Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Current issues

Consensus on pop culture bits

After all the hullabaloo earlier I thought it boiled down to to limit pop culture references to notable ones, namely ones which had been referenced elsewhere in an independent source. eg a book talking about rabbits in movies etc. or book on symbolism etc. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This is how I approach pop culture sections, I ask myself: Is it important to the subject of the article that it was in this film/tv show/video game etc. if so then a paragraph could be written about that appearance, if not then it should be removed. James086^{Talk | Email} 03:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Not bad. Though I do feel it is always courteous to tag for cite needed first before deleting :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, good idea (& tagging first for cite is clearly newbie-friendly) but I do have some concerns over the implementation. Consider the situation in the first Jurassic park movie, where they show computers made by Thinking Machines: at the time, TM had a reputation for producing some of the most powerful, cutting-edge computers. Although I believe I could find a cite for that statement (they were a more-or-less familiar manufacturer of parallel-processor supercomputers), it is one of those details that is more or less obvious to anyone who worked in computers at the time -- which made the girl's comment "Hey, I know UNIX!" all the more silly. (What was her intended solution? "killall -9 velociraptor"? ;) -- llywrch (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Difficult admin

I have given up trying to talk to Ryulong, he deleted Fourchan & Four chan because "No one is going to use "four chan" or "fourchan" i thought we discussed that at WP:RFD? Then he reverted my edits on Moot and 4 (disambiguation) with no meaningful edit summary. I have given up speaking to him because he just deletes my messages, the only time he did respond i had to go searching through the history of his talk page to find it. So I was wondering if it would be possible if another admin could tell me why my redirects and other edits were deleted?--Seriousspender (talk) 08:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have recreated these redirects as they look like reasonable search terms. Catchpole (talk) 09:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I had deleted them because I felt they were not reasonable search terms. I will not delete the items again, as there are other users who have said that they think the deletions were not necessary.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Not quite true. This was the second time you've deleted them, Ryulong. Shouldn't that have already told you that "other users" found these redirects reasonable? You can add me to that list if it will help. I do hope RfD didn't suggest deleting them - can you point us to that discussion? Carcharoth (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Neither Fourchan nor Four chan have cross-references from RfD listed in their 'what links here' lists. I would have expected such cross-references if they had been discussed at RfD. However, there have been several RfD activities related to redirects pointing at 4chan:

1. Longcat and Fgsfds (both kept - now deleted)
2. Pedobear (deleted)
3. Caturday (kept)
4. Trey Burba (speedy delete)
5. Pedo Bear (pending)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

So the deletion and discussion process does not apply to admins and can be bypassed?--Seriousspender (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not it at all. There was a mistake, and it's been fixed. This is what we do. Is there some remaining problem to be solved here? Friday (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is a problem of all the past deletions Ryulong has done that have been out of process which need to be restored and put through the correct process. It shouldn't be my job or anyone elses job to restore them, it should be Ryulong as he created the work to start with.--Seriousspender (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't dole out work based on who we think deserves it. Which past deletions? The ones mentioned here are taken care of and there has been no decision regarding any other deletions. Can you be more specific? 1 != 2 17:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt these are the only instances pages of being deleted out of process by Ryulong, so I think he should review his past deletions and restore ones that were not put through the correct process.--Seriousspender (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Failing to assume good faith is not a valid reason to demand anyone do anything. Resolute 17:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Man, it's a serious pet peeve of mine when people don't know what the words "assume good faith" mean and use them anyway. Seriousspender, if you feel there's an ongoing problem here and you've been unable to resolve it by talking to the admin in question, there are other means of dispute resolution available. I don't see that there's anything left to do here on the admin's noticeboard. Keep in mind that pretty much anyone with any sense considers getting the right answer to be more important than which path was used to arrive there. So, if your concerns are merely procedural, don't worry about it. Friday (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well if someone Ryulong happilly listens to would remind him of the deletion processes and the problems I have had with communicating with him, that should solve any future problems.--Seriousspender (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Really? Last time I checked, assuming that someone *must* have done other things wrong, therefore they should go back and check their past actions is a textbook case of failing to assume good faith. Given that the user's complaints have been handled, he should either be happy with the resolution and drop it, or go find other examples himself he feels the need to complain about. Continuing to pester another editor even after the resolution of the complaint smacks of a witch hunt to me. Resolute 18:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolute, your tone in this discussion is unnecessarily hostile. As you suggested Seriousspended sould review WP:AGF, may I suggest you take a look at WP:CIV? Your tone is unbecoming an administrator on a site that emphasizes civility and discussion. Jeffpw (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the redirects on both occasions because they had nothing at Special:Whatlinkshere. I would not think that a website that uses a numeral in both its URL and its name would be looked for in a search engine. I now know that I am mistaken, and it is a serious assumption of bad faith on Seriousspender's part to want to review every other deletion I have made, just because of these two particular redirects that I mistakenly saw as unnecessary. I think this needs a nice {{resolved}} on the top.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with any assumption of bad faith. Making useful contributions generally requires two things - good faith and competence. This means you have to have the desire and the ability to do the right thing. You made a mistake, an you were unresponsive to discussion of it. You gave no indication of knowing why it was a mistake. So, it's perfectly sensible for someone to want to check whether you've made other similar mistakes. Friday (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolute and Ryulong, by going on your logic of thought, that is similar to the scenario of finding a badly placed brick by your collegue, mentioning it to him, and telling him what he did wrong, and then not bothering to check any other bricks. Would checking the other bricks be trying to prove my collegue is a bad builder or am I trying to maintain the integrity of the building? In this scenario, am I trying to prove Ryulong deletes things out of process or am I trying to fix very probable mistakes made by him so he can learn from them, aka maintaining Wikipedia? I feel like the bad-finger is just being pointed at me. There is assuming good faith, then there is assuming the user does everything right/never made the same mistake twice, I think some users in this discussion have chosen the latter.--Seriousspender (talk) 09:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to view my comments as you wish, Jeff, however I stand by them. A mistake was made, it was corrected. That is rather the point of this forum. Ryulong, I am certain, will get the message without being told to go back and check everything he's done in the past. Any previous mistakes - real or percieved - have likely already been corrected (i.e.: recreated) or weren't so bad as to warrant a complaint. I'd rather see a "please follow this process in the future" message than a "you must have screwed up before, go find and fix it." One message is productive, one is not. Resolute 16:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't speedily delete redirects just because there are no internal hyperlinks pointing to them. Redirects can be perfectly legitimate alternative titles, mis-spellings, and sub-topic names without their being internally hyperlinked to. Uncle G (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we have an admin restore Fgsfds and Longcat as well? They were also deleted by Ryulong, without an RfD (as pointed out above, the only RfD on them resulted in a keep). -- Ned Scott 10:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Both of those were in August of 2006. Both items were deleted as articles. Is it really necessary to have internal references that are not brought up in the article they redirect to? If people want to know about Longcat or Fgsfds, Wikipedia isn't going to help them in any regard. What purpose would it be to have those redirects, at all?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not completely familiar with the redirects policy, but if you went on that rule for every redirect you found, you would end up deleting thousands of them. For example all the redirects to the RuneScape, and other popular articles.--Seriousspender (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It is fairly common to recreate redirects after articles are deleted. Redirects are cheap and not all redirects are mentioned in the articles they redirect to (though they should be). In cases like longcat and fgsfds, protected redirects are sometimes better than protected redlinks, though this does seem to be a borderline case. Carcharoth (talk) 10:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User:NAHID and non-admin AfD closes

I would like to clarify the role of non-admin closure for AfD discussions. User:NAHID has been closing debates after a day rather than the five days prescribed by deletion policy - "The discussion lasts at least five days". Examples of this include:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Baird (footballer)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourism in Tokyo

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Carson Middle School (2nd nomination)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cameltoe

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kazumi Tanaka

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1951-1952 United States network television schedule (weekday)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lycée Carnot

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophie Lancaster

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Pata (2nd nomination).

And another example where the user closed a discussion after a day [1] and an admin subsequently reopened it [2].

I know that there are some instances where out of process early closures are acceptable such as speedy keeps and (maybe slightly more controversially) snowball closes however I was under the impression that there was only consensus for non-admins to close the most obvious of prossess based keeps. Even though accepting the exceptions some of the closing decisions seem a bit off. For example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourism in Tokyo was closed as speedy keep after 19 hours without giving a reason even though I don't think it meets any of the speedy keep criteria (nomination seems to have been in good faith by a non banned editor and there was an additional editor who thought the article should be deleted). Other examples are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Carson Middle School (2nd nomination) closed as keep after 22 hours as keep despite multiple editors stating that they thought that the appropriate action would be to delete the article and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophie Lancaster closed after 17 hours without a unanimous consensus. Most of the other closes had only recieved keep !votes at the time of closure but none had the overwhelming pile-ons that usually justify snowball closes. If the discussions had been allowed to continue past a day then editors with dissenting opinions may have contributed. Additionally where a reason was given for closure it is usually just a policy (links to essay), such as: "The result was Keep. Based on the discussion, it satisfies WP:N." or "The result was Keep per WP:N.". These seem more like arguments to give in the discussion rather than a reason to close it - which should be based on the consensus established by the discussion.

I tried to discuss the issue with the user (see hereand here) and have informed them of this "thread". I think the issue of who can close AfD and in what circumstances should be clarified in addition to WP:DPR#NAC. [[Guest9999 (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)]]

• I think in the areas where there is a dispute as to the merit of the AfD non-admin closes should be prohibited. In most of the cases cited above (all but 2 I think?) the keep !votes are unanimous. In these cases, he should be citing WP:SNOW not individual policies, because he is not empowered to make a policy judgment in the closure of an AfD. ^Avruchtalk 22:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Still, you are right - you can't judge SNOW based on a listing that lasted only one day. One day AfDs should only be closed IMHO if they are bad-faith nominations. NAHID needs to take a step back and let the process work the way it is supposed to. ^Avruchtalk 22:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree absolutly. I make non-admin XFD closures regularly but closing after one day of discussion is ridiculous.--Phoenix-wiki 22:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of the unanimous Keep debates had only 5-8 !votes, after only a day does this really represent enough of the community to support a WP:SNOW close? [[Guest9999 (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)]]

• I've found some admin / non-admin closure (or if you see other afd discussion achieve) within 1 or 2 days and even within few hours. Just curious about them (Though in some cases we usually close afd discussion as keep / speedy keep and delete / speedy delete, we should stick with policy.)--NAHID 08:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:SNOW may not be the right idea to quote in these closures, as 17 or 22 hours don't provide enough time to outside editors to raise a "reasonable objection", while drawing people to consensus is part of the reason we take AfDs to WikiProjects. Besides, this particular editor doesn't seem to well versed on policies and guidelines, much less the spirit of Wikipedia. As is evident from my recent interaction with the person (including bouts of borderline stalking and lamest of edit wars, where the editor's repeating excuse was WP:OWN). Non-admin closures are for editors in good standing (and that would include constructive contributions, not just assiduous RC patrolling), and that too may not apply here. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Aditya, please don't discrediting other contribution and don't bring your personal matter here (You did these before with other editor). Through the links you took it personally. Seems like, you're getting a chance here and taking advantage by making false accusation on me. --NAHID 07:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This exactly is my point. On this very thread the editor in discussion has already gone against WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:WQT (going WP:MASTODONS of course) and, more importantly WP:OTHERSTUFF (other stuff exists is one of the lamest of reasons for any action, both on and off Wikipedia).

WP:SNOW may not be the right idea to approve of a weak grip on policies and principles, as it very much turns AfDs into Wikipedia:Ballots. Well, I'm outta here to keep my WP:COOL and seek some WP:LOVE... how was that for using cuts (a.k.a. WP:WTF)? :). Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Aditya, I'm assuming good faith here. But, you should aware about your issues and above matters (Kettle). That's not acceptable.--NAHID 09:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of these closes are not correct, in that they are inappropriate speedy/snowball keeps (something non-administrators should not be doing) and the closer asserts his/her own personal view on the merits of the deletion discussion in the close, rather than evaluating the consensus. Suggest blanket-reopen and admonishment to avoid further such closes. Daniel 11:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Daniel is correct here. east.718 at 18:15, January 5, 2008

Armbarred? Natalie (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Well, when I first visited this topic, I thought there is something going really wrong. Then I visited all the Delete Discussion and found it absolutely pointless to bring such a complain against the user NAHID. To my surprise only one vote for delete was submitted in one discussion and rest of the discussions received either keep or week keep. Some discussions also received Strong Keep as well. A better consensus than this one can ONLY be found in an Utopian world. I know we have some policies that recommend us to keep deletion debate open for five days at least. But we shouldn't forget that at the end of the day Wikipedia is for the users, not for the ill-minded Wikipedians who try to convert it as a text war playground (it's my right to express my view, and I am not being uncivilized at all here :-p). When an article receives so many KEEP vote, even less than a day, it clears the picture that someone tagged them intentionally (unfortunately nowadays it became a common culture here in Wikipedia). And for the betterment of WP, I strongly support a quick closing of such discussion. You may talk about policy. Remember, policy is not an unchangeable religion book that we can not modify. In such case, if requires, I prefer to start a debate on Policy Modification. Cheers. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 14:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Presumably you mean policy modification to make what he has been doing acceptable, which it is not at present. Good luck with that. In the meantime, he should be asked not to do it any more, even if none of his closes actually need re-opening. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as a point of fact, this discussion (mentioned above) involved multiple users who expressed the opinion that the article should be deleted - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Carson Middle School (2nd nomination). [[Guest9999 (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)]]

While I agree in principle that there's no reason to keep debates open longer than necessary to gauge concensus, I'll also note that Wikipedia is for the users, not the users who may have been online on a particular day and saw the debate. It's possible that all those who would recommend deletion happened to be offline on that particular day, or busy elsewhere, or just didn't see the notice. That's a major reason for the five-day rule. To delete an article without giving due process is unnecessary, and may actually increase the headache (with additional debates, discussion, and DRV). Also, per WP:SNOW, uphill battles are still winnable, and 5-8 keep votes could easily be overcome with sound policy arguments in favor of deletion. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep. That would definitely mean a lot of hassle. Like when the user in discussion disputed fair use of a non-free image I uploaded. When I put a hang-on tag and detailed the rational on talk page, he went on to put it to speedy. Luckily, another user saw it and removed the tag, and rebuked the user for that. He also managed to get the image deleted, though it was restored (it involved three highly active image patrolers, too), and the user apologized to the rebuking party (no concern about me, of course). But, overall it was quite a hassle. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Too much of a material for an incident report. Striking out. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, dear! As soon as I mention the editor's behavior around the image he takes the image to Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 January 9. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Striking out. This trouble is getting nowhere. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The tendentiousness of Blackworm

I'm not sure about bringing this here. It's not an acute situation but troublesome. Blackworm (talk · contribs) apparently has a long history of contentious argument with other editors, particularly on articles and user talk pages. The main articles are Circumcision, Female genital cutting, Reproductive rights, and Prevalence of circumcision, although there are some others. I'm not going give specific diffs but a quick skim through his talk page will reveal various conflicts. Of particular note is the Circumcision article where his conflict has been with five editors, three of them admins, who he accused of WP:OWNing the article. I'm not going to qualify whether anyone in the discussion is "right", just that the arguments often got very heated and accusations of violations of WP:NPA flew from both sides.

A look at Wannabe Kate's summary reveals a 4 to 1 ratio of talk page to mainspace edits which seem unusually high to me, particularly for so few articles. After I had a few moderately productive exchanges with him on the Talk:Reproductive rights page ([3] [4] [5] [6]) clarifying points, I let the matter rest. User:Phyesalis, who had asked me to look in on the Reproductive rights talk page because of the conflicts there, decided to disengage from the discussion. I left her a note supporting this break and saying "Blackworm has a point as well as an obvious POV in relation to this article. However I believe his time would be better spent conceptualizing a structured counterpoint section with relevant and valid sources/cites than haggling over wording in the first few sentences. Such a section would make it much easier to incorporate the view into the lede of the article." Now, saying I believe he has a strong POV (about abortion in this particular case) is not the same as saying he is deliberately inserting POV into the article text. Yet Blackworm extracted only that bit to post on my talk page, ignoring what were good suggestions for him to productively add to the article. So there were these posts to me, also taking me to task for my sexist characterizations of the vandals of my user page as "boys". (Perhaps it wasn't clear to him that I actually meant boys, as in under 13 years of age, because of the level of immaturity of their comments. And no offense meant to our younger editors, many of whom are quite mature and responsible on Wikipedia.)

None of this specifically violates policy yet as an overview it concerns me. I would hesitate to call him a troll but he sure tries to fit the bill in several ways. Because my exchanges with him have been over content of an article, I'm wary of taking any action. And I'm not sure whether any action is really needed. However, I'd like feedback on whether I'm being overly hard on an abrasive but productive editor or whether my perceptions are on target. Cheers, Pigman☿ 05:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking over the diffs, he seems exceedingly quick to ABF and look for offence where none is intended, and lash out at those who are trying to help. My impression? - he's here to fight and POV-push more than build the encyclopedia. I'd say he bears watching. I need to go a bit further back in his contribs, but if this has been his pattern for awhile, and if it's not improving... I'd support some sort of limit-setting. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize in advance if this response is too long. I will admit past failure to remain calm, assume good faith, and (especially in the case of circumcision) failures of WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA. I am a relatively new editor. I don't believe I have recently violated any policy or guideline, unless I'm misunderstanding something. I attempted to research "tendentious editing," but found only this essay, which states, This is [...] not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.

I agree with Pigman that the situation seems troublesome. I respectfully submit that a reasonable editor would have interpreted comments Pigman authored and posted in Pigman's User space as sexist, regardless of whether the reasonable editor would believe them offensive. I presented an objection, while quoting my evidence, on Pigman's talk page here, and asked him to consider removing or rephrasing the material.

I began the thread, perhaps hastily, on a completely different subject; namely Pigman's obscure accusation on another editor's Talk page that I displayed "obvious POV in relation to this article" (the article apparently Reproductive_rights). In the context of recently trying desperately hard to assume good faith in my contributions, especially in discussions with User:Phyesalis in Talk:Reproductive_rights and elsewhere, this accusation from Pigman came as a huge blow; making that particular guideline even harder to internalize.

