. Not sure what happens with non-linked uses, such as WP:ASR. I think the AWB search and replace only uses 'what links here'. Carcharoth (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Where is the usual place for posting a discussion to search/replace a shortcut? The Transhumanist    23:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The pump might be a good place. Cheers, east.718 at 23:48, November 26, 2007

Thank you. The proposal has been posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Misleading shortcut - proposal to search/replace it. The Transhumanist    23:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

List of non-free images used outside of mainspace

I've used a script (which I stole from eagle_101) to generate User:ST47/NFI, a list of all uses of non-free images outside of mainspace. Please peruse and remove offending images, I'll regenerate it weekly. :) --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 23:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a WP:SPEEDY that covers such deletions? -- Jreferee t/c 02:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Many of them do have legit FURs and are used in the mainspace. They're just also used in userspace. I'd be curious if there's a template to put on the talk page after they get removed from the userpage. JPG-GR (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Removal_of_fair_use_images#Fair_use_images_on_userpages explains that user page non free images are copyvios. Here is an example of a deletion and here is what the deletor posted on the user talk page. This seems like something a Bot could do. Any bot developers interested? -- Jreferee t/c 02:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot can do this I think, perhaps also one of the MiszaBots. I'm pretty sure deleting the images from the page is not the way to do it though, you should add a : (semicolon) symbol to unlink them. Be warned though on the occasions I have done this it has never been well greeted. User talk:Jackaranga#Userpage for an example. Jackaranga (talk) 03:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point. It is the image, not the text string, that is the offending material. Adding a : (semicolon) symbol to unlink the image but leave the text string is the correct amount of action. -- Jreferee t/c 16:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Next time you run the script you should probably exclude the Portal namespace, since that's for all intents and purposes just a special part of the mainspace. --bainer (talk) 04:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Although there are those (e.g., me) who advocate for our permitting fair use in portal space under the same criteria we apply to mainspace, the community has never sanctioned such use (the most recent broad discussion of which I'm aware took place in October 2006, and the underlying proposal was ultimately tagged as {{historical}}, having never commanded a consensus; I'm not at all sure that it would now, especially in view of the community's broad embrace of the Foundation's licensing policy). (That is not, of course, to suggest that portal pages ought not to be excluded from the script—indeed, I cannot imagine that we should be served particularly well by editors' undertaking to remove fair-use media from portal space—but only to clarify [that which I understand to be] current policy). Joe 04:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

How was this list generated? I'm concerned at the fact that Category:CopyrightByWikimedia was apparently included, because (A) this category's status is unresolved at this point (and, in particular, it contains many prominent images intended for userspace and project-space, including the admin mop) and (B) It is not a subcategory of Category:All non-free media, which led me to my question about your methods. Now, the problem presented by this category should clearly be discussed, but treating it like it's already been settled is a mistake. —Random832 14:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh...

You may want to check that script out. I did not upload Image:Air_Canada_Logo.svg or a boatload of others (search for spryde on the NFI page) yet it marks me as such. I believe it is taking the last user who edited the image. I know it isn't really important who uploaded what in this context but it may in future uses of the script. Also, what is the policy of doing an article rewrite in userspace? Can we have NF images there while the rewrite is occuring? spryde | talk 14:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

you cannot dispaly NFC in userspace. you can either use the : to link to it or use a placeholder image. β^_command 15:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Not-quite-closed AfD

Resolved

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ceremonial county of Durham was closed by User:East718, with "delete" as the outcome. However, there were four articles co-nominated, and only Ceremonial county of Durham was deleted. As all "votes" were delete all or keep all, this seems to be an oversight. I've mentioned this on East718's talk page, but thought I'd bring it up here as well. --RFBailey (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done east.718 at 03:23, November 27, 2007

Usually, it is more prudent to just leave a note on the admin's talk page. —Kurykh 03:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the right thing was done here as I went offline. east.718 at 03:55, November 27, 2007

Another option is tagging the articles with {{db-xfd}} for the next janitor.--Tikiwont (talk) 11:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Joejoebilly

Resolved

Look at that. And his contribs! The has repetedly recreated Pandapede and has been warned for it. User should be blocked. —Coastergeekperson04^{'s talk}@11/27/2007 04:18

