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

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

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 ([1]) 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)

And it's now officially closed, merged, and redirected. - auburnpilot talk 04:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for rollback

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. The board has commented. The community is aware. Nothing more needs to be said here. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 02:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

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: [2]. — 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)

(de-indent) Now, here's why we should all stop clamouring about giving users rollback and get on with editing the damn encyclopedia:

1. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. We do not need to issue ballot papers, have them notarized twice, signed in the presence of four witnesses, and then burn them and sit around until something called a "consensus" rises.
2. Consensus is about a broad agreement. It is not about:
   • Substituting "x% supermajority vote" for "consensus", where x% is slightly greater than the percentage that exists
   • Arguing that any attempt to vote is invalid, because Wikipedia doesn't vote (hint: it does)
   • Yelling at people that they're ignoring consensus until they give up, and the last man standing declaring that his opinion is the consensus
3. It's debatable whether or not adminship is a big deal, but rollback certainly isn't. Anyone can use undo which is just one more click than rollback.
4. If someone misuses rollback having been granted it, then we can block them, just as we already do to people who revert inappropriately the normal way, or we can remove rollback as easily as it is granted.
5. Does it really matter that someone implemented a new feature without dealing with the Vogon-like requirements of a minority?
6. If you don't like rollback, don't use it, and if you're an admin and don't like it, don't grant it.

Now, any chance we can do something other than trying to form a consensus on how to form a consensus on what a consensus is? Stifle (talk) 09:52, 11 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)

So, is that the official word on how this situation is going to be handled? What happens in the interim? Do we stop granting it? Is it going to be disabled? --Haemo (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Jimbo, you're not helping. I was kind of with you right up until you said the word "ArbCom", at which point I slammed my head into the desk. Try to be useful if you're going to intervene :) – Gurch 23:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else feel like invoking this and ignoring anything either Jimbo or the Arbitration Committee says on the matter from now on? – Gurch 23:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Admins who do that tend to get desysopped. Corvus cornix_talk 23:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Not if they all did it – Gurch 23:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, except it's not ignoring any rule to ignore them on a matter not related to dispute resolution. –Pomte 23:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh good grief, a 2/3 supermajority of the community wanted the thing turned on. Lots of people who opposed wanted it turned on but just didn't like the formalities of the process. Still more opposed for reasons that have nothing to do with rollback and that would also apply to twinkle, which is accessible to all users from the day they register an account. Based on the number of users who have requested it (around 250), that's pretty good evidence of community support. This meltdown is over the top. If someone can come up with a better implementation, by all means, suggest it, but getting Jimbo/the board/arbcom involved when there hasn't actually been a problem is just over the top. Blocking is far more problematic than rollback. We have several blocking issues brought to ANI every day but somehow we get through them and Wikipedia continues to exist. If a bad grant of rollback is made or if wheel warring occurs, we will manage somehow to get through it. --B (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee would be one thing, Jimbo, but the Wikimedia Foundation? Why is this something to make a "formal request" about, or something for the foundation to get involved in at all? Wikimedia hosts and supports Wikipedia and the other projects, traditionally it doesn't decide how to run them, and I'm concerned this would be a bad precedent. I'd much rather see this as an opportunity to recognize the traditional role that Brion and a few other developers (some of them Wikimedia employees, but that's purely incidental) have long played, as trusted and respected individuals, in making decisions of this type. --Michael Snow (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. This is not something to get the Foundation involved in at all. That is exactly the point of what I am doing here, actually. What I mean by a "formal request to the foundation" is that ultimately, Brion is an employee of the foundation and controls the software. If there are optional features of the software which can be turned on or off, then I do not think the foundation should be deciding those things, but rather the community should be deciding those things. However, the Foundation also not be in the position of trying to judge something as complex as whether or not there is consensus. I want that to be the community's job. Some people are saying there is consensus to turn this on. Others are saying not. I just want to make sure that the developers are given clear guidance from the community.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's partly the point, though. There was a communication breakdown somewhere along the line, as some people thought the process had failed to gain consensus (with inevitable comparisons to the last straw poll which had the same result), others thought it had been accepted, and most (I think) were getting ready to come up with a new proposal that would gain a clearer consensus. What happened was that the main communication channel seemed to have been the bugzilla report (see here) - the developer that implemented it seemed to have taken Ryan's comment (and maybe the straw poll) as a green light to go ahead, when a little bit more digging would have shown that it might have been better to wait a while. Developers are good at answering technical questions, but judging consensus on issues like this is not something that many (if any) developers have practice at. What is needed is a clearer way to communicate with developers, and making clearer who decides on-wiki in cases of consensus. For the Main Page redesign, I seem to remember a bureaucrat delivered a verdict there. A similar decision should have happened here - an uninvolved bureucrat should have been asked to say whether they judged there was consensus. I had a long debate with Simetrical about developers, the Foundation, and the Wikimedia communities, where I said developers need to be more involved with the communities, and Simetrical was saying that this doesn't work in practice (or something like that - I may be misrepresenting what was said). At the end of the day, communication was the key here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You can say there was a communications problem, sure, my concern is that this doesn't seem like it's something appropriate for formal involvement by the Wikimedia Foundation. Most MediaWiki developers are not foundation employees, and I don't believe the person in this case is. --Michael Snow (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Your point here is well-taken, and as you see above, I agree with you completely. My proposal can be read as "formal request to the developers". But the ultimate point is that the developers, volunteer or otherwise, don't really have final authority over community decisions.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