I first encountered Pigman because he was called upon by User:Phyesalis to help resolve a dispute involving gender bias. (Phyesalis did this at the apparent suggestion of User:Cailil, and both Phyesalis and Cailil are members of WikiProject Gender Studies, where I am seemingly involved in yet another dispute, this time mainly with Cailil.) Forgive me if the combination of Pigman's (IMO) unfounded accusation of "obvious POV" on my part, and the apparently gender biased comments in his User space, caused me to question Pigman's judgment in a matter concerning gender bias (sexism) in gender-related articles. I don't believe that means Pigman's claim of tendentious editing on my part is supported.

To respond to Kathryn NicDhàna's apparent concerns, I will relate some history in this paragraph, which some readers may wish to skip. Recently I have somewhat stepped away from circumcision, after the one RfC I have ever initiated (after several archives' worth of often heated discussion, and some soul searching), drew a total of four editors; two opposing opinions, one of them from Phyesalis, who was not until then a contributor to the page to my knowledge. Two editors (including myself) supported my proposed changes. I disengaged, and did not touch the article. Yes, I use article Talk perhaps disproportionate compared to making article edits , but I believe this appropriate in articles on controversial subjects -- I view my high ratio of Talk posts to article edits as meritorious, not as evidence of disruption or other wrongdoing. In the spirit of WP:TEA and other accepted principles, I then shifted my focus toward correction what I saw as policy violations (especially WP:NPOV) in other gender-related articles, and refining my understanding of Wikipedia and its principles.

I point the reader toward my recent contributions, as well as recent entries my User and Talk pages, as evidence of a positive shift in my behaviour. I humbly believe I have especially displayed considerable patience and understanding in my many recent interactions with User:Phyesalis; an editor I (again, humbly, please review the evidence and judge) consider very new, very inexperienced especially in matter of Wikipedia policy, and presently disruptive. I invite specific questions, I welcome suggestions that I strikeout mistakes or offensive content, and I welcome requests for me to consider apologizing for specific actions. I will abide by any consensus arrived at by neutral administators here. Blackworm (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think all you guys need to take a step back and try to understand where you coming from and where you going. All of us have feelings some are more sensetive than others! Igor Berger (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Pigman is right. I was going to bring something here myself but due to the wikistress of dealing with Blackworm I'm trying to take a wikibreak. Blackworm, as he has admitted above, has failed to assume good faith. He has escalated disputes to other areas of wikipedia. This behaviour is consistent with treating Wikipedia is a battleground.

At this point I must mention that I am involved with Blackworm's dispute at WP:GS. I have also responded to his content dispute at Father's rights movementTalk:Fathers'_rights_movement#Removed_Bias and his comments at Talk:Women's rights[7] (which I called soapboxing, Blackworm says he was not, so I take his word for it) - basically it would be fair to say I have a history with this user.

However I am not involved in the dispute at Reproductive rights. I did offer an outside opinion. I did request that somebody from Wikiproject human rights who understands all the issues in that dispute have a look, and I did recommend that Phyesalis seek a third opinion. I consider Blackworm's above post - naming me to reflect his pattern of escalation.

A summary of recent tendentiousness from Blackworm

1. Blackworm was been in dispute with Phyesalis in articles relating to Category:Circumcision - especially Female genital cutting & Circumcision since October-November 2007. This dispute has spilled out into Reproductive rights. That page is on my watch list - I made a post to that page not supporting Phyesalis's position. She contacted me and I recommended she either RFC the article or ask "someone like Pigman" - Pigman is an uninvolved admin. Asking an uninvolved sysop for a WP:3O is normal practice.
2. Blackworm accuses Phyesalis of canvassing. Which to my knowledge is totally untrue. I came to Talk:Reproductive rights because it's on my watch list. And Pigman was asked as an uninvolved for an overview of the situation.

   Blackworm did not accuse Phyesalis of canvassing. Blackworm recommended that Phyesalis read WP:CANVASS if the user had not done so already and asked Phyesalis how many users Phyesalis had contacted. There was nothing "untrue" about what Blackworm said in that context; and the question and recommendation seem reasonable, as Phyesalis is a relatively new user, and as Phyesalis has made a number of requests for outside views, (presumably all within the guidelines of WP:CANVASS,) including, I believe, at least one article-content RfC and also including a series of talk-page messages to a number of users including this one, which I saw and which is how I got involved in the discussion at Female genital cutting, and from there subsequently Reproductive rights. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The diffs I'm referring to are here and here. It would also be of benefit to those not aware of the situation to know that A) I agreed with your position on talk:Reproductive rights and B) that you have worked very very hard to keep that discussion on-topic and productive.--Cailil ^talk 23:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

1. I added the wikiproject gender studies (WP:GS) template to the talk page along with Wikiproject Human Rights (I am a member of both projects and both were pertinent to the discussion). On January 2nd Phyesalis joins WP:GS. A day later, Blackworm makes this post[8] to its talk page (WT:GS). This post is flame bait, in saying "is this truly a project for "neutral documentarians" as stated on its page, or is it more of a collective of pro-feminist editors?" he basically describes the project as a povpushing cabal. I responded with this[9] - which Blackworm called a personal attack[10]. I had my behaviour overviewed by User:Jehochman[11], an uninvolved, User:EdJohnston[12] also endorsed my remarks. As did 2 other editors (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gender_Studies#Neutral_Wikiproject.3F).

He, then raised some concerns with the project's overview I stated I wouldn't have a problem changing them if there was consensus to do so. Consensus has not yet been sought, but he went ahead and changed the project's overview to his preferred state[13] today. Wikiprojects are defined and organized by their members. Blackworm is welcome to join, but at present he is not a member and even then he would need consensus for such a change. For the record I prefer his version - but due to the stress of dealing with him I am on a break, another member of the Project will have to moot it for a !vote.

History of similar behaviour

His comments to WT:GS are not the first time that Blackworm has engaged in drama to make a point[14][15]. A discussion on his talk page about his objections on Talk:Circumcision illustrates this further[16].

These are talk page discussions (very very long ones) demonstrating a history of this behaviour. Talk:Reproductive_rights#3RR_violation Talk:Reproductive_rights#Undue_weight_re_men.27s_versus_women.27s_rights Talk:Female genital cutting Talk:Circumcision_and_law#Data_from_Oregon_court_case

Conclusion

Wikipedia is about achieving consensus on talk pages based upon staying positive, on topic and assuming good faith of the other editor. Blackworm has made a number of good contributions to the Project but is failing to assume good faith. His dispute with Phyesalis has produced deadlock on at least 4 talk pages. But the matter is that Blackworm has escalated his dispute with Phyesalis to prove a point. The project is not a battle ground but he is treating it like one. I fully endorse Pigman's view. I see only 3 ways forward this goes to a user RFC, there is sysop review and intervention or it is taken to Arbcom.

Last night Blackworm left this comment at my talkpage[17] I will not be responding to it. And I am formally asking that Blackworm not edit my talk page again. If he has any issue with me take it here or to RFC--Cailil ^talk 14:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not take it to ANI and see if others can help you deescalate this. If that does not solve the problem you can go up the Authority Igor Berger (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Cailil, I will respect your request that I do not edit your talk page until you tell me otherwise. I dispute several of your claims above:

• "Blackworm [...] has failed to assume good faith." Not in your case, or the case you accuse me of, namely, here. Sadly, the reverse is not true, and as I understand it the only remaining issue between us is your accusation of bad faith on my part, having agreed on all article content we have ever discussed.
• "He has escalated disputes to other areas of wikipedia. This behaviour is consistent with treating Wikipedia is a battleground." I deny mixing disputes between pages, or personally targetting editors, and I do not share your view that cordially escalating disputes by official channels is inappropriate. If that were so, Pigman's "escalating" the dispute here would be inappropriate. It is not.
• I deny accusing User:Phyesalis of canvassing. I noticed activity which, if continued, may be seen as constituting canvassing, and wanted to make sure Phyesalis, a new user, was aware of the guideline, so I suggested ([here] and [here]) that Phyesalis may wish to read the guideline.
• I apologize if editing the Project page while not a member was inappropriate. As I make clear here [(diff)], there was no attempt to bypass or deny consensus. [Late edit - Actually, my attempts to edit the Project page were motivated by a desire to join the Project, but I did not want to "sign up" before fully agreeing with the stated and implied aims of the project, or questioning whether editors with certain viewpoints were welcome. Blackworm (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC) ]
• I deny that I "basically [describe] the project as a povpushing cabal." Nothing here warrants such a strong accusation.

Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I do apologise if you found my tone or attitude aggressive - it was not intended to be. However I'm calling it as I see it. You have stated above that you have not accused me of bad faith. I would point you to your claim that I personally attacked you[18] - which you still I hold I guess - with this post[19] and your thoroughly inaccurate description of my editing practice and philosophy at Father's rights movement[20]. I submitted my behaviour to sysop review immediately[21] and have done so again in order to address your concern that I have wrongly stated that you have failed to assume good faith. I await the views of outside editors on this matter and will abide by consensus. If the community feels I wrongly accused you of anything I will withdraw the remarks--Cailil ^talk 23:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not hold your apparent view that an accusation of having made a personal attack is necessarily an assumption of bad faith. I used the word "seem" in my impression of your editing philosophy, in direct reference to your previous comments, but I apologize if the suggestion offended you. I disagree with Jehochman's assessment of my behaviour and asked for clarification [here] (obtaining none so far), but nonetheless in the spirit of WP:AGF I am willing to unconditionally withdraw my accusation of your having made a personal attack in that instance, with my apologies. I now ask that you consider withdrawing the accusations you make which I deny above. Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm, Jehochman's is a very respectable senior editor at WikiPedia, disagreeing with his evaluation of you does not help your case. Furthemore, after looking more into your issues, and understanding the motivation for your behavior, I recommend you work with your peers and follow the guidance of User:Pigman for the good of WikiPedia ™. I hope we can adjourn from this matter and enjoy our fine weekend, but I will leave the decision in Pigman's capable hands, being that the admin is your mentor. Igor Berger (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice Igor Berger. Could you please consider expanding on your understanding of the motivation for my behavior? Use my Talk page if you wish.

Forgive me, I do not know who the "senior" Administrators are, nor do I see why disagreeing them and discussing the case with them hurts my case any more than it would with any other Administrator, or arguably any editor. I am generally honest with people and share my views, favourable or not. I have withdrawn the accusation (which seemed to bother Jehochman) of Cailil's making a personal attack and have struck out my comments on the relevant Talk page. I consider my issues with Jehochman solved until Jehochman tells me otherwise.

No disrespect intended, but I believe I am in the best position to evaluate my choice of mentors. If why wish to read why I am reluctant to accept Pigman as my mentor, the following small text comments may offer insight. If you do not, which I would fully understand, please skip them.

Pigman's parenthetical comments ("I actually meant boys, as in under 13 years of age, because of the level of immaturity of their comments") in the post that started this thread are not a defense against my accusations of his User space comment being sexist. Even if we were to accept as given that Pigman's User page vandals must be under 13 and immature (I do not take that as given, and see no reason to), how does that imply they are male? Why boys to describe two seemingly unrelated vandals of presumably unknown gender? Pigman has not explained this crucial point. Pigman seems to assume his first User page vandal is male, and the second one is too. What is stopping him from assuming all his future User page vandals are male? At what number of vandals will Pigman start considering whether any of them are girls?

I wouldn't normally care at all, to be perfectly honest, since I seem to routinely perceive sexism in places others do not, and have learned not to mention it. I also believe one can be mildly or perhaps even moderately sexist and still edit most of Wikipedia neutrally. But one member of WikiProject Gender Studies went to Pigman at the suggestion of another member to resolve a dispute in a gender-related article, and to my complete shock and heartbreak, considering our seemingly positive and fruitful discussion, Pigman accused me of obvious POV in relation to this article on the Talk page of one of the editors involved. That accusation is on the record. I made a huge effort to remain patient and neutral throughout that ordeal, and the effort was a failure in the eyes of an Administrator. I would enjoy hearing from that Administrator, if he is truly a mentor, why he thinks my effort was a failure. I do want to become a better editor and be neutral.

If I'm bound to live with Pigman's silence on our remaining issues, so be it. Maybe I offended him somehow, maybe he is just keeping an eye on me (I can't say I blame him given my history), or maybe Pigman is simply a busy admin; in any case, I ultimately don't believe an explanation is owed me from Pigman regarding his accusation of POV or the contents of Pigman's User space. I invite discussion between Pigman and I elsewhere, such as on my Talk, if Pigman so wishes. I apologize to Pigman for any missteps, past or present. I'm fine with dropping all current issues with Pigman if that is fine with Pigman. I'll strikeout or delete my messages on Pigman's Talk page if he so wishes.

One thing I would beg for an Administrator to limit as soon as possible, however, is this ridiculous talk of escalation by non-Administrators, such as Phyesalis' multiple RfC:User threats against me in article Talk and on my User_talk (threats never reciprocated by me, but yet never actually carried out by Phyesalis), and now, sadly, Cailil's talk of escalation below. I'm dumbfounded that Cailil is now advocating escalation of this issue in this forum. It's not about article content as far as I can see. Is it about the petty issues between Cailil and I? If this is really to be escalated, I'm begging that someone please do it -- this instant, tomorrow, in a month, whenever you feel it appropriate. But stop threatening to do it, especially if you're not an Administraor, please. This is one reason (out of many, I'm sure) to respect Pigman. Thank you, Pigman, you moved the process along, asked for outside opinion, and expressed your concerns always assuming good faith. But my patience with non-Administrators' talk about formal escalation or disciplinary measures (Phyesalis and Cailil), highly debatable claims about my actions (Cailil), and reckless, disruptive editing of articles (Phyesalis, but at least that has stopped, for the moment) has its limits; and with all respect, I would really, honestly, rather be helping articles than defending myself in meta-discussions in this forum about my behaviour and especially about my underlying motivations or the possibility of disciplinary action against me. Either I'm doing okay, or I'm not. Please let me know, and I'll take it under advisement and perhaps work on it. I will take everyone's good faith comments here seriously, and will try hard to assume good faith in others. Blackworm (talk) 09:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Horse Shit, I am not interested in entering in your protractive convoluted justification of strawman defence. I came here to give you a hand but you are exibiting the same type of behavior as you are beeing blamed for by everyone else who is involved with you. Your protracted essay, has not interest for me. If you cannot work in Tranquility and harmony with your peers, you should consider the consequences. I am getting ready to recommend a ban on you to sysop. If you cannot do a 180 here and now, you will pay the penalty. Have a nice day, Igor Berger (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Igor, I know how difficult dealing with this issue is, but would you mind moderating your above post a little.--Cailil ^talk 11:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Igorberger, if you feel that banning me from Wikipedia is both warranted and desirable, I invite you to justify it in the appropriate forum. Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 10:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm this needs to cleared up - I am not saying, and have not said that you "are acting in bad faith" - there would be no discussion in that situation. Comments made in bad faith are reverted and reported as trolling. I have said that you failed to assume good faith. This is the same as saying you have not assumed good faith. It's not about your edits, it's about your attitude to other editors and comments to them. I recognize that you have made good contributions to the encyclopedia. However your comments about Pigman[22], about me (above and otherwise detailed here) & about WikiProject Gender studies (above and in the User talk:Pigman diff), which is in effect a comment on all of its members, show you not assuming that any of the rest of us are working in good faith.

Again unless the community tells me I am misundersting WP:AGF in this case I will continue to stand over my comments. Notwithstanding that, you can start assuming good faith at any time and I would be happy to see my concerns become past tense and if that happened I would recognize that any failure to AGF was historical, as I am sure would everyone else. Everyone deserves a second chance but that chance needs to be taken--Cailil ^talk 11:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You assert that I failed to assume good faith. I deny this and assert that I was assuming good faith, but express an apology for and made amends for any behaviour I can reasonably see that would lead you to that conclusion, including striking out comments. In light of this, you continue to assert that I failed to assume good faith. Who, in your opinion, is presently acting in good faith -- me, you, both of us, or neither of us?

WP:AGF: Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. Blackworm (talk) 11:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Response from Phyesalis

As the main editor involved with Blackworm in this series of pages, I would support that venue which would most likely have lasting and productive results. As previously noted, I have disengaged from 4 pages because I find there is no productive approach to co-editing with him. I would like to get back to working on the articles. I am a newbie and am unfamiliar with this process, but it seems like there is a consensus building toward some formal step, I see no reason to present arguments or respond to Blackworm's characterization of me and our interactions at this time. I think my stats speak for themselves. However, I would be happy to provide additional information with diffs upon request. Thank you for your time in this matter. Phyesalis (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Coppertwig

I've been trying to encourage Phyesalis and Blackworm to get along with each other, and to discourage them from posting comments about editor behaviour on article talk pages. After initially getting involved (Dec. 2) I've seen improvement in the behaviour of both users, and the article talk page discussions, in which I'm involved, seem to me to have gotten more productive, focussing on article content issues.

After a number of exchanges such as this one, in which Phyesalis had used the phrase "disrupted a constructive and good faith attempt between two editors" and Blackworm responded by patiently and civilly explaining Wikipedia policy, I posted this message to Blackworm on Blackworm's talk page, commending Blackworm for calmness and civility in responding to posts from Phyesalis.

Phyesalis has been focussing on trying to insert certain statements into the articles and Blackworm and I have been trying to explain that they violate WP:V and WP:NPOV. Some progress has been made in discussing the different points of view on this and a number of compromises have been attempted, and I expect that if discussion can be kept civil and openminded we will eventually reach some sort of consensus.