User:Pegasus got him. east.718 at 04:34, November 27, 2007

Dealing with the trolling and fanning the flames at the RFAR

Now I admit that Durova and I haven't always gotten along. But I see that Durova has become an easy target for some who do not seem to have the project's best interest at heart. I've noticed a very familiar and tiresome pattern of attacks going on at the RFAR pages now that suggest to me other motives; trolling and settling old scores to start with. Not everybody who opposed Durova was a troll, but there are certainly trolls who are there now. For example: [75] I'm surprise this went unreverted. Also these: [76][77][78][79] [80][81][82][83][84][85] If there's one place where the signal-to-noise ratio should be the lowest, it's there. Clearly some policing needs to be done of those pages for those whose only interest is in creating or adding to drama by fanning the flames. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Except every single example of trolling that you've provided is by the same person. That hardly indicates a pattern. -Amarkov moo! 06:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Its up to the arbcom clerks. Contact the one dealing with this case. Simply removing posts from arbcom pages exacerbates matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viridae (talk • contribs) 06:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That's the opinion of two who I seem to remember having a personal ax to grind with Durova. Could that be influencing your opinions here? And for the record the community can and has policed RFAR pages before. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. I can't speak for Viridae, but I actually liked Durova before this. You appear to be confusing "having a personal axe to grind" with something else. Even if we somehow conluded that I have this nonexistent axe, I fail to see how this changes the clear fact that you've only provided evidence of one troll. -Amarkov moo! 06:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Lack of faith FM. If you want to avoid a controversy, contact the clerk. They will remove it if they see fit. Someone removing another persons evidence section or comments at arbcom will usually piss people off, and this is a high profile case. Do it by the book and noone will say anything about it. Viridae^Talk 06:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Felonius Monk, the last diff you've included is actually Durova's post. It appears that most of those posts were present in the case at the time the arbitrators and clerk were all very active on the pages; they would have been aware of them, and no doubt have assigned them their due weight in the decision. I have to admit I am feeling a little uncomfortable at the comments that are being added at this late stage, when most proposed decisions have met quorum. Risker (talk) 06:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's a way of dealing with trolling anywhere. See what you think:

• Remove the comment
• Leave a WP:AGF note on the user's talk explaining that you did this because it appeared inflammatory, which was surely not what they intended, and invite them to restate their comment in rather less problematic terms.
• If they reinsert it verbatim, then you know it's deliberate trolling - we know how to handle users who are deliberately inflaming a dispute.
• If they rephrase it, life is good.

How about that? Guy (Help!) 09:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That works if the person removing the trolling agrees with the point being made, otherwise it looks like censorship and becomes a source of drama all by itself. So find someone who agrees with the point but not the way the point was phrased and they can replace the point with their own phrasing of it. I've reduced drama by simply minimally modifying another's post to made it less inflammatory. Sometimes it helps, sometimes it doesn't. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Th whole point of an AGF notice and the comment about restating it in neutral terms is precisely that it is not censorship. One could refactor the comment, but that would risk adding an editorial bias. I think we should be much less reluctant to kick back inflammatory comments and ask the person to rephrase them. As a serial poster of hasty and sometimes ill-judged comments, I would not have a problem with this, provided it were stated in terms that do not assume bad faith. Some comments can be misinterpreted, and some look much less good in black and white than they sound in our heads. I think it's worth a try, anyway, but it won't work unless a decent sized group of people adopt the idea. Guy (Help!) 11:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Songgarden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely blocked, so the comments should have been reverted and the IPs blocked. This particular ban is not in dispute and was confirmed by FloNight. Thatcher131 14:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Confirmed by whom? We think not Thatcher131. The blocks were simply to preserve a pattern of deceit and corruption.

Take a look at the Songgarden edits for a clue? I work for him. He is no fool. Anyone that keeps blocking based on the Durova type sleuthing, might be wise to understand that she ended up right where she was headed. From Toronto, I say thank you. 69.60.245.150 (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

A change for the better, please

It would be a very healthy change if people who hold controversial opinions legitimately became more proactive about addressing the problem of dubious voices on their own side of the fence. Also about asking people who agree with them to refactor incivility. It carries inherent clout to step forward that way. And when any of us consistently fails to do so, it eventually looks like our standards are low - that we accept or perhaps even invite unfair practices if that gets us the upper hand. That's poisonous. Let's each uphold a higher standard. Durova^Charge! 15:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, well put, except, please admit that Flonight was not a checkuser when you claim she checked on me.

The evidence clearly shows that Flonight received those tools after you blocked. I am not "Amorrow" and I am not a sock of "Once and Forever." It really does not matter, because I do not see that Once and Forever did anything to allow JzG to block him/her either. Come clean now that you can, please? Truly yours, Songgarden from a neutral IP away from my Lake Como location (I do not need to destroy my friends on the lake.......George would not like that. 88.110.197.232 (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Songgarden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked by Durova as a sock of Amorrow. The reason was changed to sock of Once and Forever by FloNight. Although FloNight did not have checkuser access at that time, she is a member of the Arbitration committee and has access to privileged communication between checkusers, or could have contacted a checkuser privately. I myself have placed "Checkuser" blocks, although I usually list the name of the checkuser whom I contacted. You are essentially accusing FloNight of lying, which I do not accept. For the present, Songgarden is banned and his/her contributions may be reverted and his/her IPs may be blocked. Songgarden may appeal by sending email directly to the Arbitration Committee. Thatcher131 20:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Pardon me Thatcher131, but that statement ^ sounds extremely close to the excuses that were entered by Durova prior to her