← What the hell does this mean... another vote? ArbCom will probably "follow the vote of the community"? Does that mean majority rules? How much majority should they require? What happened to consensus? Why is the foundation suddenly involved? None of this sounds like the Wikipedia I know. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:28, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)

What it means is precisely that "majority rules" need not be the rule. The ArbCom will likely follow the vote of the community, if it is clear and persuasive, but if it is not, they might design a new poll, or ask the community to redraw the policy in a way that gets broad acceptance. The whole point of involving the ArbCom here is that we do not want any of the following:

1. The community votes and 50%+1 prevails (because this likely prevents the development of an alternative proposal with much higher support levels)
2. The developers have final authority over what features are turned on
3. Jimbo decides.
4. The ArbCom decides without regard for the wider community's positon.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Not that I actually disagree with it, but this whole argument has come about because people don't consider the 67% result of the previous poll to constitute consensus; if it really did end up as 51%:49% we would only be back where we started. Still better than ArbCom telling us what to do. And frankly, I'd rather the developers had final authority than ArbCom (still would prefer the community to have it, of course) – Gurch 04:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

← Again I'll say what happened to consensus? I could honestly understand it if there are so many people involved in this decision that we're abandoning consensus in favor of democracy, because consensus would be too difficult to judge on such a large scale. But that still was never explicitly stated, and it probably ought to be. And if that's not the case, then what praytell is going on here? Equazcion •✗/C • 11:45, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrats should judge consensus

Why not just ask the en-wiki bureaucrats to have a bureaucrat chat and deliver a verdict on whether there was consensus? That way the ArbCom can concentrate on the cases they are dealing with, and the community can accept the verdict of the bureaucrats? Carcharoth (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No thanks - bureaucrats determine consensus in RFAs and RFBs and nowhere else. Consensus for bureaucratship is 90%, adminship is 75% - logically the next step is 60% for rollback. Majorly (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Are you saying that the request for rollback process should have RfA-style debates with 60% as a guide to determine consensus? That process has nothing to do with the process of polling for policy changes. I think you will find that getting policy changes implemented requires widespread consensus (ie. normally higher than 60-70%), and often several drafts and rounds of negotiation to achieve that. The Main Page redesign went through 5 or 6 drafts, and the poll ran for over two weeks, and 687/213/43 (76%) was achieved. I'm still trying to track down the closing discussion there, but Raul I believe took part. There is precedent for bureaucrats being asked to judge consensus on issues - can anyone remember examples? Carcharoth (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't think of anything worse than RFA style requests. The thought makes me feel quite ill... anyhow, I don't think some of the bureaucrats know how to determine consensus, other than counting names.Majorly (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have formally requested arbitration on this matter at WP:RfArb--Doc^g 00:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No need; Jimbo already remanded it to them... — madman bum and angel 00:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. If there is a poll already in existence, then they can discuss whether it meets the standards for sufficient consensus to turn the feature on. They might decide to ask for a broader poll, or a poll on a slightly different question, or, or, or... --Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