I would like to encourage everyone involved (without implying that some are not doing so already) to remember that things look different to people with different points of view, so that what looks to one person like a perfectly justified and useful remark often looks to another person like an avoidable and inflammatory remark. Therefore, we all need to take extra care to ensure that our posts not only seem courteous in our own eyes but also seem so to others; and we also need to realize that a remark that appears discourteous may not seem so to the one who wrote it. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Coppertwig, I know how difficult it can be trying to mediate (even just informally) between editors and I think you've done your best and a pretty good job. This is an open suggestion to Blackworm and Phyesalis as well. In regard to the on going disputes between Phyesalis & Blackworm would you all be willing to try formal mediation? As this requires all party assent Coppertwig you would need to be willing to take part in at least the Reproductive rights mediation, if the others both agree to it. WP:MEDCABAL is a dispute resolution method and could/should help resolve their dispute--Cailil ^talk 02:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to respond to Coppertwig's comments by first mentioning that I recognize him to be a valuable member of WP. However, I would like to point out that Coppertwig has accompanied Blackworm from Circumcision, to Female genital cutting, and onto Reproductive rights. His post does not make it clear that he also edits these pages and is an active participant in the related disputes. Originally, I considered mentioning Coppertwig in this dispute, but due to his general civility and the fact that he did compromise or work toward solutions in a few instances, I was willing to overlook some tendentious edits/arguments and continue to AGF.

In response to Cailil, I would be most willing to enter into formal mediation with Coppertwig and Blackworm. I acknowledge I am a newbie, and made some newbie missteps, but I feel justified in my perspective. I would welcome mediation (as I hope it will be a learning experience). Phyesalis (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If either of you feel the need, I'm in. Be WP:BOLD. Blackworm (talk) 09:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to Phyesalis: I don't remember any specific allegations of me doing "tendentious edits/arguments" or of me apparently not trying to work towards solutions in any situation. I thought you and I were getting along well, in spite of being on opposite sides of a couple of disputes. If you have any problems with my behaviour, please take it up with me on my talk page, providing sufficient specific details to allow me to respond constructively.

Re mediation: since Phyesalis and Blackworm have agreed to mediation and my participation is apparently required, I also agree to mediation, at least tentatively. Would one of you like to file the mediation request, or shall we work together on defining what the dispute is before filing the request, or what is the next step? I won't be completely sure I'm agreeing to participate until after the request is filed, so I can see the description of the dispute. --Coppertwig (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize: I should have stated at the beginning that I've edited all four articles mentioned at the top of this section, and that I've very often agreed with Blackworm on article content issues. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: Nothing I said above was intended to mean that either of the users mentioned had violated any policies or guidelines. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If there's a feeling on all sides that mediation would be useful, then a request for mediation is probably the best next step. Of course, mediation is only useful if all parties are committed to it. MastCell ^Talk 17:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Sango123

Does anyone know anything about this? Can anyone confirm or deny? —Wknight94 (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Last edit to en.wiki was in October 2006, so I'm not sure how to go about confirming or denying this. The fact that Sangosmom posted in January 2008 that she died in May 2007 is raising a red flag for whatever reason. --Coredesat 17:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, just noticed that Sangosmom was blocked indefinitely less than 10 minutes before I replied here. --Coredesat 17:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that doesn't necessarily tell us anything since we don't know on what basis that account was blocked. I'll ask the blocking admin to come and comment. --kingboyk (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It was this edit [26] . User evidently does not even know Sango123. I feel the block was valid. If there are any other questions email them please.--Sandahl 18:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

At any rate, I removed the section left on Sango123's user talk page and sent her an email through Special:Emailuser. --Coredesat 18:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It can't be Sangosmum since Sango's real name is not what is given. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Weird Google results on BLPs

Is this something Wikipedia is going, or something Google is doing? I noticed on some BLP articles, but not all, the text of the article isn't what is appearing in the Google search results, but some other content. For example:

• Dennis Kucinich: "Hyperlinked encyclopedia article about the US Representative for Ohio and presidential candidate."
• George W. Bush: "Open-source encyclopedia article provides personal, business and political information about the President, his policies, and public perceptions and ..."
• Barack Obama: "Hyperlinked encyclopedia entry provides an extensive personal and political profile of the US Senator for Illinois and candidate for US President."
• Bill Gates: "Growing detailed biography, with links to related topics, a wealth of information. [Wikipedia]"

But not all BLPs are affected:

• Mwai Kibaki: This is linked off our front page, the current President of Kenya. It doesn't do it for him: "Mwai Kibaki (born November 15, 1931) is the President of Kenya. Kibaki was previously Vice President (1978 - 1988), and has held several other cabinet ..."
• Ray Nagel: I went to find the mayor of New Orleans, and found this fellow instead by misspelling his name by mistake: "Ray Nagel attended Los Angeles High School from 1941-1945 and played quarterback for the football team. He was a third team all-city selection his senior ..."

Non-BLP articles don't appear affected (I've yet to find one that is):

• Volvo: "This article is about Volvo Group - AB Volvo; Volvo Cars is the luxury car maker owned by Ford Motor Company, using the Volvo Trademark. ..."
• McDonalds: "McDonald's Corporation (NYSE: MCD) is the world's largest chain of fast food restaurants, primarily selling hamburgers, cheeseburgers, chicken products, ..."
• Microsoft: "[5] [3] Headquartered in Redmond, Washington, USA, its best selling products are the Microsoft Windows operating system and the Microsoft Office suite of ..."
• Japan: "The characters that make up Japan's name mean "sun-origin", which is why Japan is sometimes identified as the "Land of the Rising Sun". ..."

It only seems to happen on BLPs, and very inconsistently. If this is us, where and how is this controlled for which articles do or don't do this? Does anyone know what this is? Lawrence Cohen 22:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This could be a developer attempt to mask vandalism from Google. (I remember specifically an incident a couple months ago where Google crawled a vandalized version of George Washington, causing the first result for all GW searches to be "George Washington is a fucking douchebag".) The four examples you give are often-vandalized articles, so I'd hazard a guess that it's manually implemented into robots.txt based on the level of vandalism. Sean William @ 22:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think these come from dmoz. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of these are obviously from DMOZ. This misfeature of Google can be turned off using META NAME="GOOGLEBOT" CONTENT="NOODP", but I don't think Wikipedia does that. Quatloo (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

So, is there a way to correct this? I noticed months ago that the Google result for Ted Kennedy incorrectly summarizes the article as "Hyperlinked encyclopedia entry provides a personal and political profile of the US Senator for Alabama." (For those outside the US, Kennedy is from Massachusetts) - auburnpilot talk 00:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of us from outside the USA do know where Mr Kennedy, the well-known motorist, is from!DuncanHill (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"the well-known motorist" - Too funny. - auburnpilot talk 00:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it require the developers? Lawrence Cohen 00:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I went over to the dmoz site and their feedback system isn't working right now. I'm not sure if this is an issue on our end or theres. - auburnpilot talk 00:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have used "update listing" at [27] to enter the correct state. It may take a while before a volunteer editor reviews it. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It may take until the end of time. Large portions of DMOZ are abandoned wasteland. Quatloo (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Some WR folks noticed this a whle back and came up with an explanation, I will try and find it. Viridae^Talk 21:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Here we go: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=13014 Viridae^Talk 02:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Viridae! Did you just link to a BADSITE? The minions of Hell shall surely beat down our doors any second...(WP:SARCASM not withstanding) - auburnpilot talk 03:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way to force Google to update their cache? See Dubya's current cache [28] - it contains the text "IS A COMPLETE DICKHEAD AND THE BIGGEST DICTATOR SINCE HITLER!!!!" That's probably not a good thing. --B (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Emailing them usually works. I can't recall who, but when the George Washington cache or summary contained vandalism, an email resolved this situation quickly. - auburnpilot talk 03:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it be beneficial or desirable to ask the devs to enact the META NAME="GOOGLEBOT" CONTENT="NOODP" mentioned by Quatloo? Lawrence Cohen 14:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

So Google no longer includes Wikipedia's snippets onto their search results to stop Google itself getting vandalised? That lack of trust makes Wikipedia look pretty bad. Still, it's better than having Wikipedia lower ranked, which will probably happen when knol appears. - hahnchen 19:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

So I just got offered money (via email) to edit Wikipedia: several offers exists, some posted in WP

This has never happened to me before. I guess I should say that I believe the offer was made in "good faith", that is, the editor in question was unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies, was having difficulty adding links to his webpage and creating an article about himself/his company (it was all spam/COI and apparently I reverted/deleted a lot of it) and so decided to offer me money via email to create his article and add his links appropriately. Since I "seem to know my way around" etc. Of course I refused, citing WP:COI as the relevant policy for both why he shouldn't be doing that and I couldn't take any money for editing article (neverminding my own ethics and the fact that I'd almost certainly be de-sysopped). Has this happened to anyone else? I know there's been some issues in the past relating to pay-for-editing, but is there an actual policy against it? Just curious mostly and in no danger of going over to the Dark side. Cheers Dina (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Paid editing is a conflict of interest. I think it is not expressly forbidden because COI editors are still allowed to do things like place comments on talk pages, revert vandalism to own articles and remove WP:LIVING violations. A public relations agent could in theory charge clients to monitor their articles, keep them free of policy violations, and use the talk page to suggest new references. If anyone chooses to do paid editing, I personally think it should be fully disclosed so that the community can ensure propriety.Jehochman ^Talk 15:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Dina, this practice has been around for some months now i believe. I totally agree with Jehochman re transparency. We should make sure that there is no WP:COI being involved. Please have a look at Wikipedia:REWARD#Money. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, money! Considering how many hours it takes to write, it's low pay but it's still money! I didn't know that there was a WP board. Someday, WP may be sold. It could get a lot of money. Jimbo is a smart man. I presume he'll get a lot of money and the world will have an encyclopedia. 2 winners! Spevw (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo doesn't own Wikipedia. --B (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jehochman While I agree with your statement, I am worried that this can be abused. Having a proper disclosure is a must in anything that may be seen as WP:COI. Solicitation of clients via WikiPedia is not advisable. As a notable editor we will be approached by outsiders who will try to influence our edits making this a gray area. WikiPedia is not for Sale ™ and if one comes to edit WikiPedia thinking of a monetary reward, they are very mistaken. Not intended at J. Igor Berger (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what was the company? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

While I know Jeff's question was in good faith, it may not be a good idea to out the company. Just a thought. :) M-ercury at 01:08, January 7, 2008

One thing that companies should be aware of is that Wikipedia editors and administrators are under no formal obligation to treat these situations confidentially. We almost always do handle them quietly out of courtesy, but remember that one year ago Microsoft had a major PR debacle when they tried to hire a blogger to edit Wikipedia...and instead of accepting the offer the fellow blogged it. The risks of this type of offer far outweigh the advantages. Durova^Charge! 03:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

While I understand that Wikipedia editors are under no obligation to treat such things confidential, and this editor would be well within his/her rights to say whom the company is, I suggest prudence. Perhaps explaining to the person who is offering the money, how things work, and how they don't work would suffice. Then after unwanted persistence, by all means, raise a flag. But let us assume that the company just requires a little education. Just want to be fair, and give a fair chance. You have a point, conversely, so do I. Regards, M-ercury at 03:53, January 7, 2008

Oh, absolutely. I suggest it too. I've done a lot to provide that kind of education. Durova^Charge! 03:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I misunderstood you then, but I am glad we agree. :) Best regards, M-ercury at 04:06, January 7, 2008

Should we even be talking about this. Posting the name of the company may constitute a violation of WP:NPOV may even be WP:ABF and WP:COI. I would recommend to forget it and move on. But what you do outside of WikiPedia is your business. Just ask John H Gohde and his friend Hate bloger. We deffinetly do not need more WP:SOAP. Igor Berger (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Meh - It is ok to discuss here as it may involve mainspace, as it expands our understanding of these things. M-ercury at 04:06, January 7, 2008

Mercury, in that rspect yes, but I just do not like the smell of it, and I am sitting down wind..:) But all I can say is this, if you are a social media consultant and you get an email like this from one of your clients. Asking you to social engineer their article page, I would delete it and would not even bring it up to anyone. I would also stop making business with this client, because they do not understand what SEO is about. Now if you have a client who has an article on WikiPedia and you keep an eye on it as a courtecy with WP:NPOV in mind, there is nothing wrong with that and it is WP:AGF. I am sure User_talk:Jehochman will concur with me. Beyod this I do not know what to say. Igor Berger (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot one important thing, the recent PR downgrade of PPP blogs for not using rel=nofollow, and if our editors would start editing WikiPedia for money than that would need to be disclosed on each article as a PPP or Google will see it as a violation of Google Quality Guidelines, you can ask Matt Cutts about this. Igor Berger (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know Durova. People were insisting this would be private only weeks ago. The company that offered the bribe owns the copyright to the correspondence, etc. etc. Surprisingly, a counter policy to explicitly allowing the sharing such correspondence, WP:COFF, isn't getting much traction. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify: my comment addresses the bribe offer, not the medium by which it was conveyed. In my own experience, the vast majority of such offers are extended in good faith ignorance about the ethics and ramifications so they ought to be treated with appropriate discretion. Discretion implies choice. Durova^Charge! 20:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I should hope anyone making such offers would be wise enough to do so in off-wiki correspondence, and I'm sure the company will just move on to trying to put another editor or more on the take, so it's foolhardy not to let the community know so we can keep an eye on the relevant article(s). These sorts of things are increasing common.[29] -- Kendrick7^talk 22:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Kendrick7, how do I know the company your going to shelve up is not mine or some other poor schmoe's? Have some one fabricated the email in the fist place to feed the rumor mill? It is extremly easy to fake document headers and make the email come from CIA.gov...enough, don't we have enough WP:SOUP and WP:COI to last us all a lifetime. You want to do something youseful go help John Gohde, he is sure can use your wiki-lawyering advise. I hope you are getting my point Ne? Wakata? Igor Berger (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Kendrick, it's important to assume good faith in these situations. Remember that much of the popular press and business world thinks of this site as "Web 2.0" and groups us together with other social media sites where there wouldn't be any ethical problem with an offer to hire an experienced member as a freelancer. A lot of the ways this site functions seem strange and counterintuitive to outsiders. By and large, the regular professionals who handle social media have to keep tabs on eight or ten sites at once. A good share of the information that gets published about us in reliable sources is written by people who have a flawed understanding of this site, and most people who aren't regular volunteers here find the Wikipedia namespace confusing and overwhelming. Certainly, some folks will break the rules no matter what. Most would comply if they knew how. Durova^Charge! 22:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how to relate your comment to the topic in the thread. Explain a little? M-ercury at 18:34, January 7, 2008

Durova said One thing that companies should be aware of is that Wikipedia editors and administrators are under no formal obligation to treat these situations confidentially however that's rather uncertain, and a proposed policy which would have made sharing this grounds for a WP:BAN was only rejected last week, and the proposed policy to permit it, Wikipedia:Correspondence off-wiki, will probably be rejected as well; you'd need to have been following WT:PRIVATE to understand the context fully. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if I start editing for money, I'll be sure that I disclose my conflict of interest. [I won't edit for money as a personal choice, ever.] I can disclose without pasting the email. You may have to explain the context for those of us following, unless this is between Durova and yourself, in that case, you may want to address it on her talk. :) I don't think I get your point, I don't mean to be dense. Regards, M-ercury at 22:28, January 7, 2008

Apparently they didn't offer you nearly enough money... Dragons flight (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not for sale..:) But I would probably make more working at Mc'D than geting paid by some Wipe Ass company to Spam a Wiki. And Wikipedia:NOT#ADVERTISING. Time for a siesta! Igor Berger (talk) 04:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Why does nobody offer to pay me to create articles for them? Bah. Personally, I think the abhorrence of paid editing is mostly jealousy. IMO, if it benefits the encyclopedia, great - I don't mind if people make money out of it. I know I'm jealous. Neıl ☎ 10:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You are paid in the respect of your peers, a currency far more valuable than money. Especially at the rate the dollar is dropping. MastCell ^Talk 17:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

So we can be paid in euros, then? Lawrence Cohen 22:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I'll break with everyone else and say that I'd be perfectly willing to be paid for Wikipedia editing. That said, I'd declare the hell out of that arrangement, make sure that everything I wrote followed WP:NPOV (which thoroughly trumps WP:COI), and any monetary arrangement would have to be done without the payer's final approval (ie: I'm paid to write an article about them, good and bad, not paid to write a fluff piece about them, and if they're unsatisfied with the end result because it isn't positive enough, too bad so sad). I've edited the article for a client of ours at work, but that's been strictly voluntary, and had more to do with the fact that there was tons of crap in the article than anything. So, I guess that makes me a whore, which is honestly one of the nicer things I've ever been called. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Being paid to edit Wikipedia is not automatically a conflict of interest. It depends on the assignment and how the editor approaches it. If people make money while they make good articles that comply with policy, we should not be against that. To give an analogy, a paid photographer takes a high-quality photo of a celebrity and released it to commons under creative commons license: we applaud. When a paid PR person writes an informative article on the history of <company> and releases it here under GFDL: we should applaud again. All that matters is whether the article complies with policy. We should not discriminate on superstition. Johntex\^talk 22:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Discriminating because of either superstition or jealously was exactly what happened with User:MyWikiBiz and Arch Coal, which can be seen here. A stubby neutral article was written (and can be still seen in the history), for which payment was assumedly taken. Claims were bandied about claiming that no one could write a neutral article if paid by the subject, because we're all stupid and blind enough to do this. Here are some choice claims made by arbitrator User:FloNight - [30] and [31]. The first link tells me that it is impossible to write neutral articles if corrupted by money, and that it will hurt the purely subjective image of Wikipedia; the second link tells us that the material must be laced with all sorts of "subtle biases" that we can't spot, yet will affect us, and do exist. Jimbo also calls the piece a travesty of POV. Paid editing should be allowed, providing it is disclosed. - hahnchen 00:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Last year, I worked as a paid consultant for a company that was trying to start its own private wiki. (Specifically, it was a contractor that had put in a bid to start a private wiki for a large government agency) They wanted to leverage my experience in Wikipedia (specifically as FA director and arbitrator) to help them avoid some of the pitfalls they might encounter. Unfortunately, they didn't get the contract (so the wiki never got off the ground), but the money was very good while it lasted ($80/hour). Raul654 (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Intellipedia? Hmm? Cough up the good stuff, Raul. ^Avruchtalk 00:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Intellipedia got off the ground. The one I was consulting for didn't. Raul654 (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's the same company but I was also offered money recently to add links to Wikipedia. It was a guy who does interviews with celebrities (that should be enough info to know if we were contacted by the same person). I replied saying that the interviews could be linked in the form of sources where info from the interview is used and he is credited with the interview. I also made it clear that payment was out of the question. I'm currently trying to explain to him how Wikipedia cites sources and that if there is information from his interviews used, they will be linked to in the form of citations. James086^{Talk | Email} 07:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What I find most interesting about the OP's situation is that the editor removed content about a company, & was approached by someone who offered money if the editor would restore it. Maybe I'm failing WP:AGF here, but no matter what one thinks about being paid for editting Wikipedia, it is hard not to see this specific situation as a clumsy attempt at a bribe. (For the record, I have no problems with paid editting, as long as it is done under the terms Johntex states above.) Dina was right to refuse this offer, & I hope that anyone making similar offers of money in the future will think first about how it might appear to outsiders. -- llywrch (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use war being lost

Administrators,

In the Spring of 2007 the Wikimedia Foundation released a resolution titled Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy regarding the use of non-free media on its projects. Subsequent to this, a huge amount of effort was undertaken to significantly reduce the mass overuse of fair use images across the project. This included removals of fair use images from discographies, episodes lists, and character lists.