engagement with Arbcom. I suspect and rightly assume you do not want to justify her behavior any more than you want to excuse the behavior that forced the Arbcom. event. Please reconsider sending an innocent editor to Arbcom. when, in fact, the block was done for no earthly good or justifiable reason. Please admit that you were wrong in making the comment about Flonight. Durova lied about Flonight. You do not want to follow in her path, correct? Truly yours, a friend of the project...... No TOR....68.93.120.84 (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone checking these IPs for open proxies?—Random832 21:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, we're treating them all as such. The fact that Songgarden has used at least five ISPs in a four hour span as seen here is ridiculous.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

What's trolling?

I'm a bit curious as to FeloniousMonk's criteria for determining what is trolling? Apparently these are not [86], [87], [88], [89], etc, etc, but anything made by ips that you disagree with is automatically "trolling"? Perhaps it would be easier to put a "no ips" sign at the arbitration pages (not that I would necessarily disagree)..... 98.134.131.64 (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

DOLTS and legal threats

In response to an incident the other day of libels being reinserted and the victim being blocked by overzealous Wikipedians,[90] I've written a new essay Wikipedia:Don't Overlook Legal Threats (WP:DOLT). Comments and improvements are welcome - indeed I think this could be a guideline/policy unless there's a reason I've missed.--Doc^g 10:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The legal thing might have a point, but it is way, way too personally invective against the 'fictitious' editor you've created as a strawman, and the recent events that pissed you off. You're off on an emotional tangent because it angered you so much, and it's way too emotional to be a guideline. It's not an essay, really, it's a rant. I understand where you're coming from, and the legal issues should be mentioned as part of the Legal Threats page, but I'm afraid you need to revisit this in a month instead and tone it down from a distance. --Thespian (talk) 11:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was rather good, especially the bit about checking facts before making assumptions - something that is all too rarely done. DuncanHill (talk) 11:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I, too, thought it was pretty good. Recent events, which I only caught the tail end of, leads me to think that we could use a guideline. El_C 12:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Good one, Doc. This happens often enough that it's well worth pointing out. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It kind of ties in with assuming good faith (in your example, the young vandal fighter failed to do so) - not sure if it ought to be a policy, but it's a pertinent and useful essay. Neil ☎ 12:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, leave it as an essay. But perhaps some folk could frame some policy statement additions on WP:NLT and WP:AGF to reflect it (perhaps linking to it). As for a "rant" I don't think so, but I think it is useful to illustrate the point with a satirical fictitious example - yet we all know this is not so far from what regularly happens.--Doc^g 12:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, except that the 'fictitious' editor that this is setting up is, action for action (motive I can't help with), exactly like an existing editor who you called, I believe, an idiot, 2 days ago, for doing just these things. This is why I think you really need to take some time on this one; and that's why, having read what provoked this, I think you have a germane idea, but *this* is a rant. --Thespian (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

We could perhaps make it a little more neutral by removing the fictitious references to the vandal fighter's age (you don't have to be 17 to be a "dolt") and hometown (you don't have to be American, either). Neil ☎ 13:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't look at any of the personal information of the parties involved the other day - so any similarity to persons living or deceased is purely coincidental. Happy for the exact age and location to be removed - but the point of naming the participants was to remind people that real people are involved here. Not Vandal fighter vs vandal, but Bob vs Colin - it helps us to remember that real people get hurt, and Colins wouldn't otherwise wish to hurt Bobs. We need to take the roleplay out of this and stay human.--Doc^g 13:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

(Any more discussion on the language might be better on the talk page of the essay)--Doc^g 14:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I seem to remember something like this used to explicitly be part of the BLP and/or COI policy. When did that change?—Random832 13:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I take a similar view-point to Doc G., above. There is a very steamroller-ish point of view, where legal threats by often inexperienced or irate users are squashed down and repressed with lengthy blocks. Don't get me wrong, I believe legal threats are detrimental to the atmosphere we require in a productive editing atmosphere. However, a policy of education towards new users is the best course of action for us to take towards those who do not offend seriously, who have not been previously directed to our legal threats policy, and who are not aware of the (justifiable) intolerance we have towards such actions. Anthøny 20:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

An individual who has been libelled in a wikipedia article has no interest in being "educated", or being "directed" to our policies. And any "justified intolerance" was have of their threats is more than outweighed by the intolerable and unjustified fact that our article is libelling them. It needs to be understood, that libelled people don't want to know or understand our rules, they don't want to be wikipedians, they simply want to communicate their problem with the article, and assume that people involved in a project committed to truth and neutrality will want to jump to help them. That's what needs to be understood here.--Doc^g 01:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

WPCITE Beta Test

We have created a Firefox add-on that automatically generates footnote reference code for whatever web page you are looking at. All you have to do is right click on the web page and select WPCITE. This can save a lot of time when citing sources. The add-on, wpcite.xpi, is now available for download from Mozdev. This is a beta test version that works in Firefox 2. It will be modified later today to also work in Firefox 3. If any developers would like to join the project, please visit the WPCITE project page at Mozdev and add your name to the mailing list. Thank you. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I need to recuse myself from this case soon, could some other admin please keep an eye out for this guy?