...or they might decide, as they are doing, that there's no reason they should be involved at all? – Gurch 10:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The poll in question is at Wikipedia:Non-administrator rollback/Poll. Carcharoth (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any point to this at all? This is how it will play out. A) It goes to the ArbCom, who discuss it for a long time, then decide to either i) keep the new non-admin roll-back, causing all the editors that are for it, to be outraged, and carry on with these long discussions driving away countless good editors, or ii) get rid of the new non-admin roll-back, causing all the editors that are against it, to be outraged, and carry on with these long discussions driving away countless good editors. Alternatively, B) The ArbCom reject the case, long discussions will continue, and continue, for months, driving away countless good editors till Jimbo gets fed up, and puts his foot down either way. All this bureaucracy is killing wikipedia, no decisions ever get made properly--Jac16888 (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If this goes as long as most ArbCom cases, WT:RFR (where the signal to noise ratio is much better than here) will be able to reach a pretty stable process. Mr.Z-man 06:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Vote

Yes, we don't !vote, but if so many people are flipping out still over this, why not just do a straight, no commentary vote. Yes, a vote. Yay/nay. No "we don't vote" nonsense. If that's what it takes, do what it takes to end it. This month.

Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Vote

Enough already, please post this to the watchlist. Lawrence Cohen 03:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As much i hate to say it, being quite fond of the whole Not a democracy idea, i have to agree, i think its the only way this is going to end, if it does. Although a vote propably wouldn't end it, as all th editors who didn't get their way would carry on arguing against the decision (quoting NOT#DEMOCRACY)--Jac16888 (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I do remember writing, when this was first brought up, that this was going to be a can of worms. I'm sorry to be proven right. Corvus cornix_talk 05:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Foundation, decision and tea cup

Hello,

Honest... I find that the whole story is really a storm in a tea-cup. Please try to take a step backward, and think about it again... what are we trying to accomplish... an encyclopedia, for everyone, complete, accurate, up to date, easy to read. This is a huge job, with plenty of troubles on the way already. How important is this rollback feature in the great scheme ???

Second, some people have complained that the developer would did the implementation did not respect the community. I find that most amazing. JeLuF has been a volunteer for several years and is an extremely important member of the tech team. He is not employed by the Foundation. For those who met him, he is also an absolutely adorable guy, gentle, honest, straigthforward, discreet, helpful and so on. As he told me "There was a bugzilla entry asking for the config change. There was a link to a voting, with 304 pro and 150 contra votes. This looked to me like a majority, and so I implemented it". I wish you would give him a thank you for the job he is doing on our servers and network. I wish you would be grateful to him to actually implement the changes proposed by the community. I am not convinced that he will be as responsive next time. He just wanted to help. I also think the ones who spoke bad would help the project in apologizing to him.

Third, it is absolutely excluded that I propose a resolution for the board to vote on such an issue. This is your business guys, not the business of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is a community issue. I know it is hard to "be in charge", sometimes, I wish as well I could rely on someone to make a decision rather than enduring community votes or board votes. It can be so relaxing to let others make the painful decisions for us (and then have someone to scream upon). But, I think the spirit of the project is that the community runs the show. If you feel that it is too difficult to make decision with 600 voters, then switch to a Republic. Elect a group to make some decisions in the name of the community.
Or go on take decisions yourselves. Running the project is your job. Not the job of the arbcom, not the job of Jimbo, not the job of the developers, not the job of the board. Your job. This is what is scary, but exciting as well.

My suggestion right now would be to say that the feature turned on by JeLuF is NOT critical. Give it a try. See if it is helpful, or to the contrary, bring in more troubles than it solves them. And revisit the issue in 3 months if necessary (yeah, vote again). Give it a try, and move on.

And wikilove, as always....

Anthere (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. We really have to sort this kind of things out on our own. Kusma (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, thank you Anthere. Majorly (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent words, thank you from me as well, Anthere. Acalamari 23:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Anthere, can we have you as our GodKing instead of Jimbo? If you'd posted the above yesterday in place of his waffle about polls further up the page, none of this would ever have happened – Gurch 00:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Response to Anthere

Unfortunately Anthere's "you guys govern yourself - the dev is a good guy" post totally misses the point.

If we are to govern ourselves, then we need to define what is and is not sufficient mandate for policy changes in our community. Most sane people on en.wp would agree that a 66% support rate on a dubious and confused eight day poll performed when half the community was on holiday is simply not our method of deciding stuff like this.