Image removals from discographies and episode lists was severely fought on a number of fronts. Ultimately, it was won by the people removing the images, and discographies and episode lists across the project have largely had their images removed. There are few left with such images. The effort to remove images from character lists has run into massive resistance. Frankly, the situation is on a precipice.

Right now on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content there is heavy debate regarding this issue. The sheer numbers of people who are involved in that discussion is outweighing the voices of people who have been working in the trenches attempting to bring the project in compliance with the Foundation's resolution, in particular that fair use images must be used "to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works"

If nothing is done, if nobody is willing to do anything about this but the few of us who have been working on this, the status quo will be to accept images for depiction purposes only on every character in every fictional universe written about on the project. A case example of this is the use of more than 180 images in 17 lists of characters articles for the Stargate/SG-1 universe. See the various lists linked to from Template:Stargate Atlantis Recurring and Template:Recurring characters on Stargate SG-1. Another case example is Minor Harry Potter characters where the images have been removed several times over the last several days, and an edit war continues on that article. These are minor characters by the very title of the article, yet the fair use inclusionists insist they are in the right and are very willing to edit war into oblivion to have their way.

By definition, Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia. See m:Mission. We've been one of the greatest projects in the vanguard of free content. It now stands at grave risk from people who absolutely insist we must have fair use used as liberally as possible.

I am begging for your help.

Please.

--Hammersoft (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you think the war can be won if you contact the owners of the images and get permission to use them on WikiPedia. I understand you want to uphold the free use, but...? Igor Berger (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree. If I remember, Ubisoft agreed to let us use screenshots of their games on Wikipedia. If they've let us use pictures of their games, couldn't we ask other copyrighters to let us use their images? bibliomaniac15 23:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

One would like to remind those who view this as a "war" that Wikipedia is not a battleground. Discussion and consensus are key to our collaborative effort and treating others as the "enemy" in a "fair use war" is really at odds with our overall mission more than the spattering of fair use images are. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Wikipedia is not a battleground it's an attempt to build a free content encyclopaedia. The editors putting "free content" before "encyclopaedia" have been advancing their cause with amazing success the last couple years - if any group around here doesn't need help ... WilyD 00:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

edit conflict

Even if they agreed it would still be a non-free image, from wikipedia policy point of view it is no better than fair-use, there is no advantage in getting the approval of the owner (yes I know this sounds unreal, but read the policy again and you will see that even when the owner authorises the use on wikipedia, it still needs a rationale and non-free license).

As far as all the fan boy stuff goes, I think this is a much bigger problem than them just ignoring the non-free policy. In a recent AfD I started one admin went as far as to say that policy forbade me to nominate an episode article for deletion (lol!). For some reason I don't know why, they really do believe in good faith that the policies don't apply to TV series, video games, comics (...) In the same deletion debate others have said WP:OR and WP:VERIFY do not apply to TV series episodes, and often users say that each episode is notable because the series is notable. So the problem goes deeper than you think, and IMO concerns most policies, with he exception of the most blatant ones such as vandalism, personal attacks etc. Jackaranga (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

We are reaching a point here on WP where we need strong guidance (more than just consensus) in exactly what levels of contemporay fictional material we are going to want on here. I've been very patiently trying to guide WP:FICT through a rewrite and there's opinions on both sides as to which way to go, some feeling we should have full details of such works, and others saying we have way too much and needs to be cut down. TTN's recent arbcom case over TV episodes is just one facet (and somewhat unfortunately that the arbcom didn't state their case either way on the content issue, though understandably why since it was more behavior-based), this images in lists is another. We do have Wikia for that, but people keep bringing up COI and legal concerns with it. I don't know if we need more Foundation/Arbcom guidance, a WP-wide consensus, or what, but something is going to give soon, my gut tells me. --MASEM 00:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hammersoft is unfairly describing the debate. Here is a re-post of what I have asked of all editors:

"Editors on both sides of this debate, you are not allowed to write off everyone else as being image use extremists. Do not treat myself or others as if we completely disagree, or that we would argue for an image for every Pokemon or ewok. I've brought up examples where only a handful of images were being used, for main characters, and still have not heard any rationale on removing them. I've pointed out specifics of the past discussions and why we had them, and what the issues were. I strongly push for limiting non-free images, remove many, and try to educate others about the policies and guidelines. So as hard as it might, realize you are not talking to image use extremists, but are talking to rationale Wikipedians, who have points that are just as reasonable and logical as your own. I know it's a break from the norm, having to repeat ourselves to those who don't understand, but do try."

This is a situation that is very different from previous incidents, such as Lists of episodes. Editors such as Betacommand are starting to remove any and all images from any group character article, even for main characters. There needs to be a clear distinction that some of us are not defending excessive uses such as this. -- Ned Scott 00:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Also to the people who said "wikipedia is not a battleground" I think that expression was coined more as a goal to achieve, and while there is not war in the first meaning of the word obviously, it doesn't help to pretend edit warring is not going on. Yes consensus is the key, as is sensible conversation, unfortunately I have to agree that often it is more like a war. Some people want to uphold the mission of wikimedia foundation and some people really couldn't care less about it, but just want to promote and display nicely their favourite TV show characters. Neither is bad or good, both have different priorities. Jackaranga (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I sure as hell am not a user who "couldn't care less" about the mission of Wikipedia and the Foundation. This is borderline slander to try to off opposition by linking them with a more extreme group of users. What's next, are you going to call me a Nazi? -- Ned Scott 00:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I am confused about a couple of things. For instance, does the Resolution have the status of policy on Wikipedia? Also, the EDP that the Resolution highlights that is relevant to us is WP:NONFREE ... but that is a guideline, which would seem to be quite a problem in light of the current controversy, yes? Note that I'm as ignorant as they come about image-use policy, myself (apologies). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The resolution stands above policy: the pages states "This policy may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects." _→AzaToth 00:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No one is disputing the Foundation policy. -- Ned Scott 00:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The Foundation used the example of WP's non-free content criteria as an appropriate EDP, and that itself is policy; (WP:NONFREE is wrapped around that, as you may notice). In the current case, it is how WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 apply to lists. --MASEM 00:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, that clears up some of the confusion. Now, there have been changes to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria (>50 edits - approx diff) and Wikipedia:Non-free content (>100 edits - approx diff) since ratification of the Resolution. Are we confident that the Wikipedia EDP still meets the requirements of the Foundation's Resolution? As part of the controversy resolution, should the Wikipedia EDP be 're-approved' so it has the proper and specific stamp of approval of the Foundation? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Framing this debate as a "war" is not helpful in any way. The Foundation encouraged local projects to create a viable EDP through consensus and rational consideration of editorial needs, not by favoring absolutist stances based on free content evangelism. Rallying troops to your defense, as it were, is a disingenuous attempt to dismiss rational objections by creating opposing factions. If we are to have any sort of fair use on the project, we must welcome input from content editors as well as image patrollers. Our policy for claiming fair use is already stricter than what is dictated by US law, tightening the yoke in hope of some day eliminating all fair use from the project will only raise tensions.

I'm all for approaches that attempt to limit copyright infringement or liability, as long as we avoid arbitrary limits on "excessive" fair use because of paranoia. If a non-licensed copyrighted image can be replaced by free content, there is sense in deleting it. If this is not an option because any attempt will only create a derivative work, then you have offer editors some discretion in claiming fair use. Take the cue from outside publications that use promotional materials to illustrate their content. Alternately, consider whether the copyright holder would actually object to a content provider using their work. In cases of illustrating pop culture articles, the threshold is usually pretty low. Using cropped screenshots to identify characters or locations is fairly common outside of Wikipedia, and is indeed allowed by other free content wikis. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Ahem! Talking about "framing this debate as a 'war'" not being helpful, and then immediately framing the debate as "paranoia" in the next paragraph is somewhat self-contradictory, at best. "copyright paranoia" has never been a helpful label, because in part it misses the point made by those who want to reduce non-free content to its minimum that the project goal is to create a free-content encyclopaedia that can be used by anybody in any country. "Outside publications that use promotional materials" do not have the goal of being free-content. Indeed, they are predominantly non-free. Comparison to other projects and publications, with different goals, is a red herring. Our goal is, and has been pretty much from the start, to create a free-content encyclopaedia. Uncle G (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Our ability to create free content is limited because of the extensive and longlasting protections offered to proprietors of intellectual property. So I agree in limitations that force a free content or nothing at all approach where the possibility for creating free content exists. As for how much non-free content is too much, the guidelines are hazy. It is common practice to use samples of up to thirty seconds of a piece of recorded music for fair use claims. Similar guidance is not available for screenshots or other visual content. Several editors are arguing for a conservative reading of non-free content criteria that requires an inflexible limit defined as "excessive fair use". While I was a bit hasty in characterizing this position as paranoid, it does require an insular view of editorial consideration in illustrating articles. For instance, the claim that album covers should not be used in discographies because many non-free images will occupy a tight-nit space is absurd. Online and print publications routinely use galleries of album covers to chart musical careers.
  • Ultimately we have to accept that the goal of crafting an general encyclopedia necessitates use of non-free content for purposes of illustration and criticism. The alternate approach is to completely abolish the exemption policy and depend wholly on free content. This position holds some merit, but users must be direct if they wish to advocate in favor of it. Gradually limiting fair use claims with the goal of eliminating non-free content is a dishonest approach. I'm not saying that this is the position of everyone who advocates for stricter standards, but this is why framing the debate strictly from a free content point of view is unfair. I don't think the creation of free content and taking advantage of fair use laws are mutually exclusive. We have many wonderful articles that depend on non-free content for educational purposes. Hammersoft's post was a dramatic plea that sought to turn our appreciation of free content against the purportedly destructive views of a large number of pop culture editors. Of course this ignores the fact that those editors are well within their right in demanding to have a say in crafting the exemption policy required by the Foundation. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 13:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images. I have contacted several media outlets, but so far I have been unsuccessful (I am much more successful when contacting Flickr users, even professional photographers, though). That is why I asked candidates for the Board if they would help us contacting media representatives (meta:Board elections/2007/Candidates/Danny/questions#Free resources, asked the same question to everyone else), but I guess that will never happen (you know, never trust politician on campaign). Jimbo himself would have supported a press release to media outlets (discographies, agencies, etc), but it was never created (mostly because I can't redact a serious request, and not many were interested in that). We have negotiation power, but prefer to stay the way we are unfortunately. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• LOcal policy cannot override foundation policy, if people think the local policy is no longer in line with foundation policy they probably need to take it up with Florence and/or Jimbo. That's the only thing likely to stop te silliness, IMO. Guy (Help!) 08:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• The problem is clearly that we're well within what's allowed by the foundation resolution - we could accept nonfree media more liberally and still be within it ... but we're also allowed to be as conservative as we like (within the realm of possibility, obviously we can't go past zero fair use) ... so we're stuck here, trying to work it out for ourselves ... The foundation could never out and out outlaw fair use (for example, wikiquote would be royally screwed) ... WilyD 14:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

War? good to know. Just leaving a comment here because sometimes I search for things that way. Carry on then. R. Baley (talk) 08:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

More like vigilante self-appointed Judge Dredds playing a bureaucratic MUD, often against miscreants who've added unnecessary or illicit images, but getting into wars against productive contributors who've made serious good faith efforts to comply fully with the policy and in particular with the EDP. Where criteria of the EDP are subjective, local consensus is essential, and treating it as a war fought by elite picture police is disruptive. We could all spend our lives joining policy debates and immersed in projects, and only touch on a fraction of those available. For most editors, the essential is that policy stays stable enough to make contributing constructive work possible. Anyway, back to the trenches ;) .. dave souza, talk 08:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I know nothing about this issue, but since the term "war" is being used I will say that wars are usually won by those who want to win the most and/or who have the greater numbers unless those with superior power apply crushing force to have their way (assuming those with less power are the ones who want to win the most and/or who have the greater numbers). My feeling, as one who knows nothing about the issue, is that Wikipedia core principles and general mentality preclude the application of such crushing force which brings me back to the theory that the side with the greatest numbers and most passion will likely win most "wars". Is some form of negotiated cease fire possible to give you time to regroup? Or could the issue be diverted into ArbCom? The tone and content right here does indicate that the "sheer numbers" are taking over so if it were me, I'd try to buy some time. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• ArbCom does not handle matters like this. I agree with your summary; the weight of the fair use inclusionists outweighs the weight of people trying to uphold the core principles of the project. If it keeps up, album covers will go back on discographies, episode screenshots will go back on episode lists, and fair use images of living people will creep back into BLPs. Count on it. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Naw, the "must not be replacable with a real or hypothetically createable free image point is wedged in there with glue or something, it's not coming out. Album covers on discographies and episode screenshots in episode lists are not really in any danger of occuring (although obviously a lot of this debate concerns what is, or isn't, a list). The sky continues to fall up, and it'll be harder to add a fair use image to an article tommorow than it is today, which is harder than it was yesterday. WilyD 16:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Scaremongering will not help your cause Hammersoft, what is there to suggest that fair use images will find their way back into BLPs apart from in unique/extenuating circumstances? There's a league of difference between a barebones list such as List of The Simpsons episodes and an article such as Characters of Final Fantasy VI, a difference that you ignore in all your arguments. - hahnchen 01:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• One of the problems here is how to define "excessive fair use" and the impact of any excessive fair use. Should this be assessed on an article by article basis (ie. justifying each use of an image as we currently do)? Should it be done by considering topics (ie. from the point of view of the copyright holder of a particular fictional universe - considering the Wikipedia pages combined to create a specialised guide to that fictional universe)? Should it be done by considering Wikipedia as a whole (the free content and distributability concerns)? It is possible that if you consider Wikipedia as a whole, the vast majority of articles (about living people, long-dead people, and places) will have free images on them. The amount of Wikipedia's content that involves contemporary fictional material (and hence involves fair-use) may in fact be fairly small when compared to the whole of Wikipedia. That might mean that fair-use is not, on the largest scales, excessive. Of course, from the view of a copyright holder, the use of their copyrighted material might be considered excessive within a topic area, but that shouldn't affect distributability as in the long-run that sort of thing can be cleanly excised from the encyclopedia if need be, either by identifying and filtering topic areas that are "contaminated" by excessive fair use, or by filtering by the non-free tags on images. Carcharoth (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use necessity is defined by comprehension. If something helps the reader comprehend the subject, it's apt.

I'm tired of copyright paranoia. All my featured articles except Frank Klepacki are now cheapened because they can't appear on the main page with an image. Why? Because WP:JIMBO decided without a discussion or policy ruling that copyrighted images can't appear on the main page because this encyclopedia is about "free content", and like ignorant sheep editors followed his decision without complaint. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It covers the entire world.