Gangeticus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is posting unverified, possibly libelous attacks on Malaysian universities. He called me a racist and an idiot here, which means that there might be a conflict of interest problem if I block him or take any other kind of action for disruptive behaviour. Could someone else take up this case? Borisblue (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have left a message to the user. Since the user does not appear to be actively editing right this second, I don't think a retroactive block would be appropriate, and I'm not sure the user has been sufficiently warned or made aware of our policies. I'll see how the user responds to my message, and if any disruptive edits continue. Please post here again (or even contact me personally if necessary) if the user continues being uncivil or other forms of disruptive editing.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew here: there has been a lack of serious education for this user regarding our relevant policies and guidelines, with the exception of a generic welcome template which one could not seriously claim to be substantially and effectively educating. If the abusive behaviour continues after the comment on his/her user talk page, then further measures may have to be looked at, particularly with regards to blocking to prevent further disruption. However, in the meanwhile a policy of fence-sitting is the most effective and fair course of action we can take for the moment. Anthøny 20:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I've dropped him a note about civility (specifically WP:NPA and WP:AGF. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I've followed up with this [91] warning. Bearian (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

His response was less than gracious to Bearian's note, so I left him a reminder about verifiability and an offer of help if he needs it. , Dlohcierekim 03:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Excessive page protection length

I don't know if this helps at all, but I just did some research on semi-protected articles and thought I'd post the results. There are currently about 1200 pages in Category:Semi-protected. Of those, 26 were protected in 2006. Another 180 were protected in the first half of this year.

The full list I had SatyrBot pull together can be reviewed at User:SatyrBot/Semiprotection.

My guess is, from reading WP:PPOL, that we have a group of pages (mostly templates, legal info, etc) that are *fully* protected, and a group of pages (articles, mostly) that are *semi* protected. The act of semi-protecting a page sometimes involves a time-limit, but sometimes doesn't - the policy mentions indefinite and temporary, neither of which are very specific :) One would expect George W. Bush to be semi-protected for at least the next year and a bit. But Cool probably doesn't need a time-limit. So unless a) the protector remembers to remove the protection or b) someone requests unprotection, a semi-protected page *could* stay that way indefinitely, and there's no way to indicate that the protection is supposed to be indefinite, or why it's that way, or if there's a time limit involved, or anything - simply that the page is semi-protected.

Again, I don't know if this helps anyone in any way. And I don't know if the information is useful at all, but I found it interesting :) I'm not going to watchlist this page, so I won't see any responses here. I will be posting this on the protection policy talk page, and will watch that one. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well some of them are obviously vandal magnets (Fag, Faggot, Asshole, George Bush). Others have SPE (Single Purpose Editors) who have repeatedly shown malice towards the article and more importantly, do not play well with others here (USAA, Merkey). Finally, we have the spam pots (Six Sigma), Internet Meme of the week (Chuck Norris Facts), celebs (Britney, Ne-yo, Fiddy Cent...), and controversial topics (Jew Watch, Isreal, Ann Coulter, etc). spryde | talk 17:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Re-reading what I just wrote, nothing is implied; however some may find my groupings funny. spryde | talk 17:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed the "(Fag, Faggot, Asshole, George Bush)". It reminds me of a joke they'd use in South Park. нмŵוτнτ 18:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The underlying problem here is the lack of any semi-solid clarification on lengths of Administrator's actions. The Blocking Policy now has no advice to sysops on approximate block lengths, and to my knowledge the protection policy has never had such advice. We need to look at the insertion of such advised lengths (although obviously they are unusually difficult to define, being dependent on previous offences, general attitude, severity and the general nature and circumstances of the disruption) into the relevant policies. Granted, many of our more experienced Administrators do not require such education (for the most part), being able to rely on their own prior encounters for guidance. However, stating that all Protection actions (which are the subject of the issue at hand) are performed only be experienced sysops is a gross generalisation, and for that reason I would very much like to see the inclusion of rough protection lengths inserted into our policies, in order to prevent such extreme over-Protections occurring. Anthøny 20:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have long felt that semi-protection is overused. I once argued at some length that slut whould not be semi-protected.[92] Haukur (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I will forgo the opportunity to make a very poor-taste joke to agree with you that semi-protection is indeed overused. There are, however, some scenarios that are worth semi-protection -- I can think of a few pages that aren't watched very often, but have been the subject of BLP issues, some of which involve OTRS requests. Ral315 » 22:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Do we have any templates or such that states that a page has some sort of OTRS issue? I know pages on probation via arbcom have a template but it might help us plebes out to know if a page has an issue of some sort. spryde | talk 16:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Review of Checkuser Required