But the developer took it on himself to decide what was an was not consensus in our community - and accepted the advice of the rather determined promoter of the policy. It is not possible for this community to govern itself while outsiders make such decisions and yet all outside bodies refuse to hear any appeal against them.

Now, as I say, this fikning policy (admin right to grant) is now a done deal. But what we need now is to make sure this can never happen again. My response to Anthere's patronising call for us to stand on out own two feet, is: "yes please, now will you let us do that?" ---Doc ^{g - ask me for rollback} 22:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Give it up Doc. There's something rotten in the state of Denmark. Hiding T 22:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, I have given up, long ago. But that patronising crap needed answered.--Doc ^{g - ask me for rollback} 22:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC) - apologies to Anthere and anyone else - that description was uncalled for.--Doc ^{g - ask me for rollback} 23:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh, I agree. I just get the feeling this was a done deal before we even caught wind of it. Hiding T 22:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I get that same feeling. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:06, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not sure what planet everyone suddenly migrated to, but defending this as obeying the majority in a vote is simply ludicrous from a Wikipedia standpoint. What happened to not being a democracy? I am not and have never said anything bad about the developer who implemented this -- I just think he was mistaken. I'm also fine with giving this a tryout and I agree it wouldn't be a big deal to do so. Nevertheless these answers are just bewildering, including the ones from Jimbo, Anthere, the devs and many admins. I would've been fine with hearing "Mistakes may have been made but what's done is done, this isn't a big deal, let's just try it out and see what happens." But what we got seems to have completely abandoned what Wikipedia stands for, as far as back-end decisions go. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:34, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, you think Wikipedia "stands for" not being a democracy? Many Wikipedias would have accepted a 2/3rds vote as sufficient cause for action without question. For reasons I've never understood, EN is substantially more anti-democratic than most. Dragons flight (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as our decision-making process goes, yes, we stand for not being a democracy. I don't know or care how the EN Wikipedia compares to other languages, as it's irrelevant. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:00, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)

The point is that it is very relevant if you are a dev (or for that matter a Board Member) who spends most of their time worrying about other projects. You can't expect them to have a detailed knowledge of the quirks of every project. If that poll should have failed, it was really the responsibility of people on EN to close it that way (something which people here don't really agree on), and if a mistake was made, it would be the responsiblity of people on EN to clearly explain that to the devs and demonstrate the broad agreement for reversing the action (which basically seems impossible at this point). A volunteer dev with several years experience treated the bug request as he would many others from other communities and got ridiculed for it. His actions are entirely understandable. The actions and expectations of the EN community on the other hand are pretty much nuts. Dragons flight (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

They're not nuts. They saw Wikipedia's processes being circumvented and became unsettled. I didn't criticize any devs and I agree his actions are understandable. I criticize only those who saw fit to bring the matter to Bugzilla to begin with, as well as those who have responded to try and explain what happened. No broad agreement needed to have been demonstrated in order to overturn the implementation -- all that was needed was direction to the vote and to WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY. A lack of consensus is all that's required in order for something to not happen, at least on EN Wikipedia. A majority vote just doesn't do it. That's our policy. I'm sorry if you find fault with that, but I didn't write it so don't complain to me. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:41, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I can sorta see the reasoning behind making a tool available while not really passing judgment on what is the best way to use it. I also assume there's some level of project management that goes on when it comes to the software, such that features that seem actually harmful don't get implemented. In my view, rollback is small potatoes. I don't see how it could do much harm. The ability is easily removed, if someone starts misusing it. Friday (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

At the danger of reiterating what Anthere said, is this really worth screeds of topsy-turvy discussion that goes nowhere? Okay, so the process is up and running; best course of action? Leave it like that. It's even more work trying to discredit it and have it pulled down. I for one never even picked it up, but for the select few that did, drop it: it is not worth the drama. Anthøny 22:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

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 [3] 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" [4] 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)

I've never understood the point of Twinkle's "revert good-faith edits" function. The edit summary it leaves sounds like saying "I'm slapping you in the face with a trout, but I'm being polite while doing so". --Carnildo (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha, I love that comparison. I think it's kind of for user's who make test edits or something, but look like they tried to contribute positively, not knowing anything about Wikipedia... vandalism was done, but not trying to bite the newbies, so trying to be nice about their try? нмŵוτнτ 23:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the source of my confusion as there's no clear indication on the twinkle page. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:32, 11 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 [5] [6], [7], and[8] [9] 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 [10]. 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)