Fine. Let's go completely free content. After all, the only topics humans should be interested in are rain, dinosaurs, and clouds. Let's just pretend that copyrighted works don't exist, and that the fair use provision only allows one image per every 10,000 articles. I wouldn't count out such a proposal from this sick attitude of paranoia. Editors who write about copyrighted works are virtually punished because of it. Zeality (talk) 02:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Woah, what a mess... is it even possible to try and draw a neutral line here? both sides are being extremist towards their points, on one hand there is a group that says the other is trying to use FU images 'freely' and on the other hand there is the one saying the other wants to 'ban' images from character lists, is there a way we can build a consensus to deal with this? something like allowing a image per "x" number of bytes? - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There is an attempt to middle-ground this, at WT:NFCC. I'm involved, so I'm not impartial, but while those that want to maintain limited free use are will to move to a less extreme position, when it comes to other situations, my feeling (not necessarily fact) is there are some that refuse to remove from any less than one image per character on a page. An image every "x" bytes really isn't practical since it can be gamed (invis comments, full HTML text instead of wikimarkup, lots of 50 cent words); you're feel to provide more input though to help resolve the issue. --MASEM 03:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Once again, the overwhelming majority of fair use concerns seem to surround popular culture articles (especially TV shows and movies). As I have said several times before, this highlights the need for a separate popular culture Wiki with a lower inclusion threshold. The reason you're seeing a lot of pushback is that a lot of people worked on these articles and care about them. If they could be moved to a different Wiki without being deleted, this would defuse many of the problems. Our policies on fair use are much more stringent than required by U.S. law, due to the Foundation's understandable commitment to free content. A popular culture Wiki could allow more of what we consider "fancruft," such as writing articles from primary sources alone, and could allow the inclusion of trivia sections, memes, and other things that aren't really encyclopedic but that a lot of fans obviously care about. *** Crotalus *** 07:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Best idea I've seen so far. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That approach doesn't exactly help those of us who want the proper encyclopedic coverage of the "popular culture" class of articles - devoid of fancruft, unnotable subjects and meaningless trivia - regardless of the fair usage debate. Fans are already free to make use of the hundreds of Wikia projects out there which basically cover every popular culture topic out there, many consisting of the fancrufty primary source-driven styles you talk of. We don't need to split Wikipedia in two simply to sort out an image fair use debate. I haven't a clue who said this, but the quote "That's like going after a fly with a bazooka" is my view on that. -- Sabre (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not, but that approach does explain a large share of the hostility towards fair-use/non-free images: those against them cannot conceive of any reason to use them except to illustrate Yet Another Borderline Notable Article about The Simpsons or Family Guy. (And yes, I have seen individuals on the anti-fair use side dismiss the use of corporate & team logos as "mere decoration".) A large proportion of the visual elements of contemporary culture -- be it high, low, pop or folk culture -- is burdened with restrictive licenses, & until either this fact is accepted or a universal concesus emerges that Wikipedia will exclude all subjects with this encumbrance, this dispute will continue to drag on. -- llywrch (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not just about fair use. It's also about what is commonly known as "fancruft," about trivia sections, and about the writing of articles using only primary sources. All of these things are areas where modern popular culture clashes with the rest of the encyclopedia. Modern popular culture is a very important phenomenon and there are a lot of people who want to catalog their favorite parts of it — but much of this cataloging just doesn't fit well with Wikipedia's policies. Sure, there are other wikis, but we need one that is large and comprehensive enough that people don't feel that they are being blown off. A good start would be to transwiki all of the pop-culture articles from Wikipedia, and, if possible, those from other fandom Wikis as well. Then encourage everyone to work from there. I think this is the only solution to maintain Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards while still providing a repository for important aspects of modern culture. We can then tell users: "Wikipedia focuses on describing the most prominent pop-culture topics from an external, encyclopedic perspective, devoid of trivia. If you want to discuss these subjects from an in-universe perspective, Popculturepedia (or whatever) is the way to go." *** Crotalus *** 23:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

(EC reply to Llywrch) It's not in dispute that, in most cases of contemporary visual elements, copyright applies and a free content license is not present. I think everyone accepts that. However, accepting that, since we're a free content project, and such elements are not free content, we should not, generally speaking, be using them. (Including corporate and team logos.) There may be some exceptions (such as when a corporate or team logo itself is the subject of critical, sourced commentary), but generally, they really are just decorations. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

We are a free encyclopedia. Unless you want to pretend all information that is only available through content encumbered with licenses does not exist (or is not notable), we will need to use content under "fair use". Which means there will be some, & based on the opinions voiced in this thread, this means too much for some people. I don't know what to say to people who don't want any fair use content, other than your vision of a free encyclopedia is not truly free nor an encyclopedia. -- llywrch (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Sysop.js/Admin opinion

Please can I ask as many admins as possible to contribute to MediaWiki talk:Sysop.js/Admin opinion. We need to choose which automated deletion reason tool to use (we have recently had a couple of differnet versions), and this is only possible by having the people that use the tool to take part in discussion. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it going to break twinkle or stop me from manually entering a reason when I want to? --B (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion - have it blank by default and only let the delete button work once text has been manually put into the deletion summary. Or would that cause problems by requiring the careful deletion of content? Neıl ☎ 10:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Requiring that it only work if somebody first puts their own summary into the box tends to defeat the purpose. The summaries provided within ^demon's script, which I use, are more than adequate; especially for user requests, deletion of commons images, and bad redirects. Some deletions don't require anything more than the standard summary...it has nothing to do with the careful deletion of content. - auburnpilot talk 15:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There is now a related discussion at the page above about whether we should re-enable the automatic deletion summary (I guess deleting or reverting MediaWiki:Excontent and MediaWiki:Excontentauthor would do the trick). Some people claim that poor deletion summaries including disparaging content are a common problem. Is there any evidence that this? can't be solved by educating a few people to be more careful with their sysop tools? Kusma (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

CobraGeek

Please would someone check this person's userpage and history of edits/writing and do something about an obvious POV agenda to do nothing but smear USC athletics in every article he can find on Wiki. This is not the forum for someone's campaign of hatred of a rival school. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.38.31 (talk) 07:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Also if an admin could give some attention to the deletion of an attack article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_South_Carolina_steroid_scandal) written by CobraGeek and linked to numerous other Wiki articles, it would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.38.31 (talk) 08:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, getting tired of this already. User:Igorberger is removing the deletion template from the article and has taken a nasty tone with me on my talk page about doing so. Help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.38.31 (talk) 08:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You can place {{helpme}} on your talk page and a clerk will come to you. Igor Berger (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

PLease block User:65.188.38.31 he is a Black Hat hacker. Igor Berger (talk) 09:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because you can't seem to follow Wiki procedure doesn't mean you can label those who do however you like. Don't remove the deletion template on that article again, I have followed Wiki rules, a discussion is started on the talk page. The decision does not belong to YOU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.38.31 (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, User:Igor Berger just violated 3RR by removing deletion template for the 3rd time in a row. Please take action against this out-of-control user. I am restoring the template per Wiki rules, there is a discussion started on the article talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.38.31 (talk) 09:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This User:65.188.38.31 is a Sockpuppet I am going to buy cigs..:) Igor Berger (talk) 09:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I created the AfD for this user, although frankly I don't understand his reasons at all. JuJube (talk) 09:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Just take a look at the creator's (CobraGeek) userpage and I think the reasons will become pretty clear. Or are attack articles welcome at Wiki now? Because I can certainly sign up and write my own in response. Is that the direction Wiki needs to head? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.38.31 (talk) 09:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I see, you are an admin and you have been royally Trolled by cabal... Is your face still red, because when we finish with you it will be white. Igor Berger (talk) 09:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing other editor's comment' cool, Mr. 65. And from what I can figure out, this looks like a run-of-the-mill content dispute, and as such does not really belong here. Use dispute resolution, instead. JuJube (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering the language used, it does certainly belong here. (or AN/I) It's not a dispute over content--its a determined attack by one WPedian on another. I'd support a block for the IP editor. And I'd suggest to CobraGeek that the links on his user page might not be appropriate there, for they do indicate an intention to use POV editing. DGG (talk) 11:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to deal with this IP. This one just returned today from a 7-day block for hacking my user page, and he is immediately back to old tricks. This IP is a known sockpuppet, with apparent access to many more IPs. I will let the article stand on its merits (and it has many). I stayed out of the discussion following the anon IPs request for speedy deletion, and it passed just fine.--CobraGeek (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

New Tool

After many many many hours and countless failed attempts I have figured out cgi web interface coding and have adapted BCBots image checking into a basic interface, its at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~betacommand/cgi-bin/check?&file= just add a image name to the end of that URL, http://tools.wikimedia.de/~betacommand/cgi-bin/check?&file=Image:Barrybigbands.jpg is an example. Im going to be writing more tools now. I do take request too. β^_command 17:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Bravo!. Many thanks, this is an awesome tool that should help many users check their images. MBisanz ^talk 18:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you log the queries and make your bot tag the bad ones ? Jackaranga (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Right now there is no logging. and due to obvious issues about confriming the fact the the image is non-free. this tool by no means verifies that the image has a good rationale. all it does its a WP:NFCC#10c check. this does not check for other issues with the rationale that might exitst. β^_command 23:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Surely it only detects the presence of the name of the article the image is used in? It is easy to find random images from Category:Non-free images lacking article backlink that pass Betacommandbot, but fail a human inspection. For example: Image:Amanda Lear - I Am A Photograph-Sweet Revenge (Russia).jpg. That image has the article name as part of the description field, but not in the correct part of the rationale. Ditto for Image:American Samoa FA.gif, which passes but has problems. In other words, this only confirms part of 10c, and it can't distinguish between missing rationales and incomplete rationales. But thanks awfully for putting the code up as a tool - it really is much appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That is that I meant :). β^_command 00:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Roger Clemens

It was reported in the media that baseball player Roger Clemens may have used steroids. Just today it was reported in the media that Roger Clemens was threatened with jail-time by a prosecutor. Clemens reacted by suing the prosecutor, claiming he lied in court. Right now Roger Clemens is semi-protected. As expected, though, the edits are still flying in. I just thought I'd let you all know to keep an eye on things. Sports, after all, is often just as contentious as politics. Zenwhat (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not involved in this at all, but that's not what happened. Clemens' former trainer was threatened with jail time if he didn't tell prosecuters what he knew about Clemens' steriod use. The trainer claimed Clemens used steriods and Clemens sued the trainer for defamation. Clemens did not sue a prosecuter. Just to keep the story straight...--Tex 15:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Tor nodes

An ongoing discussion is in progress regarding adjusting the blocking policy in reference to TOR nodes. The discussion is here. Regards, M-ercury at 13:18, January 8, 2008

Can someone knowledge add this gadget to the gadgets menu?

importScript('Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Six tabs');

All this does is make it so their are 6 tabs at the top, Article/edit/hist Talk/edit/Hist. I tried looking for a way to install it, but couldn't figure out how. The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't a Developer (or somebody special) have to do this? - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No, admins can add them (I think). See WP:GADGET. — Edokter • Talk • 21:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh ? Pretty sure you would need a developer to modify the basic monobook file for everyone. However any user can add this script for themselves, just link to it in your monobook.js no need to be an admin. Just add the bolded text to Special:Mypage/monobook.js: importScript('Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Six tabs');. You might want to save a copy of Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Six tabs into your userspace though first up to you. Jackaranga (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing now this probably wasn't your question, I thought maybe you were a new user. I don't even know what the "gadget menu" is lol, sorry if the explanation above wasn't what you wanted. Jackaranga (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The Gadgets tab can be found on your preferences page. — Edokter • Talk • 16:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Shortening indef IP block

Hope I did the right thing here, it wasn't clear to me why the IP was indef blocked. Apologies if I've missed something obvious. Can someone with more of a clue check and make sure this is OK? Thanks much, delldot talk 17:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I would have left them blocked AO ACB. its a school IP that has been blocked countless times before. β^_command 17:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I would personally tend to avoid leaving them indef blocked, but if anyone wants to undo my action, I'm perfectly fine with it :-) delldot talk 19:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to avoid indefinite blocks on IPs whenever possible; we can apply very long blocks when the need arises, without running into quite as many potential problems later. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Buscema

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. In particular, Tenebrae and Skyelarke are banned from editing the article John Buscema for a period of three months, and may be further banned from this or related articles if either engages in any form of disruptive editing during or after the three month period.

For the Abitration Committee, — Coren ^(talk) 18:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone delete Chocolate Thai, please.

I know that WP:Deletion recommends against requesting specific admins to check specific AfD discussions.

However:

The AfD tag has been up for over six days now ([32]) and if you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chocolate Thai (2nd nomination), you'll find there's a strong (if not universal) consensus to get rid of the article. Furthermore, for anyone worried about preserving information, the issue has been addressed, because the content has been merged into the main article on Cannabis. See Cannabis#Various strains of cannabis.

Despite the recommendations of WP:Deletion, I thought I'd just try and give Wikipedian bureaucracy a little nudge. If there's a better way to do this than posting here, let me know. Zenwhat (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Was the content merged actually from the article to be deleted? It doesn't look like it, but if it is, it should not be deleted but simply redirected to maintain the edit history. Mr.Z-man 21:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

See the discussion, please. Patent nonsense should not be "redirected." Zenwhat (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If it was patent nonsense, why was it merged into the main article? If an article is merged into another article, the merged article is redirected to the main article so that the history of the merged article is preserved. This is done so that the content remains attributed to the original authors per the requirements of the GNU Free Documentation License. - auburnpilot talk 22:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Because while the article was patent nonsense, the term is not. Please see the discussion. Zenwhat (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to reread that patent nonsense link you've provided, as the article was not Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. I don't close deletion discussions, but the proper close in this situation is redirect. Discussion doesn't override the requirements of our license (GNU Free Documentation License). - auburnpilot talk 22:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

To roughly paraphrase the article: "dude theres like this certain kinda weed, maaaaan, its called chocolate thai... i heard the made it in teh 80's in thailand... it looks like chocolate.. it smells like chocolate, and it tastes like chocolate. no kidding, dude, i saw it on teh internets, lol!11" is patent nonsense, no matter how any radical Inclusionist would like to spin things, otherwise, in order to preserve misinformation. The fact that the article has existed for this long and failed the first AfD is embarassing. Let's just get rid it, please? After all, in the AfD, there appears to be consensus to do so and the five days of discussion has since gone by. I'm just waiting for any good admin to please come along and delete the article, per Wikipedia policy. A redirect would only be called for if there was at least one person on there making a genuine argument calling for it. There isn't. Zenwhat (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be reading a different article than the one you nominated. Any admin who closes this debate as delete and merge needs a good strong reminder that we do not do that. You don't seem to be grasping this point. - auburnpilot talk 03:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

How hard is it to answer the question I asked at the start of this thread? Was any content from any revision of the Chocolate Thai article moved to the Cannabis article? If so, it should not be deleted so we can retain the edit history. If not, it wasn't really a merge and it can be deleted. Mr.Z-man 04:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was merged. See this edit by Zenwhat and his/her comment here. - auburnpilot talk 04:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not know if we taking about same same but different..:) But we called it chocalate brick, which is Hashish not Thai stick which is Marijuna but both are from Cannabis. Chocolate brick or stick is Charas..:) Dudes dont blow smoke up Siam...Kapaun Krab, Same Same but Different! (Actually it is a brick not a stick!) Igor Berger (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You must be thinking Thai stick == Budha stick which is dark brown...but today who knows..:) Igor Berger (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

So maybe one of you canibals can fix it to reflect WP:NPOV and put a suck into the dapartment of misinformation DoM! Igor Berger (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I've smoked cannabis recreationally before, which is why I have somewhat of an experience with this matter, and have heard of the term before. Cannabis, being illegal (so not subject to consumer review or civil law) is subject to widespread misinformation and fraud. Claims about "blueberry" and "chocolate thai" appear to be nothing more than a combination of urban legend, along with fraudulent drug-dealers making false claims about their cannabis to justify jacking up the price. You hear stoners put forth all kinds of absurd claims, such as the existence of the legendary chocolate and blueberry-flavored marijuana, where they treat it like the chupacabra. No one has any hard evidence this stuff exists, but oh everyone claims to have seen it at least once. This appears to be partially a desire to pass themselves off as "veteran" potheads and partially rationalization for being de-frauded.

So far, I've never seen the stuff myself, haven't been able to get it, though I've certainly known dealers who tried to lie about having it, and the only "proof" of it is sources on the internet of stoners talking about it. Per WP is not a dictionary for slang, this article is a clean-cut case of where it's patent nonsense that needs to be removed, which is what made me surprised to see the first AfD fail due to "lack of consensus." But Wikipedia is not a democracy. This is why it somewhat upset me to see User:Pundit, an admin on Polish Wikipedia, argue with me over it so much. Eventually, we compromised and she somewhat came around to my side because the sources she used were unverifiable and demonstratably unreliable (See our debate here and here). Despite passing the five days, though, and having consensus, the article still hasn't been deleted. This made me extremely skeptical of Wikipedia's ability to remove misinformation, so I posted the matter here, hoping that some brave deletionist admin would have the common sense to take care of business. Zenwhat (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Must be some dealer on a Mayhem mission chasing Moby Dick or just being a Dick.. time to dev/nul Igor Berger (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge ends with redirect, no admin action required. Consensus seems to support doing just that, so why not simply do the needful? It's unlikely to be challenged. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirected. Chocolate Thai is an obscure slang term for an urban legend, not a synonym for cannabis, such that a redirect seems inappropriate. Those proposing merge seemed to mean merge/delete, not merge/redirect. In a manner of months, Chocolate Thai will be back precisely because mobs of stoners vandalize Wikipedia like this. Zenwhat (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Artisol2345

This case recently just came out. An experienced admin should probably take a look on whether the editor(s) (if you choose to block both of them) should be blocked or not. --EoL talk 00:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Jim62sch is instructed to refrain from making any comments to another user that could reasonably be construed as harassing, threatening, or bullying. Should Jim62sch make any comment that is or could reasonably be construed as of a harassing, threatening, or bullying nature, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator. Any such action should be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch#Log of blocks and bans and should also be reported to the Arbitration Committee.