This checkuser case needs administrator assistance (particularly in the blocking area). --EoL talk 21:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Administrators should note that they cannot use "checkuserblock" as a reason for a block unless they are explicitly instructed to do so, which is not what has happened in this case. If a checkuser wants an IP checkuserblocked, they will likely do it themselves. --Deskana (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe just a sockpuppet block, then? --EoL talk 22:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite given to the sock, only 24 hours for the main because I am willing to AGF here, and the edit warring was with someone who was also in the wrong with regard to the prod process. I assume the autoblocks will get the IP. GRBerry 22:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Commenting on blocked users and language used to criticise sources

I'm looking for some clarification, firstly on how our civility and no personal attacks policies apply to blocked users, and secondly on the standards required of the language used to criticise sources (when discussing issues of reliable sources) and those who have done the work behind such sources.

This has arisen from a specific case where a recently indefinitely blocked user has e-mailed me to complain about a series of comments someone has made about them on a user talk page (there is already bad blood between these two users). I was going to mention the specific case (and had written something about it), but I've just noticed that the user who made those comments has just gone on a wikibreak, so I've removed what I wrote and will avoid any specifics until the wikibreak is over and they have a chance to respond. For now, I've recommended that the blocked user in question avoids reading Wikipedia until they feel ready to file a new unblock request, as following what is being said and being unable to respond is hardly going to help the blocked user calm down. Still, I think an important point needs to be made here about how aggressive (if at all) editors on Wikipedia should be when criticising sources and the work of others, even if they have a poor opinion of them. The point here is that if they are wrong, or overdoing it (either in the case in question, or in later cases in the future), then they may be having an adverse and unwarranted effect on people's reputations.

So, the general questions are this: (1) When commenting on the edits or actions of a blocked user, is it acceptable to say things about them that might be considered a personal attack if they were unblocked and editing Wikipedia? (2) When criticising sources as unreliable, or pointing out that people are referring to or promoting their own work, or engaging in original research, should the language used remain calm and civil? Carcharoth (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally,

1. No, it's not, but it's more likely to be tolerated than if they were a user in good or okay standing.
2. Yes, it should, but it often doesn't. A warning might be in order, depending on the circumstances. Ral315 » 22:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why it would be any more acceptable to attack a blocked user than an unblocked user. No matter who the target is, personal attacks are just generally immature and unnecessary. I think language should remain civil when discussing anything, including sources, but I think it's important to remember that many people misunderstand polite criticism as incivility. Without the specific situation at hand it's hard to know whether the language used to criticize the sources was actually uncivil. Natalie (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks on Wikipedians editting in good faith simply encourage them to misbehave ("What have I got to lose -- the cabal has it out for me"), & doing this to even obvious troublemakers only encourages them to misbehave further. This is a corrolary to WP:DFTT. Besides, we need not adopt the tactics of our troublemakers to properly handle them. -- llywrch (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:SSP

Could one or more admins head over to WP:SSP? There's a bit of a backlog developing there. --RFBailey (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not really a backlog :-) --Deskana (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a backlog - the bot's just not archiving. All the requests there, AFAICT, are actioned. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No, there are four open cases (of varying degrees of complication) that don't appear to have been "actioned" at all. --RFBailey (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I patrol this regularly. A few weeks ago it was 41 cases, this weekend it had ZERO. 4-5 cases is only about a day's worth of reporting. Thanks for the concern, but this is not really a backlog. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough: maybe "backlog" was the wrong choice of words, but all the same there were cases there that needed to be looked at. After posting the first case there while the list was empty, I had anticipated a faster response, that's all. Don't worry about it! --RFBailey (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

New Page Patrol

I'm logging off - but there are some pages that need that vital tick if there are any persons who are wondering what they might do for the next half hour. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. (SEWilco (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC))

One of those transatlantic dissonances that doesn't come up that much: Brits tick boxes, Americans check them. On the other hand, the US has a serious Lyme disease problem, the UK not at all. . . Chick Bowen 03:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

issues with admin

difficulties with User:CJCurrie, blanket reverts, POV and little response on talk.

most recent issue: [93] - 05:55, 27 November.