I don't think it's helpful for anyone to use ethnically or racially offensive terms, particularly since it's a clear breach of Wikipedia:Civility. You don't enjoy unconstrained free speech on talk pages or elsewhere and you have no "right" to cause gratuitous offence. If I see people using terms such as "Skopjans" in future (that includes you, Kekrops) the comments will be removed and the offender will be blocked if he or she persists. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have explained countless times that it isn't used to cause gratuitous offence; it is simply a metonymic exonym. It also happens to be by far the most common term used by Greeks. The name Greeks itself is considered a derogatory exonym by many Greeks; does that mean it should be banned too? You can't censor an entire nation. Finally, who is going to reprimand you for calling Greeks a nation of "crackpots", a deliberately offensive slur, in reference to this very issue? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

White Americans probably didn't specifically intend to cause offence when "nigger" was the most common term used to refer to black people, but that doesn't make it any less offensive to the target of the term. Nor is this an issue of "censorship", because you don't enjoy unconstrained free speech on Wikipedia, period - you're subject to the conditions set out in Wikipedia:Civility. If you don't accept them you shouldn't be editing here. And finally, don't misquote me or raise red herrings. I've given you fair notice here and on your talk page, and I'm not prepared to debate the unambiguous requirements of Wikipedia:Civility. Other Greek editors seem to be able to manage not to use ethnically offensive terms, so I expect you to be able to do the same. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of misquoting you. Perhaps you should actually read the policy that you have invoked three times in the past few sentences. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The bit about "Racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious slurs" being a "serious example" of a breach of civility is clear enough, and you should also read WP:CIV#Why is incivility bad?. Really, though, I'm not prepared to discuss this further; you know what's expected of you and all other editors, so you should have no difficulty in following this very basic policy. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

And yet the only one who has made an ethnic slur here is you. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I urge anyone unfamiliar with the issue to read the FA Macedonia_(terminology)#Names_in_the_languages_of_the_region. Greeks do not refer to inhabitants of fYRoM as Macedonians because they have their own Macedonians. So this is very much a political debate. It appears to me ChrisO is trying to force Kekrops to succumb to a specific POV. --   Avg    12:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. The fact that the term is used in the context of a political dispute doesn't make it any more acceptable - just as the Serbian derogatory term for Albanians, "Shiptars", isn't any more acceptable because it's used in conection with the Kosovo dispute. It's not as if "Skopjans" is the only term that can be used; "citizens of FYROM" and "Macedonian Slavs" are viable and reasonably uncontentious alternative terms. It's clear that the term causes widespread offence to those to whom it refers, it causes unnecessary tension and aggravation (as this thread demonstrates) and there are viable alternative terms that you could just as easily use; in short, there's no reason to use it. And it's hard to avoid the conclusion that some editors are trying to make a disruptive point when they use the term even though they're fully aware of these factors. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really. "FYROM" and "Macedonian Slavs" are equally "offensive" according to those to whom they refer. In fact, they reject anything other than "Macedonians", for obvious political reasons. And you're forgetting the crucial difference between this case and the other examples you cite: Serbs are not offended by the name Albanians, nor are whites offended by blacks, so the only reason they would use those slurs would be to cause offence. Greeks, on the other hand, only use Skopjans because the self-identifying term is offensive to them. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 14:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to expand this. The terms "Macedonia/n/s" are equally highly offensive to most Greeks when they are used in reference to the South Slavic ethnic group. Yet I don't see anyone complaining here about those other alternatives proposed by ChrisO above to be universally used across Wikipedia so as to maintain this civility level. All members of the ethnic group choose to tease Greeks (Macedonians or others), by adamantly calling themselves plain "Macedonians". "Macedonia/n/s", undisambiguated, to quote ChrisO, "causes unnecessary tension and aggravation (as this thread demonstrates) and there are viable alternative terms that you could just as easily use; in short, there's no reason to use it". NikoSilver 18:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