All involved editors are reminded of the prohibition against harassment and threats. Editors are also reminded that sensitivity should be shown in making any reference to another user's real-world circumstances in connection with their editing Wikipedia, even where this is done in good faith, due to the likelihood that such comments may be misconstrued. The Committee also asks that any incident of a user's engaging in grave acts of real-world harassment of another editor, such as communicating with an editor's employer in retaliation for his or her editing on Wikipedia, be reported to them immediately.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel 13:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for rollback

I am pleased to announce that rollback is now available to non-admins, and can be requested at the above page. I suggest admins watchlist it, and use Special:Userrights to give rollback. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not giving anyone rollback unless he or she has brought at least one article up to featured status. And I've got some other RfR criteria waiting in the wings... -- tariqabjotu 23:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what? There was consensus for this implementation of the policy? --Haemo (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There isn't, but the developers seem to be taking policy making into their own hands. RxS (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that there was a consensus against it either. DuncanHill (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Except that policies need consensus for implementation. RxS (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

it all depends on what you call consensus 51% in favor could be considered consensus depending on how you look at it. Id say 2 to 1 is consensus. β^_command 00:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, since there is no policy, and we are making it up as we like. I will remove rollback from any use who has not created a Featured Article, or the request of any FA writer.--Doc^g 00:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There must be abuse from the account, i.e. it being used in edit wars. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback and featured articles are practically mutually exclusive. Bad idea. Wizardman 00:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see a connexion between contributing to a Featured Article, and the ability to sensibly use an editing tool. DuncanHill (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

why do normal users need rollback? the page talks about other methods being less effective - but I don't under the gain I get from pressing a rollback button than using any number of scripts? (which is how I currently do it). --Fredrick day (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Scripts can be very daunting to those of us who see a computer as a black box. A lack of confidence in using scripts should not disable an editor from effective editing. DuncanHill (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

that's why I got someone at the helpdesk to install mine! I just hit the buttons! :) --Fredrick day (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding or removing rollback in a disruptive manner will likely be cause for desysopping. The criteria is still evolving, but use your best judgment and lets avoid using the ability to grant/remove the status to make points. You wouldn't block someone for having failed to write an FA in your prefered time period, don't remove rollback from them either. This is an anti-vandalism tool - it should be given to users who will make good use of it. It is not a status symbol. WjBscribe 00:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any criteria given how fast the right is being granted after a request is made. Take a look for yourself...RxS (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

We're giving it to people who we know we can trust. The people I've granted it to I know from previous interaction and with a quick check of their contribs, I grant it. This isn't RfA - we don't need days of !voting. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No one's asking for an RFA-like vote (of course), but it takes more than (in at least one case) 2 minutes to go through someones contribs. RxS (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this tool, or for any particular policy. It was imposed by someone's coup. I opposed this on grounds of more process and I will continue to ignore any rules or process concerning it, until there is demonstrated a consensus. No, I won't disrupt wikipedia, but the enabling of this without consensus and with no agreed policy for its use is horrendously disruptive.--Doc^g 00:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

1) There was consensus (well in some peoples eyes). 2) Use common sense - you partly opposed it for bureaucratic reasons - don't start creating them now. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

1) There was only consensus in the eyes of the supporters. 2) I opposed it because bureaucracy was inevitable - and it still is. Just wait until the first dispute as to granting it, and you will see.--Doc^g 00:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

So all it takes for something to become policy is for there to appear to be consensus in some peoples eyes? RxS (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Silly question: what happens if an admin is added to the group? Nothing? (I'm guessing that's the right answer but I wanted to check.) --B (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing (we think!) - you shouldn't see a difference. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't make any difference to have both. The most it might mean is that admin's ability to use rollback is limited (because the new right is as I understand it capped at a certain number of rollbacks at a given time whereas admins can technically rollback as often as they want) if the software is confused by the same user having both rights. I would remove rollback at the same time as I added +sysop to a user who already had rollback after they had a successful RfA. WjBscribe 01:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This sets a substandard precedent, and completely undermines established practice. Consensus is not counting the votes, it is not 2-1, and it is not this. While we are at it lets put this into practice. Who cares that it could be abused, and that it might cause unforeseen problems, dammit it had 84% support. And how about this one, I'm sure in some editors eyes it has reached consensus. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and not only in terms of what consensus means but who determines whether consensus exists at all. Developers do not determine policy and they haven't been empowered to judge consensus. RxS (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised by all of this as well. As I understand it, developers have discretion to add features, not add RIGHTS. Simply because adding this "right" required modification to the software, does not make it solely a developer issue. This is going to be a rather bitter mess and there's no reason for it. Justin ^chat 01:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand for the life of me what the angst is all about. Even without this, anyone can use scripts to get rollback. This is only being given to people who affirmatively request it. If can be taken away if abused. There's an upside of making reverting vandalism easier and a downside that is what - admins might disagree over it? That potential is already there for blocking and any other admin decision ... somehow, we get through it. --B (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

While I did oppose the non-admin-rollback proposal, that is not the issue now. The issue is this mockery of what we as Wikipedians have for years considered "consensus". Consensus is not a word or concept we throw around lightly. For this to happen, in this way is outrageous. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue isn't the tool. I would have easily supported this had it been non-bureaucratic. Consensus can change, sure, but now what constitutes a consensus can change? Per my post at WP:RFR: "The last time this policy was discussed the vote was 216/108 (66.66% approved) and failed. This one is 304/151 (66.81% approved) and passed." It's a disturbing standard that what constitutes a consensus can change, that a developer can simply implement a RIGHT, without explanation (or without even knowing WHAT developer did it) and there's currently zero processes available to review that developers decision. I couldn't care less about the rollback... I DO care about a Wikipedia technocracy. Justin ^chat 01:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If Wikipedia:Requests for rollback didn't excite you enough, we now have Wikipedia:Requests for rollback review where users can bitch and moan for 5 days after their request for rollback is declined. Yay! - auburnpilot talk 02:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't even a part of the original proposal. Perhaps we should throw on Wikipedia:Requests for rollback review review as well? Out of process, who cares! Justin ^chat 02:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus can change, but consensus about consensus cannot change? Lawrence Cohen 02:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure it can... point me to the community discussion that implied consensus about consensus has changed. Justin ^chat 02:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• The consensus about the consensus would have to get consensus that consensus on the consensus has indeed changed. You can't just say *poof* this is consensus. The Wiki is not neverland you really can not fly, and Santa Claus is not real. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 02:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Not sure I can, I was just throwing that out as what appeared to have happened very quietly. This now made the how much wood can a woodchuck chuck limerick get stuck in my head, but replaced with "consensus". Lawrence Cohen 02:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way to get a separate log of the rollback requests granted? We currently have User rights log, but the rollback stuff is mixed up with the sysop granting. I'd like to be able to extract a clear number each day of the number of people with rollback status. No, hang on, I'm in the wrong Special page. I want this. Bingo. For the record, we currently (as of 02:00 10/01/2008) have less than 100 rollbackers. Let's try and keep track of all this: (1) Total numbers; (2) Who grants the most requests; (3) Numbers having it removed; (4) Any problems with the system. If there is going to be a huge fuss about this, let's at least get some numbers on the record. Carcharoth (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, there are enough logs as is, really. Voice-of-All 02:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Er... I had rollback before it was installed in the software when I was not an admin. How is this different from something a user installs in their Monobook.js?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I know... I don't understand what the big deal is. -- tariqabjotu 02:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The big deal (to whatever extent a big deal it is) is that there is no apparent consensus for this, who judged that consensus exists and how it was implemented. You are talking about the pros and cons of the policy proposal, which took place already. RxS (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I, personally, feel that it's totally ridiculous that the comments, opinions, and objections of a full third of the individuals who commented on this proposal have been totally ignored. The right was added, despite it being clear there was no consensus to add it — consensus is not a "simple majority", and the discussion indicates that there were many objections to this on a wide variety of grounds. Furthermore, the process through which the right was granted, and which a number of users (myself included) objected to, was also put into place immediately — even while there were on-going discussion over how to implement it! I don't really care that passionately about all this mumbo-jumbo, but I definitely don't feel like my views were valued or even listened to at all in how this was implemented. --Haemo (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Currently this is becoming a bloodbath, right now it's a bloodbath in the admins channel, while I rejected the proposal, I don't mind for now, the only expection is people are way too quick to give rollback away, as I could see now. Secret ^account 02:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm worried that it's going to be used exactly as I objected in the original proposal — as yet another social clique, wherein Wikipedia formalizes a class of "trusted users" who are granted superior rights to normal users. This is one of the main problems with adminship, and since admins are the ones doing the the granting here, I can only see it continuing this. The method in which it's being granted indicates to me that this is exactly what's happening — admins are granting tools either with minimal oversight, or to users whom they "trust" already without any community input. I trust a number of users, but I'm not sure the community would want me giving them tools without at least some kind of discussion. --Haemo (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I am seeing people with one side of their mouth saying they know how consensus is judged and with the other side quoting percents of previous proposals vs this one. If you are just comparing vote ratios you will never understand how consensus is created. 1 != 2 02:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand consensus, and my argument was not based on vote-counting, or any such thing. I have a history of working with disputed articles where consensus is important, and I can tell you what has happened here is not how consensus is formed — not now, not ever. --Haemo (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Secret to the extent that admins are granting it without much thought, last I looked someone granted 9 requests in 10 minutes. That's not enough time to give much attention to the contribs of the requesting editor.

• I don't mean to sound sour or cynical (but it may come across that way - for which I apologize), but I wonder if 1) some admins really have such a low opinion of both other admins' judgement in granting rollback and in the abilities and good-faith of those editors to whom it is being granted, and 2) some of the comments seem a bit like "No, we mussstn't let them have our precioussss.... ". oh, and 3) has there ever been a consensus as to what consensus is? In short - please admins, try to trust each others' judgement, and if you see the tool being misused - then remove it from the editor misusing it. DuncanHill (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  I'm upset because my objection, which was shared by a large number of other people, doesn't fall into any of your characterizations of people opposed to this category, yet was totally ignored without even a word of compromise in the implementation. No discussion, nothing. --Haemo (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, this wasn't the implementation I wanted, for reasons similar to Haemo's - but let's give it a chance, see how it goes, trust admins to deal with abuses, and to talk to each other if they disagree on individual cases. DuncanHill (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And now bots have the rollback assigned to them. Utter bullshit, and a complete slap in the face to many users. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 02:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous. I supported granting bots, but I can appreciate that fact that many people had a strong opinion about this and that a discussion was needed. In fact, I was commented in one a little while ago — apparently, that doesn't matter anymore because this non-policy-policy brooks no discussion. --Haemo (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, giving bots rollback rights has overwhelming consensus. Please see Wikipedia:Non-administrator_rollback#Anti-vandalism_bots.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 03:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Overwhelming votes in a low-profile discussion that's been running for only a couple of days. Not enough to address the concerns, or opinions of those objection, or even to ensure that everyone who wants a say gets one. --Haemo (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Right, there was a discussion on the VP about it, only a couple months ago if I'm not mistaken. It was rejected then, it's been rejected before that. What 2 days and there is consensus to give bots rollback? What fuck? Might as well make them sysops, wait those have a long history of rejection too. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 03:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

While I am in support of this policy, I must oppose its implementation. The process of consensus was not given the opportunity to finish. Obviously, this was such a divisive proposal that it would be impossible to make everyone happy, but Ithink this decision makes even many of the supporters unhappy. Since wikipedia is not a democracy (see WP:NOT) the poll was never meant to create consensus. It is supposed to be a judge of consensus, to be followed by more discussion for the real consensus to be formed. <notserious> It seems that the Cabal is once again imposing policy against consensus</notserious>.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 03:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, ask DragonHawk where is the discussion he found to close the poll. I think the poll could have continued, even when the implementation was done. As I said, developers can implement it, but we decide whether to use it or not in this Wikipedia (like the flagged revisions). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom

I'm drafting a request for an arbcom case right now, but not really sure who to add as a party. It's not really fair to make someone a party simply because they supported rollback, or opposed it. -- Ned Scott 02:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The correct way would be to contact every participant through user talk page informing the situation and explaining why you think a request for arbitration is necessary, and where to join, instead of spending time in soap operas :-P (yeah, that is a joke to calm you down ;-)) -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is really uncalled-for. -- tariqabjotu 03:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

He is free to try it out. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And I'm free to say it's really uncalled-for. -- tariqabjotu 03:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Find the name of the developer. Or at least leave a blank space. Ryan and 1!=2 seem to be the most visible supporters, and Doc Glasgow the most visible opponent. Add me as a party if you want - I'm prepared to say a lot about what has happened here and go on the record about it. It'll probably get rejected though. Carcharoth (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In lieu of a long list of parties, give notice and a link to the case on the talkpages of the relevant discussions, and provide those links in the request for arbitration so the arbitrators will know that you have done so. (Not commenting on the merits of any issue or case.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom? Dear me, the world has gone mad. If you're hoping to impose sanctions on the developers, ArbCom is project-specific, the developers are not; the former cannot boss the latter around. If on the other hand you just want to get rid of the ability for administrators to grant and remove rollback, have you tried just asking them yourself? – Gurch 03:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And how are we supposed to really be involved in the implementation? None of us have any authority with respect to a developers, they make the decisions with respect to software changes - we can't wave our magic wands. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

How about on one side, John Doe developer(s), and on the other, concerned users, etc. In my eyes, it is the dev(s) who is ultimately responsible for this.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 03:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

IIIIIIIIIInnnnnn the red cornah... Brion "I have a day named after me" VIBBER! Aaahhhn in the blue cornah... a horde of angry users! And your referee for tonight, yes, it's the nerdiest kids in town, give it up for the one, the only, Arbitration Committee! *grabs popcorn, sits back to watch* – Gurch 03:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(after I stopped laughing) - are you confirming it was Brion? Carcharoth (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's make this simple. Are developers part of the community or not? Do they work for the community, or is the community and the encyclopedia a plaything of the developers? What power does the foundation have over developers? Carcharoth (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

They work for the Wikimedia Foundation. – Gurch 03:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And who does the Foundation work for? And you didn't answer the question about whether developers are part of the community or not. Carcharoth (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization. It doesn't work for anyone – Gurch 03:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

So how does it achieve its goals (like this free content encyclopedia)? It relies on volunteers, some of which write and upgrade software used by other volunteers to write the encyclopedia. Who tells developers what is needed? Developers, the communities or the Foundation? The answer is all three, but how do developers decide which requests from communities to work on? There are votes on Bugzilla, but it helps on both sides if at least some developers communicate with and participate in the communities that they are writing the software for. This avoids unworkable requests being made after much discussion, and avoids developers implementing changes while discussion is still ongoing. Carcharoth (talk) 04:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think arbcom would be a real wake-up call to all of those who feel slighted by the way this turned out. I think arbcom is for the community and I think the community wants rollback. 1 != 2 03:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't so much about the proposal of rollback, it's about the lack of the process of consensus in its implementation. Discussion was still going on, and then, smack in the middle of discussion, "oh hey lets go ahead and make this a feature anyways." Oh, and while I don't know which dev(s) turned it on, it would have to be a dev, since they are the only ones with that power (as far as I know). --Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 03:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify my own personal rationale for requesting an arbcom case:

I think, at the very least, it would be a good idea to ask arbcom on how we handle these situations in the future, and if the current rollback feature should be kept (or acted upon, in lieu of arbcom not being able to make rulings for developers). I can't place blame on any en.wiki user, and would not seek out any kind of punishment for anyone's actions here. Not even the developer that made the change.

I would prefer having a community discussion about this first, but we all know what will happen, people will jump in to close such discussions and say "omg, no dramaz, edit wiki plz" (for a lack of better words). This has pissed off a lot of users, and raises a lot of questions. Being able to discuss this in an arbcom case, and then asking the trusted arbitrators to evaluate the concerns presented, seems to be the only reasonable (and actionable) way to deal with this situation. -- Ned Scott 03:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Of course anyone who suggests that we should actually all just go and edit the wiki is a troll and should be ignored. This big pile of shit rapidly filling up the noticeboard is the perfect way to deal with things! :P – Gurch 03:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom has no authority here... Wikimedia sysadmins > Wikipedia arbitration committee... — madman bum and angel 03:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

English Wikipedia arbitration committee, at that. Dear me, committees and bureaucracy everywhere you look. Ever get the feeling people forgot this was a wiki? Why can't we just let this thing run and see for ourselves if there are problems, rather than removing it due to entirely hypothetical problems that show no sign yet of materializing? – Gurch 03:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed; I meant to clarify. The developers and sysadmins by necessity when to change the settings of Wikimedia wikis, and they know what they're doing. The talk of a "coup" above is hyperbole of the greatest magnitude. Reference: [33]. — madman bum and angel 03:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been brought up. It's true that devs are free to enable or disable whatever features they want, but that doesn't mean en.wiki approves a policy/process that uses those features. -- Ned Scott 03:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Developers make policy. — madman bum and angel 03:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure they do. -- Ned Scott 03:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No, developers write features. Where is the developed feature that states that admins need to grant rollback based on lack of edit warring and have experience? Or was that decided by someone else and rejected by the community as part of a poll with no consensus? -Halo (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of argument, I must note that developers have a prime role in the creation of policy. Please see Wikipedia:Policy, especially the part about "sources of policy". While there has been no declaration here and no real implicit approval of existing statements, their role in this is not out of line. — madman bum and angel 03:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere does it state that admins need to grant rollback, because they don't. All administrators could decide not to grant rollback for any reason if they wished – Gurch 03:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You seemingly missed the point of my comment - replace "need" with "can". My point was the policy isn't being performed solely as developed in software, but as the policy that was rejected. -Halo (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

To clear things up a bit: the one who enabled the feature was User:JeLuF, a root administrator (who has a couple dozen edits here since 2002, when he was a bit more active). He was acting on Template:Bug, which was a request to enable this functionality on the English Wikipedia. If you object, you may want to file a new request or complain personally to JeLuF, Brion Vibber, or some other appropriate person. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

While I personally welcome this new feature, I have reopened bug 12534 on behalf of those objecting here – Gurch 03:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Has anybody tried contacting a Developer? Maybe visit one of their pages on the Meta? Or in the meta IRC? Contact info is here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  I'm a developer. I seem to be the only one who's bothering to comment. I think some of the others have seen it, but I doubt they care. Root admins do not revert-war, the only one who's going to be reversing it is either JeLuF or Brion, and neither one is on. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  I've said this elsewhere, but I'll repeat it here because it's important. Developers need to be active on large Wikimedia projects when large changes like this are being implemented, otherwise it is just (however unintentional) disruptive. It's like giving a room full of kids a new toy and watching them fight over it. There also need to be better channels of communication between developers and the community, so that developers are actively involved in wider discussions like this. The community could encourage the Foundation to encourage developers to use such channels, or a Foundation representative could ensure such communication took place, but at the end of the day the developers should take an active interest in the community for which they are developing the tools to build an encyclopedia. Too many developers become "old hands" and lose interest in the grass roots and get engrossed in development and lose touch with the communities (there are many of them) that are actually using their tools. Bugzilla is great for requesting changes and tweaks, but is not great for meta-discussion. There is a technical mailing list. What other venues are there for the community and developers to interact? Carcharoth (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  As I said on WT:Non-administrator rollback: you cannot feasibly ask that of the sysadmins. Realize that JeLuF is a volunteer, and has taken it upon himself to handle configuration requests. This is viewed, by the shell and root users, as tedious already, although it takes only a few minutes per request. There was in fact a period of months at one point when no sysadmin could be bothered to go to the effort of fulfilling any configuration requests at all, and so some requests just sat there for six months. JeLuF, admirably, has recently slogged through most (all?) of the backlog, so that communities that request changes can actually get them fulfilled promptly. If you're going to put even more hoops in the way of this kind of request, none will ever get done.