• edit marked as minor.
• ignored talk section (linked with the edit).
• reference removal and POV text which does not comply with the refs.

in a past dispute, CJCurrie already received a note by User:Nihiltres to use the undo button rather than tag reverts as minor; and to explain the reasons on talk rather than repeatedly revert without discussion. [94]

fairly recently, there was another case of a double mass revert without discussion [95][96].

the mass reverts are many times accompanied by removal of sources (see above diffs) and i'm finding the situation disruptive.

would appreciate some thoughts from the community regarding the situation. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Twinkle breaking articles

I'm not familiar with the Twinkle user script, but it appears to have a function where it removes deleted images from articles. It has a bug (reported a month ago as TW-B-0051) which causes it to repeatedly comment out the same image: see [97] for an example of this. Since HTML comments don't nest, this results in "-->" being scattered throughout articles.

I'd like to request that anyone using Twinkle not use this functionality: ImageRemovalBot is just as capable of removing deleted images from articles, and it does not suffer from this bug. --Carnildo (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

False Block

09:43, 5 November 2007 Orderinchaos (Talk | contribs) blocked "DPCU (Talk | contribs)" (autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 1 second ‎ (old block log http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:ExtraDry - link confirmed by checkuser. see also DXRAW.) Where is this checkuser case? DPCU (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

To clarify the above: shortly after the DPCU account was created, Orderinchaos gave him a one second block in order to record in his block log the assertion that checkuser had shown DPCU to be a returning user ExtraDry, who was in turn shown by checkuser to be a returning user DXRAW. As far as I know, DPCU has not yet explicitly denied this, but objects to it having been inserted into his block log without the evidence having been made available to him. Hesperian 03:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Show me the case, It is not listed under any of the above mentioned usernames. DPCU (talk) 03:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It was done privately. Sarah 03:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you assert that there has been a violation of the CheckUser policy? Hesperian 03:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh bother. Best practice, if a check has been requested privately, is to note the name of the checkuser in the block summary, to avoid such complaints. Any user who adopts a new account to avoid scrutiny or a bad reputation from an old account can be so tagged, although I personally would give the person a chance to see if he has improved his behavior. Thatcher131 04:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure it was Dmcdevit who checked it (I am 4,500km from my home computer at present so can't check directly until Sunday). It was an unusual situation in that we are not looking at a sockpuppet of a blocked user, more one who gets into trouble repeatedly through disruptive behaviour then dumps the old name and adopts a new name to avoid scrutiny - so I did not block the user, but for scrutiny reasons it was important for those assessing this user's actions to be aware of the link. Orderinchaos 07:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

User:ScottMichaelMcDaniel/SurveyGizmo

Resolved

I don't know if this is a problem or not. I haven't notified anyone, as I don't know what I would say, yet. I was looking for "General User Survey" and came across User:ScottMichaelMcDaniel/SurveyGizmo which purports to be a user page, but reads like an advertisment for a company named "Survey Gizmo". One of the named founders of the company is Michael McDaniel. What, if anything, should be done? Bielle (talk) 06:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC) For similar pages, see also User:Skohler/IWoorx and User:Xyzu/XiaOS Bielle (talk) 06:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Evidently it was created several months ago to be worked on - never happened. As contains company name, has been blanked & blocked. FYI, the correct place to note these would be Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Thanks. SkierRMH (talk) 07:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know if the "spam" part was more significant than the "name" part, which is how I ended up here. Anyway, thanks for the help and the information. If I find something similar, I will know where to take it. Bielle (talk) 08:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I originally moved the article on SurveyGizmo to ScottMichaelMcDaniel (talk · contribs)'s subpage--a classic "userify potentially good article that needs a serious overhaul" move...I support the deletion as the article was never improved. Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention would not be an appropriate venue for this sort of thing--it's not a username, but a subpage. A {{prod}} or MfD would have been fine in place of the speedy deletion. — Scientizzle 23:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It was restored twice predicated on improvents. However, no improvements were ever made, nor did the user make any edits outside that page or topic since. --Hu12 (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Four months without any improvement on what was effectively spam is a perfectly reasonable speedy deletion. — Scientizzle 23:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Dubious deletion

Can someone please try and see why this article 1993_child_molestation_allegations_against_Michael_Jackson was deleted as the reason given (that it was a redirect to an article that seems not to exist) seems extremely dubious. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 09:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It was a redirect to an article (as the result of a move) which was deleted at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Molestaion allegations against michael Jackson. Fram (talk) 10:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. As that subject is clearly notable it should not have been deleted. It appears the redirect to a blatant mispelling may have been an attempt to discredit the article and prevent persons watching the other article from knowing about the deletion. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 10:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

An archive of the article is here. Although some of the sources look dubious CourtTV is certainly a reliable source and there is plenty of information at the website here. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 10:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, when a page on your watchlist is moved, the "new" page is added to your watchlist as well. Of course, when running through your watchlist, you may not realise they are one and the same. As for your other comments, they are for WP:DRV, not for this noticeboard. Fram (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