But the on-WP consensus is clearly "Ethnic Macedonian" or, where dab. is unnecessary, "Macedonian." Rather than accept this, Kekrops persists in using a perjorative. He should have stopped long ago. He should stop. Jd2718 (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The WP consensus is still heavily disputed, and the WP flimsy consensus regards articles, not talkpages. The alternative is pejorative to the other side, yet still I see no complaint for that. I repeat that the words "Macedonia/n/s" in reference to the south Slavic ethnic group and without disambiguation are highly offensive to Greek editors. I will support this, if it's done for both sides: I.e. if ethnic Macedonian editors are also forced to not offend the Greek editors in talkpages, by using whichever qualifier they choose. Simple. NikoSilver 20:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW if Kekrops is offended, he is not in any way entitled to offend. However, I see no intended offense by Kekrops. He is merely using the prevailing terminology in his country (just like the others are doing without him complaining). To give you a recent example of the vast usage of Skopje/an in Greece, see this latest article from the accredited Greek News site "SKAI News".[11] I can furnish thousands more, and I can quote hundreds of Greek officials as well. NikoSilver 21:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] Take a peak in Greek governmental sites: [12] (helpful translation by Google). Are you accusing an entire nation of being blasphemous? NikoSilver 21:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

All I see is an attempt by certain users with a certain frame of thought to label a widely used descriptor as "pejorative", by taking the bait of "hey, that offends me!" There is simply nothing that they will not label as "offensive", because the doctrine does not allow them to. NikoSilver 21:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Possibility of Sanctions

I invite any "non-warring" administrator to remind Kekrops of the discretionary sanctions available under the recent Macedonia ArbCom decision. The text reads

Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on reverts; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision.

I think that a simple warning should be sufficient to stop this. Jd2718 (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

---

I invite any "non-warring" administrator to remind all ethnic Macedonian editors who identify as "Macedonians" in their userpages of the discretionary sanctions available under the recent Macedonia ArbCom decision. The text reads

Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on reverts; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editors in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision.

I think that a simple warning should be sufficient to stop this. NikoSilver 20:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I find a most welcome solution that words deemed offensive are to be avoided, however this has to happen in both sides. All Greeks should be forced to stop using "Skopjans" if and only if all fYRoM editors are forced to stop using "Macedonians". They should both start using "viable alternative terms" as ChrisO describes it, such as "Macedonian Slavs". Anything else is a biased decision against one or the other side. --   Avg    21:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This is getting frivolous. There is very obviously a big difference between identifying yourself using a particular term, and identifying someone else using a term which they find offensive. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

One can be interpreted as "name-calling", the other as "impersonation". They can both be considered "offensive". A country's capital is very often used as a descriptor in diplomacy, making the claim that it is offensive simply ridiculous. NikoSilver 23:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Letting the capital stand for the country (Moscow warns, Bonn Berlin declines, Washington objects) is common. Turning that into an adjective to stand for the people is not. In this case, it is offensive. Jd2718 (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems rather obvious that the user Kekrops is disrupting Wikipedia. He is constantly inserting derogatory terms and violates the policies of WP:MOSMAC. I find it very strange that user has not been blocked as he is breaking Wikipedia rules daily in many of his edits. JdeJ (talk) 00:17, 13 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 administrators 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)

Categories scale far more efficiently than pages. They don't need to be archived, nor do they generate much discussion. A request page will eventually grow so as to require sub-pages, archives (bot-archived), and endless fighting over process. It's starting already. I don't see much need for a request page, unless we're going to turn it into a clone of RfA, which sounds evil and bad. Let's avoid the bureaucracy, just this once. Mackensen (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Too late :( --Doc^g 22:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFALITE. --Ali'i 22:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been terribly impressed with a lot of what's been going on lately, regarding WP:RFR, and, how the situation's been handled by some involved parties, but, I gotta say, I like the category idea. So much so, that I've added myself to it as well. As Mackensen said above, it scales a lot better, than a page, there's less process, and, less to do overall, to grant / etc. IMO, it somewhat encourages shopping for the right admin, but, it just might work. Great idea, Doc! :) SQL^{Query me!} 05:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• On the other hand, we supposedly trust our admins; if one admin is prepared to be bail for a non-admin with rollback, then that's good enough for me. Mackensen (talk) 14:15, 11 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)Ah ha! Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive346#Copyright problems with toy photos ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 21:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but the toys were copyrighted, the police box is not. — Edokter • Talk • 21:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If anyone owns it' it's probably the Metropolitan Police. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Quite famously, the copyright (or trademark, one or the other) on the police box design is held by the BBC. With a lovely (C) 1963 on merchandise, too. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 21:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. It's here.--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:07, 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)