  Regardless, I very much doubt any shell requests from the English Wikipedia are going to get fulfilled very soon, after this whole drama (assuming it gets reversed, which seems probable). You don't have to worry about the sysadmins treading where they aren't wanted, if it's clear that in fact they aren't wanted. They're only there to help. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  I'm aware that we are nearly all volunteers (including the developers), as I've said elsewhere (and following up on your edit summary, apologies if I'm switching back-and-forth between different threads too much). I hope you are not serious about developers ignoring requests from en-Wikipedia? That seems like the sort of thing that would end up being discussed by the Wikimedia Foundation Board, which ultimately is responsible for ensuring that software development for the projects progresses at a timely rate, and that volunteer efforts to do this are properly co-ordinated. But to get back to the issue at hand, all people are asking here, is for developers to look where they are treading. If, as you seem to say, this was granted as part of someone slogging through a backlog, might I politely suggest that this approach needs to be carried out with more care in future? There are numerous examples on many projects where people working their way through backlogs slip up on something due to the goal becoming to clear the backlog, rather than assess each case carefully. I'm not saying that is what happened here, just that clearing backlogs can be inherently dangerous if done too quickly. Carcharoth (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  I'm very serious about sysadmins quite possibly being reluctant to implement any request from enwiki if it raises a firestorm from users who were indignant that they didn't hear about it/procedure wasn't followed (what procedure?)/etc. If I were a sysadmin, I wouldn't want to get involved in fights about enabling features or not.

  As for the board, I am not aware of a single time the Board has ever passed any resolution related to development or server administration except to give them more money and appoint people to various officerships. I very much doubt they'll get involved. They have bigger things to worry about than some tiny uproar in one of their projects.

  This was not done as part of clearing a backlog. This was a recent request; the backlog was already cleared, or nearly so. The problem lay in the fact that enwiki has extraordinarily high barriers to consensus. Anyone from outside (which JeLuF more or less is, if you look at his edits) would assume that in a poll with over 450 people commenting, something getting two-thirds approval is good enough to implement it. Two-thirds is typically considered overwhelming agreement in most contexts outside of Wikipedia. (I can't speak for JeLuF's reasons, mind you, I'm just surmising.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  No, this does make things clearer and is helpful. Moving forward, what would you suggest should be done to make sysadmins happier to implement requests from en-wiki? Better ways to communicate, perhaps, like going to the project and asking if they are ready for the tool yet? The large community on en-Wikipedia (and consequent difficulties with consensus and large votes) doesn't always seem to interact well with the smaller community of developers and sysadmins. What can be done to improve this? If the Foundation don't want to get involved, how else can things be improved so this sort of thing doesn't happen again? I suggest better use of discussion forums such as the technical mailing list. Carcharoth (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  Well, I'm not saying that sysadmins will refuse to fulfill enwiki requests. If I were they I would be pretty cautious, after things like this, but I'm not a sysadmin and can't speak for them. Just in case you misunderstand, I'm talking about shell requests, i.e., configuration requests specific to enwiki, not new features generally. For new features generally, nobody cares what enwiki thinks ― the changes are made to the software defaults, which are used by all installations of MediaWiki, Wikimedia or otherwise, and enwiki is only a small percentage of that. I don't think I've ever seen a shell request from enwiki that actually got fulfilled and stayed fulfilled. They're not really necessary if you're happy with the customizations you can make in the MediaWiki: namespace. Mostly they're only used for setting up groups and permissions (e.g., one wiki asked that all sysops be given bureaucrat rights), enabling or disabling a couple of optional features (like patrolling), adjusting namespaces, and a few miscellaneous things like the prerequisites for autoconfirmed. If you're happy with all of those, there's no need for shell requests.

  For this not happening again, honestly, it's hardly a big incident. It will probably be reversed in a matter of hours. I don't think there's much point in expending energy on avoiding a repeat incident, which almost certainly will not happen in any case for months at the least. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have four words for you

Developers, developers, developers, developers – Gurch 03:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Community, community, community, community? (Ok, I haven't watched the video clip yet, so if this seems silly in light of that...) Carcharoth (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't recall Ballmer chanting that, but it's a fair point :) – Gurch 03:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And the video is very funny. Thanks for that. Carcharoth (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

More appropriate would be if the four words were "I... LOVE... THIS... COMMUNITY!!!!" -- tariqabjotu 03:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Except that wouldn't be true. I hate this community's dysfunctional guts. Devs, though, now they're cool – Gurch 03:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Rollback policy

The community is the maker of policy, not ArbCom. I propose we work out a consensus policy as a community on this issue. NoSeptember 06:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I suggest that the first thing we do is protect the page and stop implementing a feature that had a questionable "consensus to implement". I am COMPLETELY open to implementing this as a feature, and COMPLETELY opposed to doing so after it was implemented out of process. In the few hours this policy has been active, there have been several modifications on how admins will determine if a user should be allowed to have the tool. WT:RFR looks exactly how one would expect: like a policy was implemented without ANY discussion, and now that it is implemented, discussion by a relative small group of people is resulting in changes to the approval process, however minor. At first an admin could simply approve and archive, then it was 15 minutes, now it's an hour. Now it seems more than a single admin has to give approval to send it through (in some cases). NONE of this was discussed when this policy was proposed, and now it's being run by the seat of everyones pants. It's stunning just HOW poorly this was executed. Justin ^chat 09:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because there is no specific written rules does not mean it is going poorly. Believe it or not, people can get by without a bunch of rules. When patrolled edits for newpages was turned on, there was no pre-existing policy. Some guidelines were quickly drafted up, a calm discussion followed, and after some initial bumps, the system began to work well. There is still no "official policy" for it. Also, as policy is supposed to be descriptive of how things are done, not proscriptive, writing a full set of rules before we even begin to use the new system is very difficult. Mr.Z-man 09:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There's still a question of whether or not there was consensus to IMPLEMENT it. And believe it or not, it makes considerably more sense to determine how something should be implemented before we hit the "on" button. Why have proposals if we can just "do stuff" without explanation as that's "proscriptive". Justin ^chat 09:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

An interesting fact

It's probably worth pointing out at this point that rate-limited rollback (a new feature) was originally set up in the software to be given to all users (or all autoconfirmed users, I can't remember which); that part of the software was disabled after complaints, pending onwiki discussion. The resistance to change shown here is interesting; if the change had been made originally, would the people currently complaining consider keeping the change if it only got 33% support in a vote? The whole '66% is not consensus' thing is ridiculous; vote count cannot be consensus by itself, but in the case of a new feature which couldn't previously be given it's hard to see what the default status should be. If Wikipedia had just now switched to the MediaWiki software from the previous software, rather than switching years ago, but for some reason the devs had been busy improving MediaWiki anyway all that time, the change would likely have already been in the software and a 33% vote to turn it off would have been unlikely to have been acted on. So, if there isn't consensus for a feature, and there isn't consensus against it, and the feature would have been turned on if not for objections... --ais523 08:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not the FEATURE that's at issue here. And claiming that the lack of a consensus for a "feature" means to implement it is contrary to EVERY other process at Wikipedia. No consensus is status quo, plain and simple. That being said, I'm all for this feature for users, however, I'm completely against a process for admins "approving" it. IMHO, this should be given to all auto-confirmed users (at least). Instead we've invented more instruction creep. This isn't the delete button. Do admins really need to be determining who should and shouldn't get rollback? Nope. So why DO we have this "process" to implement a feature everyone should have? All this does is create yet ANOTHER schism between the admin and the editor. The difference is NOTHING more than access to additional tools, but now, admins are granting rights? Do we REALLY need to pat ourselves on the back for being important, or can we actually write an encyclopedia without social classes? I hope for the latter, but I am rapidly losing faith. Justin ^chat 09:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The feature was enabled by default in the software at one point: see rev:28193 if you don't believe me. However, that particular version of the software was never uploaded to Wikipedia; it was reverted at rev:28248, over 24 hours later, after this discussion. --ais523 13:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There are probably people who were opposed to turning this on (at least not without further debate and fine-tuning), who would have opposed switching off an existing feature, so the two can't really be meaningfully compared. Bringing in a new feature is completely different to switching off a default feature. Carcharoth (talk) 10:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Who should create the policy?

As it seems, the devs have implemented "on their own". They are employed by the WikiMedia Foundation. Therefore, I am now waiting for an official rollback policy to be formulated by WMF and announced by its representative. Миша13 12:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, from what it seems, Ryan Postlethwaite said the poll was closed at bugzilla:12534, that under his view there was consensus but asked the developer to check that out (even though the developer may not have known about that). I believe this may have been a series of unfortunate coincidences, DragonHawk closing the poll based on a discussion that I can't find, Ryan assuming consensus was reached, and the developer not being able to judge consensus (not that he had to, mind you). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is silly

If you are an admin and don't want the bureaucracy of granting rollback, don't - others will fill the need. If you are a non-admin and don't want rollback, don't ask for it. There is nothing whatsoever harmful about giving it to EVERY SINGLE PERSON who is not a blatant vandal. Even if someone is edit warring, so what? You can block them. This meltdown is insane. --B (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well said! The people complaining about this seriously have nothing better to do than complain about this, and should go and write an aricle or something. It's really harmless, and complaining about it is unproductive and unhelpful. If you don't like the idea of it, don't look at the page. That's all I can say. Majorly (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's the misguided arguments that are silly. I've said from the very beginning the tool isn't the issue. The issue is a handful of admins taking it upon themselves to implement rollback with (at best) a controversial consensus. Talking about the tool at this point is simply misdirection. Setting the precedent of ignoring the consensus is my concern. Justin ^chat 17:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What about the 2/3 of Wikipedians that wanted it implemented? Besides, most of the objections were either based on misconceptions or were objections that would apply to the script-based rollback that already exists and thus were moot. I can fully understand (and really, agree with) the objections based on the process being a pointless bureaucracy, but it is what it is. I'm sorry, but I don't see how doing something that 2/3 of Wikipedians wanted is an abuse. --B (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm ONE of the people that want it implemented... for EVERYONE. None of this admin granting rights nonsense. Admins don't grant rights, 'crats do. And if 2/3 of Wikipedians want an editor granted admin tools, they don't get them. The purpose of a poll is to get an idea of where a consensus might stand, and rework a proposal to find a solid consensus. It is NOT designed to create consensus based on !voting. The way this was implemented was absurd. Justin ^chat 19:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What if we didn't call it a right and called it blocking them from using rollback vs unblocking them from using rollback? The distinction is arbitrary. Admins have the technical capability to grant or revoke the right to edit a page or the right to edit period. The fact that we call this a right but don't call the other things rights is a different in semantics. Really, letting admins grant or revoke this privilege is less harmful than letting admins block users. --B (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

On administrators

I understand the principle, but from observation, this is all very disruptive. WP:RFR seems simple enough, if you want it, go ask for it. If you don't want it anymore, go ask for that. No more policy is needed. Not everything has to have the step by step instruction set and criteria. Administrators go thru the gauntlet that is RFA, because their judgment is being scrutinized. Now let them use it. M-ercury at 13:57, January 10, 2008

Rollback policy doesn't need to be complex, but we don't want wheel wars to develop over whether a specific user should have rights. But we can keep it simple. I agree, we should trust the judgement of admins on this as we do with the other tools. NoSeptember 14:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The risk of a wheel war over a specific user is no worse than the risk of a wheel war over blocking or deleting. Really, it's a very low risk because at most it's a mild inconvenience and the user has a workaround available (use a script). Adminship is no big deal ® so what does that make rollback? Rollback is so non-destructive that there's no harm in exercising the meatball:PrincipleOfFirstTrust. --B (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. And our policy should reflect those sentiments. This discussion is an example of things the policy should cover. NoSeptember 14:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If rollback is no big deal, why the need for a complex needless process? Why not give it everybody? -Halo (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should - as long as the person is obviously not a vandal, give it to them. If they edit war with it, it can be taken away or they can be blocked. --B (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, really, of all the "powers" that come with adminship, rollback is by far the most trivial. Creating a process for judging users worthy or unworthy of this particular minor "perk" is going to hurt more feelings than it's worth. MastCell ^Talk 20:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

First, let's all continue as we have so far, in a spirit of calm goodwill and discussion. I recommend that people basically do nothing at all here, i.e. please don't go awarding this ability to lots of people in an effort to create "facts on the ground" about how it is used. :-) Now, speaking to the constitutional question of who gets to decide this sort of thing and how, in the old days it would be me, but as is well known I am interested in evolving community policy so that my traditional role becomes increasingly symbolic and institutionalized.

An example of how this was done once before: I asked that anon creation of new articles be disabled, a policy that is perhaps unfortunately still with us. And I don't like doing things by fiat like that anymore. We need a peaceful, organized, systematic way of doing this sort of thing. So, here is what we will do in this case, and I think this can be done pretty quickly.

A better example of how something became policy (though it had no software implications): in the case of 3RR, there was a community vote with overwhelming majority in favor of a 3 revert rule, and then I blessed it to make it formal policy.

1) There will be community poll/votes on whether to turn the feature on at all, and a general policy.

2) Following that, the ArbCom will discuss and vote on the result, and make a formal request to the Wikimedia Foundation about whether it should be turned on or not, and to establish the policy.

(I can not guarantee that the Foundation will agree, as I am only one of 7 board members, and not involved in management at all, but I consider it highly unlikely that they would disagree with a formal decision of the community.)

The ArbCom will of course most likely follow the vote of the community, but I will not require them to do so. They should serve as a "check and balance" in the event something strange happens here, or in case the discussion shows a way forward that the vote itself does not accurately represent.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Odd block problem

Resolved

seems to be cleared. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please could someone help User:Nick mallory? He is having block problems based on the use of a web accelerator - which he has disabled, but he is still having problems. He is a good contributor, but is (I think understandably) getting rather upset by it. Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD to close

Resolved

Would anyone mind closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wade Load; it has been open for nine days and there does not appear to be any ongoing discussion. [[Guest9999 (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)]]

Thanks. [[Guest9999 (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)]]

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Can someone please check this page?? There are pages going unprotected and it's taking up a lot of my time. Thanks. Somno (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Arnold Murray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) stubbified

This is notification that I have blanked the article Arnold Murray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), for constant violations of our policy on biographies of living individuals, in particular, BLP concerns; in short, 99% of the page is uncited. I request that all editors do not revert, but work to include verifiable material. Will ^(talk) 02:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus discussion ignored

At: Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article came off full protect today and not long after, Reginmund (talk · contribs) removed a section that he has been quite uncivilly fighting on the article's talk page to remove and which is why the article was on full protect in the first place. The consensus discussion on this particular section he keeps removing has not reached a consensus but he took it upon himself to remove it anyway as soon as the article was finally unprotected, and when he did so, he cited "no concensus". As I understand it, content is not to be removed until a consensus is reached and the discussion closed, which is not the case here. This diff is where he removed the content after the article was unprotected. This diff is where I restored the content because the consensus discussion was still ongoing. This diff is where he has removed the content again.

An admin needs to restore the content pending the outcome of the consensus discussion and I feel the article should go back on full protection.

And yes, I'm posting it here instead of Rfpp and ANI because this is where both of those places said to post it. ;] -- ALLSTARecho 02:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollbackery

Hi. I woke up this morning to discover that I had somehow acquired a new user right overnight. Now I'm not complaining, but if this is to be of any use to me I'll need to integrate it with my existing RC patrol software. This would take several hours, and I'm quite busy at the moment. And apparently people are having a bit of drama because there was no consensus to implement the proposal.

Is anyone here confident that this feature will still be around in a few days' time, or is it more likely that I'll wake up some time next week and discover I've lost a user right overnight? I ask only because I don't want to waste time implementing something that will be of no use. Thanks – Gurch 02:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a bit of furor, I would suggest waiting. Viridae^Talk 02:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There are hundreds of rollbackers already in existance, it will be hard to take it back from all of them. NoSeptember 02:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well not really; a single site configuration change to make the "rollbacker" group do nothing would accomplish it. I've had myself removed from this group since (a) whoever gave it me didn't go through the proper process and (b) it's of no use to me unless I integrate it with my software – Gurch 02:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Am I getting this right. Already improper granting of this right is happening? --Bduke (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Just like when Ryulong was made admin and blocked a Tor proxy and everyone was jumping at him for using his new abilities while "consensus was dubious", people will do the same here. I suggest waiting a bit, in a week or so, after a few people leaving and returning, everything will be back to normal. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The term "improper" is not valid here - there is no widely approved policy in existence that would govern this process, and against which you could measure appropriateness of granting. Миша13 11:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. Just like the shortlived "Table" namespace, I suspect that the rollback user right could just as easily be 'globally' switched off. Possibly the senior developers are right now engaged in a bloodbath (cf. this rumoured bloodbath in the admins channel) over whether to throw that switch or not. Or possibly there is no such switch. I do recall some discussion somewhere about how it has recently been made much easier to change user rights - did this include adding and removing new classes of user rights? If so, then there probably is a switch that could kill this new user right. Now it's been implemented, I think it will be interesting to see what happens, but I would like to see a wider debate on the Wikipedia technocracy and how to improve communication between developers and the community. One problem is that the community has grown in size and a small group of (sometimes uncommunicative - usually due to pressures of time) developers may need help in communicating with such a large community that demands a lot of the developers (and unfortunately sometimes appears to get little in return - again, due to limited volunteer resources). Carcharoth (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