On DRV it says I should take it to either the closing admin or the noticeboard first- I assume I should just go straight ahead and start the review. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything on DRV that says you should come to the admin's noticeboard first. It does that exceptional cases can usually be resolved quickly here, so perhaps there is a misunderstanding of "exceptional"

What I do see, though, is a request to contact the closing admin first, which you don't appear to have done. That would have also been the appropriate first step to find out about the deletion of the redirect. As a general rule, try to talk to the person first. Natalie (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that "notability" was not the reason for deletion and not the only inclusion criteria. It was a poorly sourced WP:BLP disaster with some concerns about neutrality. Mr.Z-man 19:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the subject is clearly notable. Just because an article has bad sources it doesn't mean it should be deleted, it means you should remove the bad sources and stubify the article. Regarding coming to the board I hadn't even known about the afd (Fram told me about it above). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Advice on sandbox inclusion in mainspace categories

Category:English_murder_victims includes a link to this sandbox page User:GORDONEH/SANDBOX. I'd like advice on how to remove the link in the main wiki space. Thanks in advance Trugster | Talk 17:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

All you have to do is remove the categories from the bottom of the page in question. In this case it appears that the user is working on an article in a personal sandbox and didn't remove the categories. I've removed them and will leave a note for the user explaining the issue. In the future, these question are better addressed at the Village Pump, as they don't require any administrator action. Natalie (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and apologies for bringing it up in the wrong place. Trugster | Talk 17:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, instead of removing them, I generally place <nowiki></nowiki> tags around them. That way they are still there, and are easily untagged if/when the article makes it back to regular article space. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if that would work. Another method would be to put a colon in before the name of the category, which will link to it without putting that page in the category, IIRC. I'll amend my note to the user to inform him/her of these other options. Natalie (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Swalwell, Alberta

Resolved

The talk page of this article says I have to ask here why it is protected. So I'm asking? Giano (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is due to the fact that the article namespace has been used for trolling harassment of an editor here.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Look up above; it's already being discussed on this page. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Err, yeah.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No original research

WT:NOR could use an uninvolved sysop or two. There is some serious incivility occurring on that policy talk page and the atmosphere is already contentious from months of controversy and debate. Thanks. Vassyana (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can see a busy and very heated debate, but nothing at first glance that suggests it is out of hand. Some diffs would help if you have examples to show. Otherwise, the debate, whilst busy and heated, doesn't seem unproductive at the moment. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 20:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Some input

In clearing DumbBOT's list of broken AfDs, I came across an article that needs extra eyes. Due to WP:BLP concerns, I've stubbed it (and protected it - any admin can/should lift this at will), but left the history for the last revision to be looked it by you lot.

The article, Piotr Blass, has plenty of sources and is well laid out. But there's a major issue with the tone of the article. I know American law gives lots of leeway to parody in a way that British law does not (alas, alas). But the article read to me like a large pisstake [US: sarcastically written piece] that, whilst it may have been reporting the sources accurately(?) wasn't encyclopedic in tone.

I'd like extra eyes to verify, please: this could just be how my mind is wired (although I see an anon on the talk page and the anon AfD proto-nominator seem to agree) so a second etc opinion would help. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 20:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This article has a troubled history, not to mention the related restriction mentioned atop the talk page. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piotr Blass (third nomination) is the best starting place for the article's history. I don't know where to start for the user's history; the userpage and block log are unrevealing. Fortunately, Ryulong and Durova are still around and can hopefully elucidate further on the user's history. It looks like most of the personal biography was pulled in pieces during the first half of May, without thought to rebalancing the rest of the article, and nobody stuck around to watch the article over the summer after it was unprotected, which didn't help any. GRBerry 22:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK

I just updated the DYK section on the main page. Their is no exact match to the license template on the image in the DYK section (Image:Ontario pavilion at Expo 67 colour.jpg). Would someone please fix it? Royalbroil 22:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorted. I protected the original image on Commons and deleted the local one... WjBscribe 22:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Even better. Thanks! What should I do in the future if I run into this problem since I am not an admin on Commons? Royalbroil 22:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it comes up often - the two projects should be using the same templates. If it does though, just use the closest template possible or copy and paste the Commons text - the templates are pretty but they're hardly necessary for a temporary upload. WjBscribe 22:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me...

...or is TWINKLE causing a few too many problems?

I'm aware of my own bias against automatic editing tools in general, but Twinkle is starting to get up my nose on a couple of scores.