(ec)FU provisions don't apply to the template namespace. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 21:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify the matter, let me reitterate that this is not a copyright problem, but purely dealing with trademark... Something the editor that removed the image keeps forgetting. The trademark may be intelectual property of the BBC, but there can be no trademark infringement as Wikipedia does not run a business selling TARDIS/Doctor Who related products or services. The photograph is of a 3D object, the trademark however is only of the 2 dimensional representation of the TARDIS; see the trademark as registered by the BBC. — Edokter • Talk • 01:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The approach taken on Commons (and presumably here too) is that we are concerned with copyright not trademarks. Images that are free of copyright may be hosted and used provided that they are free of copyright even if they are a registered trademark - for example Commons includes the Coca-Cola logo. I'm not sure I agree with this, but it is the way such images have been handled to date. Trademarked images can be tagged with {{trademark}}. So if the image is free of copyright, it can be used - bear in mind that a photo of a subject otherwise free of copyright will itself attract copyright if a creative process was used in producing it by the photographer- e.g. lighting, angle etc. WjBscribe 01:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually there is a copyright issue with images of toys. I can't find it right now, but this was an issue with an image I uploaded a long time ago of an action figure; it had to be deleted from the Wikimedia Commons because although the image itself was appropriately licensed, the appearance of the toy was protected by US copyright law (under which Wikipedia operates). Technically it's counted as a three-dimensional "work of applied art", which the Copyright Act of 1976 defines as "two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, technical drawings, diagrams, and models." Toys were ruled to be copyrightable in this 1983 case. A photo of a copyrighted three-dimensional object is thus potentially a copyright violation, unless the object in question is incidental to the subject of the photo. Hence a photo of a child playing with a TARDIS would not be a copyright violation, as the child rather than the TARDIS is the subject of the photo; but a photo of a TARDIS on its own would have copyright problems. This article in the WIPO magazine explains the legal position (see in particular the "Incidental background" section). I'll wait and see what other people say, but as a Commons admin I'm inclined to delete this image as a probable copyvio. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Presumably this particular image raises questions about whether the "police box" design is copyrightable. I have no knowledge of the particulars of this case mind you. A deletion discussion about the image might be the best way for everyone to air their concerns. WjBscribe 01:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The original design may or may not have been copyrighted (probably not, since I doubt anyone in the US was interested in marketing British police boxes!). However, I'd think the toy version would very likely be covered by the copyright law. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Agian: The BBC does not hold copyright, only trademark. So why does everyone bring up copyright? The box cannot be copyrighted; it is not designed by the BBC. The prop is built by them, but it is an non-copyrightable (public) design. — Edokter • Talk • 12:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there's another issue here, which is whether the specific police box in question here is copyrightable because it is a prop created for the television show. Even absent considerations of the overall design of the box, the trademark status, etc, that's a major issue. I replaced the image with a photograph of a police box on the street, which surely carries no copyright problems and is still a fine illustration. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It is hidious! I still stand by my position that there is no copyright problem (it's a photo of a stage prop) and that trademark cannot be infringed. But we can speculate as long as we want... I'd rather have definitive answers. Is there anybody in the foundation that we can ask? — Edokter • Talk • 19:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

commons:Category:De Lorean DMC-12 in Back to the Future, commons:Category:Automobiles in fiction, commons:Category:Batmobile. I'm going to guess and say it's probably ok. At least, make sure people on commons know of the concern here, and let them sort it out, because it will effect a LOT more images than just this one. -- Ned Scott 06:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• The DeLorean time machine and the Batmobile are ordinary cars with some extra gadgets and trim attached. I don't think that this qualifies them as works of art. Plenty of stock automobile designs required artistic talent to design, but that doesn't make photos of them automatically unfree. *** Crotalus *** 08:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Artisol2345

Ok, I'm requesting this again, since the last time I requested this, I didn't not sufficiently explain the situation, which might've caused everyone to skip it.