All user rights are specified in the site configuration. Anything is possible; the developers could render the administrator group non-functional, or make everyone administrators, if they felt like it – Gurch 03:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't refering to the technical issue, but the drama and upset removing this from so many will cause. Add that to the drama we already have over the consensus issue.... NoSeptember 03:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I sympathise with those who steered clear of scripts and whatnot, may soon get used to this tool, and may then have it ripped from them. But that is exactly why something like this should be discussed first. It took ages to get the Main Page redesigned. A few more drafts of this proposal until a clearer consensus emerged would not have hurt. Carcharoth (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There are reasons why devs are not supposed to act without a clear and settled consensus in the community. Because when they do, it is incredibly disruptive, and that is what is happening right now. This needs switched off now, before further damage is done. Then calmly and quietly we can pick our way through this issue and decide what to do. If that leads to a consensus to proceed - then at least we can do so whilst still remaining a community.--Doc^g 02:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe a general RfC or RfArb centred on developers might be useful. There was the shortlived Table namespace. There was the unlogged wiping of block logs. And now this stuff about rollback rights. Developers need to act transparently and communicate with and participate in the community, not act as gods sitting above it. Carcharoth (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a very vocal minority that says there is not a consensus. I disagree that there is a lack of consensus. Considering both the numbers and the arguments made there is clear support for the implementation of this harmless tool that anyone can undo. I want to know where it is written that the default action for this proposal is to not let the community have this tool, and that to pass it needs 80%+ support, if it was two thirds opposed there sure wouldn't be anyone saying there was a lack of consensus against it. 1 != 2 03:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A few more drafts of this proposal until a clearer consensus emerged would not have hurt. Carcharoth (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Shrugs - Those who can make a change, do. Those who oppose may be steamrolled by those who can quickly implement the change, regardless of "consensus". I watched several editors do a fait accompli with bots/tools awhile back to speedily mass-userfy userboxes, since there was no way to oppose the action once it was done. People complained, and were ignored or bitten. And now we're faced with something similar. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Disappointed? Yes, very much so, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. I'll hope that this is undone so that discussion can continue, but neither will I be holding my breath. - jc37 03:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus can change, anyone can go and propose this policy be changed. Though I would wait until experience gives us the knowledge we need to make wise rules. 1 != 2 03:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted Wikipedia:Requests for rollback review as unnecessary at this stage. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I slowed down the approval time from 15 minutes to an hour (though I think a day is more suitable). It was just turning into an assembly line (and apperently, the 15 minutes was added when nominations where approved too fast). El_C 09:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• At the moment, my thoughts on rollback are this: leave it to admins only for now, but then give it out to users once people have tested it at the test Wikipedia, where this really should be tested first, not here. Also, as regards wiping of block logs, where's the discussion on that and when did that happen?? --Solumeiras ^talk 10:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, I shouldn't have really mentioned the block log thing, as bringing that up might stir things up again. It seems to have been a one-off thing, but the principle is still there. Regardless of what happened and why, it seems sensible to have a record somewhere (private if need be) of such actions taken by developers. Then the community can be reassured that the records are being kept and can be consulted if need be. Carcharoth (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Solumeiras, any user can have rollback on demand by adding a few lines to their monobook. All this does is make it slightly easier on the server and slightly faster for you when you rollback mass vandalism. What purpose would testing it out on the test wiki serve? --B (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Bah, chaps, this fuss is silly. I'm fairly neutral on the whole idea but isn't the best thing that we've moved away from process? Fantastic! Ok, we have WP:ROLL but, for the first time, we're trusting people to do well without strict rules (see also AGF). Handing this tool randomly, without process, to people I trust really does feel rather liberating. In fact, I think we should apply this easy-give, easy-remove model of adminship (and put Special:Makesysop and Special:Desysop in the hands of admins, not crats or stewards. It would certainly finally take this stigma of overbearing importance away from adminship. But that's another debate - the key thing here is that process has been left behind. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 14:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Shall we do the same for blocking and unblocking, and protecting and unprotecting? Remove process and let people do what they like? (Not a serious question by the way, but just pointing out why some process is sometimes needed) Carcharoth (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Except there'd be no need to give out those rights piecemeal - as I say, the ability to give admin rights should be in the hands of admins, to be given out whenever they like. We would be able to leave RFA behind. This whole silly fuss we make over admin rights, which are essentially trivial, would be forgotten. Most of Wikipedia's problems arise from process, not from an absence of it. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I'd love to see RFA left behind (at least in its current form), with the trouble it's taken to have rollback implemented, and the fuss people are making over it, I cannot possibly see it happening at any time. Majorly (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

uncivility/attacks

Resolved

 – User blocked by Krimpet. Acalamari 17:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody look over my talk page and the contributions of Alfred Legrand? He's been uncivil in several instances ([34], [35], [36], [37], creation of attack page ImmortalGoddezz)and is disrupting my talk page with accusations of sockpuppetry (and User:TexasDex by association). Since there has been several admins already involved with this situation (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. S. Wenocur) can somebody uninvolved take a look at this? I do believe that the user has been warned a few times for civility and has been brought up on AN/I for suspected sockpuppetry and disruption. Thanks! --ImmortalGoddezz 02:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have check into this and it is clear that Alfred Legrand is guilty of being uncivil and personal attacks. I'd refer everyone to this and this. I have warned Alfred Legrand for being uncivil. An admin's attention is clearly warranted. Bstone (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've warned him as well, the second time today. If he continues like this, he'll be blocked. Acalamari 03:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

So 7 warnings in one day and still not blocked? Hrmm. -- ALLSTARecho 04:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've given him a final warning. If he does one more thing then I suggest a block. Perchance a block is already required, but I lack the ability to do so. Additional, a community imposed ban may be appropriate if he continues. Bstone (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Alfred Legrand needs to be immediately block. He just left this on my talk page. I believe an indefinite block/community ban is immediately appropriate. Bstone (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd definitely sign on to a community block, especially since your warning now makes 8 and the recent additions he made to his talk page and Bstone's talk page are cause for disruption. -- ALLSTARecho 05:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

He just restored his personal attacks to User talk:ImmortalGoddezz here and here. -- ALLSTARecho 05:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have cross-posted on the incident board Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Alfred_Legrand Bstone (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And now just general harassment of ImmortalGoddezz here. ANY ADMINS AWAKE? -- ALLSTARecho 05:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Will any admin please issue an immediate block to this user? I shall be going onto the IRC channel in order to alert an admin. Bstone (talk) 05:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

They are all at Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback fighting over rules and regulations for something newly implemented without rules and regulations. -- ALLSTARecho 05:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I left a note there, so hopefully somebody will soon come around. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

He's been indef blocked. Please be on the lookout for sock/meat puppets. Bstone (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

{edit conflict) Thanks. I was just about to do that myself. --Merovingian (T, C) 05:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've blocked him indefinitely for blatant harassment. Sorry, the ball was really dropped here - this should've been caught much earlier. :( --krimpet✽ 05:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Krimpet. -- ALLSTARecho 05:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Very much appreciate your response and willingness to indef ban him, Krimpet. Just wish there was an easier way to page an admin. Cross posting here and AN/I yet still receiving and seeing harassing and uncivil messages from this fellow was really disturbing. Good thing I knew about freenode and the wiki channel. Bstone (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly this isn't typical, usually AN/I is enough for a pretty speedy response. :/ IRC is indeed always a great place to flag down an admin, though. :) krimpet✽ 05:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow I go to work on homework for a while.. all I can say is thanks to everybody who watched over this and helped with the situation! Since I was the one being harassed I didn't want to be the one to warn (and cause further animosity) I just didn't expect him to be so persistent for so long, to say the least. :/ --ImmortalGoddezz 06:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:SamuelM555 moved into mainspace

Resolved

User:SamuelM555 was just moved into mainspace as Samuel Mouly. However, the layout is completely in the form of a user page. I'm hesitant to start moving other people's user pages around, but clearly there's something weird going on here. Also, the user page has many copyrighted images which should not appear on user space. Kelvinc (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Moved back, removed images and informed user. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The user undid Carribbean HQ's changes, and I fixed it again and left a note asking the user not to do it again. Maybe it wouldn't hurt to check back on this a little later. WODUP 14:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification - Twinkle

Requesting community clarification on the following Twinkle issue:

1) Archived Twinkle discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive350#Twinkle

2) Twinkle talk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jaakobou#Detwinkled

Thank you in advance, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly admin shopping Jaakobou. But fair enough, I'd welcome a review from a neutral admin if you really want it. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, please try WP:AGF - I'm not asking the question to embarrass you, Only asking it to avoid similar issues in the future. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

p.s. summary: I've been de-twinkled on, "persistant misuse of the tool" (2), and i'd appreciate clarifications regarding the Twinkle policies. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Right on the top of WP:TW it says "Be advised that you take full responsibility for any action performed using Twinkle." It is generally accepted that if you misuse the tool (i.e. use it to revert edits while in a content dispute), that an administrator may remove it from your monobook.js file for a period of time. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 15:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Consensus was established in December on AN - here - that misuse of automated editing tools was grounds for having those tools taken away. Looking at the diffs Ryan provided on your talk page, you have been edit warring. We don't do that. And you have been edit warring with the aid of TWINKLE. Therefore, you get your TWINKLE taken away for a period so you can't edit war with it. As for this particular case, endorse Ryan's actions here. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 15:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ive been following this. I support ryans actions here as well. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note: this was not opened due to ryan's actions at all. I've opened this only to recieve clarifications regarding the use of the tool.

I think there needs to be a clear clarification regarding "do not use while in content dispute" issue - since it is not clearly noted by "you take full responsibility" text given on the WP:TW page... It was my understanding that I should not 'abuse it for malicious' conduct and therefore I used it to 'speed up my editing', I did use it while in editorial conflicts (full edit summaries) because it was unclear that it is not allowed. The issue of 'edit warring' is unrelated but since you've brought it up... a little while ago I noted on this page (archive link) that User:CJCurrie has been using the admin rollback tool on me in clear content disputes and the issue was ignored... To be frank, I have since changed my editing style a little since it created a misunderstanding of policies. I'm not asking to shorten my Twinkle time-out - only to see that there is clear explanation on future use of twinkle (and admin tools) for everyone, me included. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The policies are not unclear, and you're missing the point of what's been said. There's no specific policies regarding certain actions that are or are not allowed with Twinkle and other wikitools. The requirement is that you take complete responsibility for whatever you do with them. It's not about the tools, it's about you. If you do something that's a violation of policy, such as edit warring, vandalism, etc., you can be punished. If you're doing the policy violations with automated tools, such as Twinkle, one of the punishments available is the loss of your ability to use those tools. It has nothing to do with the type of tools or specific actions taken. You just have to follow the wikipolicies, and if you don't, you can be punished in a variety of ways including losing the ability to use any wikitools you were using to speed up or assist in your improper editing.

Clear now? Gromlakh (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't went over all the twinkle edits, but i'm somewhat/fairly sure i've not used it for the purpouse of edit warring... i've been explained on a problematic revert on Operation Rainbow where a reversion of a misuse of the article page [38] partially included a content dispute and therefore I should not have used the tool.

I still believe that there should be some explanation on the WP:TW article, otherwise - the only implication is that of malicious use.

btw, what is the point of having the "good faith" [39] if the tool is only meant for vandalism?

p.s. do these rules apply also for the admin rollback?

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Girard, Kansas

I could use some more opinions on this page, which i came across during a recent changes patrol. The page has got some pretty massive copyright violations going on. The entire history section, which is huge, seems to have been copy and pasted, and not just from one source, going through and googleing random paragraphs came up with several exact matches to different places, i think much of the page is copied from [40] [41], [42], and[43] [44] to name a few. I'm not quite sure what to do about it, my first thought was to speedy tag it, but that didn't seem appropriate, then i considered blanking the sections, except there is such much copyvio, its difficult to tell which bits to removed. Any thoughts?--Jac16888 (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The editor who added all this content was User:Smulthaup, who, at a glance, could do with some of his other edits reviewing too--Jac16888 (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The first reference (1905 History of Crawford County Kansas) and the second reference (Cutler's History of the State of Kansas) were published in 1905 and 1883, respectively, so they're out of copyright. The others are presumably subject to copyright. From reading the article in general, though, the history section looks too large and overwhelming for a town of 2773 people. To address copyright concerns and to address the weightiness of the history section, I'd suggest working with the editor to summarize the content and to cite copyrighted (or non-copyrighted) sources. I don't think this is really an admin matter -- it's just a matter of good editing practices. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like Smulthaup (talk · contribs) hasn't been active since October, and he was already told about the need to cite sources. If you're looking for a new project, I have a suggestion for an article you could edit.  :-) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Boggle

See this [45]. Where's my money? Guy (Help!) 16:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a price list available? ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 17:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think they need that numbered swiss bank account information... Dureo (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this lucrative? I'm not opposed to selling out... — Scientizzle 18:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

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

User:John Reaves' comments on my talk page

I am growing really, really uncomfortable with John Reaves' comments on my talk page in regards to being granted non-admin rollback. It looks like he has a point to prove but I am really feeling very uncomfortable being used to make that point. I'd appreciate some help. Bstone (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Bstone, it really doesn't look like John Reaves is doing anything wrong here?? What specifically are you complaining about? Anyways, --Tom 19:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not I agree with his John Reaves's comments or not is irrelevant, but unless it is a process like WP:RFA, rollback is hardly something that gathers consensus from the community - there were concerns raised, but someone changed their mind and gave you rollback.

I can understand it if you feel uncomfortable but he is merely voicing his opinion. You are honoured to have rollback and John Reaves thinks it is not an honour, and I think we should leave it at that. (Non-admin) x42bn6 Talk Mess 19:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, after noting his (Reaves) comments, just archive or delete them as you see fit. Anyways, congrats on the roll back feature, I guess :) Cheers, --Tom 19:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I very much do not appreciate him trying to make a point and needing him to voice his opinion on my talk page. I am incredibly uncomfortable with his comments and it seems he wouldn't stop. Thus I reported it here in an effort to have him cease his comments and making me incredibly uncomfortable. Bstone (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If you wanted him to stop, you could have just said on his talk page that you didn't want him to reply. He's just discussing stuff with you, and there's nothing to be uncomfortable about here. JohnReaves — he doesn't want to be talked to about it this so let's just leave it at that. I'm marking this as resolved to avoid drama and stuff that threads with titles like this inevitably attract.--Phoenix-wiki 20:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

ΚέκρωΨ Need to be Banned!

He is consistently poisioning Wikipedia with his racist and hatered and is not adhiring to NPOV. View his dialogue from the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonia_%28terminology%29

"In the interests of free speech, I reserve my right to "offend" anyone I see fit on talk pages, including Skopjans. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 05:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And Macedonians reserve the right to "offend" Greeks when referring to themselves. And everyone else reserves the right to "offend" Greeks when referring to Macedonians. BalkanFever 10:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC) And they already do, persistently and throughout Wikipedia. So what's your beef? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC) My point is we don't have to bring it up every time someone says Skopjan and FYROM are offensive, because they are two different forms of offense. One comes from being called something, one comes from hearing/reading something. BalkanFever 00:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Exactly; we don't have to bring it up every time. This whole thread started when a now banned Skopjan editor was "offended" by my use of that word. And then your newcomer пичка felt it had to proffer its "constructive" 2¢ as well. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC) " For those of you who don't know "пичка" literally means "Pussy" but more directly is equilivant to the F-WORD!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.236.136.2 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, thanks for that. If you'd read the thread more thoroughly, you'd know I was directly quoting an earlier abusive post by another editor who'd used the Slavic word "пичка" as part of an anti-Greek slur. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Admins willing to grant rollback

To cope with the inevitable demand for this over the next days, admins may wish to consider adding themselves to Category:Wikipedia admins willing to grant rollback requests. Thanks.--Doc^g 20:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really necessary, as we have WP:RFR _→AzaToth 20:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course! Why do something simple when we can create a bunch of hoops to jump through and endless bureaucracy to maintain the hoops? Silly Doc. --Ali'i 20:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

While we're at it, I'll go and create Category:Wikipedia admins willing to block users, Category:Wikipedia admins willing to delete stuff, Category:Wikipedia admins willing to protect stuff and Category:Wikipedia bureaucrats willing to promote users. Majorly (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the first one might be redundant to Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks and Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make difficult blocks, but maybe you should. The last one you note sounds like it might work just as well as requests for adminship. ;-) --Ali'i 20:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

My point is such pages are unnecessary. We don't need a category for goodness sake. If admins want to grant rollback, they can. If they don't, they don't have to. Simple as that. Majorly (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh... yeah. Doc, you were the one who complained this process would result in endless bureaucracy, and so far it is you that has been responsible not only for this but for two other needless process pages which have both been deleted – Gurch 20:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Those pages were me making a point, and I am sorry for that. This is me trying to find constructive ways to minimise the bureaucracy which is already evolving on the RFR page. I was chased away for using the wrong ticks.--Doc^g 20:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Constructive ways, by complaining the whole thing is bureaucratic, and creating even more bureaucratic pages with a request for bureaucratic limits on who can have rollback? Majorly (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Good idea Majorly. And I just got rollback! Thanks wimt :-)--Phoenix-wiki 20:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, good grief! Doc said above "I opposed this on grounds of more process", and then adds more process. Is there a glimmer of chance that in granting use of rollback we might just exercise some judgement here?--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

More process? Where? I just see a category for people who will respond to requests. I can't imagine much of a simpler thing than that. Friday (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And what, exactly, is wrong with a page that fulfils the same purpose? Majorly (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing. I am not opposing that page. But I'm flagging up that admins can grant it besides the page too. I've granted a few requests already.--Doc^g 20:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Yeah, that. It's quite common with a new process that people may try a few different ways. Sometimes, over time, one way emerges as the most common. Sometimes, we retain multiple approaches for quite some time. Friday (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Otis Blunt

Resolved

 – page has been deleted as nonsense

Not sure what's going on here at User:Otis Blunt, but this may violate WP:BLP. I don't see a ban discussion anywhere, nor is there an actual block log.[46] -- Kendrick7^talk 21:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the nonsense pages. Just to picky, this should probably be on /Incidents. John Reaves 21:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I suspect simple cluelessness from the newbie creator, perhaps to the point of paranoia: escaped criminals don't usually create an account here on Wikipedia, either for the purposes of responsible editing or for petty vandalism. It might help law enforcement if they did, but then the FBI/Scotland Yard would need to convince our checkusers to help find them and drama would ensue. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 21:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Any trademark experts?

An editor is expressing concerns at Template talk:TardisIndexFile that Image:TARDIS-trans.png is subject to trademark, and can therefor not be used freely, even though the image itself is licenced under CC-BY-SA. He keeps removing the image from the template. I have been trying to explain to him that trademark is not subject to WP:NFC policy, as trademark is not covered. I want some expert opinion on this issue... I am certain the concerns are misplaced, as I explained on the talkpage. — Edokter • Talk • 21:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There was an issue recently (I'll be damned if I can find it) about photographs of toys being copyvios. But, as a very general rule, 2d images of 3d things are not subject to our FU provisions. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 21:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)IANACL, but the {{logo fur}} template applies to trademarks equally as to logos. Just my 2c. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)