1. The vast majority of TW additions to WP:AIV state "indicates a vandalism-only account" - whether reporting a vandalism-only account, a six-month old stale edit or an admin removing BLP guff. It's like it's checked by default. This really must stop, because it is devaluing the meaning of the phrase, if nothing else. See here for a similar example - "vandalism after final warning, vandalism directly after release of block" - last warning given days ago, a block that ended in August, for a single edit made by a dynamic IP.
2. The automated "warning" feature that doesn't think to whitelist reputable editors and allows inherently nonsensical "warnings" to be placed on the talk page of respected admins because the user isn't double checking what's in front of them (or TWINKLE is letting them ignore edit conflicts).

This tool is also letting people tag and run with really crappy CSD reasonings, so you have to either deny the speedy (and have someone else with Twinkle come along and retag immediately) or delete for a different reason (and then, when the creator challenges the tagger, say "it's nothing to do with me, ask the admin why they deleted it").

I don't know what can be done, and so many people are wedded to their automated admin-getting shortcut devices that I'll expect to be roasted here for piping up, but it seems worth asking if anyone else is as PO-ed as I am with all this. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 22:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of it either for the reasons you listed and more (mainly the overeagerness it allows) . Is it feasible to set up an approval system like AWB does? John Reaves 22:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The first thing seems to be a problem with Twinkle users, not the script itself - looking at the reporting menu, "Vandalism after final warning given," "Vandalism after recent release of block," "Evidently vandalism only account," and "Account is evidently a spambot or a compromized account" are all unchecked by default. Perhaps we need to be more proactive in telling people the proper way to report. As far as point 2 goes, if a user is warning people that they shouldn't, that is the user's responsibility to do a common sense check. As far as CSD taggings go, I don't see much of a problem. In the case that you cited, it was tagged as {{db-bio}} and you deleted it as such. "The choice of whether or not to speedily delete any given page matching these [CSD] criteria is ultimately up to administrator discretion." Since when are the standard templates crappy reasons? An approval system would be good though, we require it for Vandalproof. Admins also need to consider removing the scripts from a user's JS file in the case of misuse. Mr.Z-man 22:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that it also no longer allows reporting IPs as vandal only accounts. Mr.Z-man 22:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

apparently it does. John Reaves 22:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem in that case was not Twinkle but User:Timotab/twinklearv.js - a copy of Twinkle part of User:Timotab/twinklefix.js, the purpose of which is unclear. The change to the real version of Twinkle that does not allow IPs to be reported as vandalism only accounts is not reflected in that old version that some people are using for an unknown reason. Mr.Z-man 22:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That version was created after a large update of Twinkle, and there were many users who experienced problems with it. Timotab created that as a store of the old version until the new one was fixed. I'd imagine people who used it for that breif amout of time just forgot to revert to the official version. I (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Can't speak for anyone else, but if I'm doing a TW-enabled report to AIV, I try to always give an additional explanation or reason, even if it's just a few words. I may have one or two assisted edits without, but that's how I approach it. It's certainly a far easier way to deal with someone who's doing rapid-fire edits and ignoring all warnings; often, when I'm doing a manual edit, I find that I deal with lots of edit conflicts. (Kind of like that one.) Tony Fox (arf!) 23:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a twinkle thing - you also get people claiming they have no idea who created an article they tagged for speedy, because twinkle handled the notice on the editor's talk page. This can lead to misunderstanding and bad feeling. DuncanHill (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but as I disagree with everything that Redvers said, I thought I might share:

1. "the vandalism only" phrase is determined by ticking a box, so it's up to the user to use it correctly, you get incorrect reports from people not using twinkle also, twinkle is not at the fault the users might be

2. Warning the user is a condition sine qua non, for the deletion of an article, if the user wasn't warned the page should not be deleted. The example you give Joanne King is clear example of page needing to be speedy deleted in my opinion. Also that admin declined a speedy deletion request on a page for which he is the author clearly violating policy, and proving the warning was in fact necessary, because he does not understand he can't remove a speedy deletion tag from a page he created, something the template is there to inform him of.

Twinkle really helps so much it's amazing, (well as amazing as a script can be anyway). I agree it's not really needed for AIV reports, but still helps and I see no disadvantage to it. However for deletion tagging it is invaluable. For example if I am browsing at random and come across a fair-use image in violation of policy, I can tag it, and warn the uploader and mark all the articles in just a few clicks, if I didn't have Twinkle I would probably just ignore it. I don't feel like I have ever deliberately misused Twinkle, if you have a problem with one of my edits, tell me and I will see how I can fix it. The number of positive twinkle edits far outweighs the bad ones. By this logic we could make all editors require approval before being able to edit, we all know there is a fair share of stupid edits made only using a browser. The other week I tagged well over 100 images for deletion in one day because of an invalid license template, all have been deleted except one, which I made a mistake on. However I accept it was my error, and the user who contested it never tried to blame Twinkle. Jackaranga (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Basically I oppose treating an admin differently, and if you really want me to start digging up proof that not all admins abide by policy at all time I can but it will be very puerile. Jackaranga (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)