This case caused this RFCU to take place, which turned up "likely" that Artisol has used the account AL2TB for abusive purposes. Both accounts may need to be blocked. --EoL talk 22:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked a related IP. If another administrator does not assist with this case, I will have to take this case. However, as this is really my first SSP case, I'll probably mess it up. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Dethzone

This person appears to be violating WP:USERPAGE. Again. Which is also primarily what his contributions consist of. Could this be looked into once more, please? Thanks. --Ebyabe (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And he's at it again... *sigh* -Ebyabe (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD open 20 minutes, closed by nonadmin

Someone want to have a look at this? Thanks. -- ALLSTARecho 01:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverted. People who have commented on debates should not close them. —Kurykh 01:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Whoo! This is clearly an experienced user with a grasp of policy, despite this account being less than 48 hours old. Question is whether it's a user who should be here or not. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. I don't care one way or the other on the AfD outcome but that raised red flags quickly. -- ALLSTARecho 01:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeez! This was a good faith edit. Please review the discussion and decide yourselves whether it has a chance of being deleted. I was just trying to save some time by being bold in a very obvious situation, hardly a crime. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Did we call it a crime? --EoL talk 02:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no harm in keeping a discussion open for at least a few hours, preferably a day, and waiting for an uninvolved participant to close it. Even where the article really is a speedy keep, the drama caused by non-admins closing discussions isn't worth the fuss. If it really is such an obvious case the article is going to be kept either way. Patience, patience. Wikidemo (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see this article AfD as an obvious keep, rather it's an obvious delete, IMO. There are serious notability issues with the sources provided, as I explained in the AfD. However, I totally agree that any AfD should not be closed by an involved editor, even if it is an obvious WP:SNOWBALL and/or WP:SPEEDY close. I do WP:AGF that the closing editor meant well, so, no, it's not a crime. Editors disagree all the time here, it's part of the process. Just don't take it personally. — Becksguy (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No I don't take it personally, but all of this "should this user be here or not" and "raising red flags" just didn't sound like AGF to me, when all I had done was close a discussion that could very easily be reverted. That's all. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Slander Question

Recently, I saw this message at my talk page, in reference to this AFC. Is it something that Wikipedia needs to be involved with (ie:ComCom)? I tend to stay away from Wiki legal issues, so excuse me for my unfamiliarity. Just thought it would be better to error on the safer side of asking for a second opinion. Thanks! Icestorm815, on a self-enforced wikibreak —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.49.202 (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a matter for editors, but the Foundation's legal team, and I have advised user on his talk page. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 05:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the section in question. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit war between several users and Rothchild

Last month, Rothchild (talk · contribs) added 9/11_Truth_Movement and Alex Jones (radio) to the "See also" section of Tin-foil hat. On January 9, after someone reverted this arguably humorous but nevertheless blatantly POV edit, Rothchild reverted it back and, for good measure, added "Tin-foil hat" under the "See also" section of the Alex Jones article. Then in the Talk page of the Tin-foil hat article, the user said, "I was about to add the Ron Paul campaign but I keep KISS in mind." Several reverts were made back and forth by myself and others. We explained to Rothchild that the edits were POV and inappropriate.

Today after I noticed Rothchild had reverted back again, I said in the Talk section, "I think Alex Jones is loony too, but Wikipedia articles are no place for my opinion," and then I deleted the whole "See also" section, as it was irrelevant. I also fixed the Alex Jones article. Rothchild quickly reverted both back and replied, "Just because Alex Jones seems to be your hero does not mean you have to keep reverting my edits."

Rothchild is showing clear troll behavior and is making repeated bad-faith, POV edits and reverts. The passage of several weeks time between Rothchild's initial edit and the revert did not deter the user, as he or she seems to be watching the articles closely so as to quickly revert any edit.

I don't know what do do at this point, so I'm turning here for help. --Skylights76 (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Rothchild deleted this section, but I reverted...I have not formed an opinion on the dispute as of yet. — Scientizzle 07:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've left a warning on his/her talk page--the edits are clearly disruptive. Additionally, edits like this & this are inappropriate. Further disruption may merit a block. — Scientizzle 07:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Skylights has been clearly wikistalking me. I am new to wikipedia and I don't feel welcome here.--Rothchild (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You're new, and yet you know terms like wikistalking and sock puppet. If I had to guess, I'd say it's you who is a sock puppet, and it's you who was wikistalking me when you came here and deleted this section. You'd feel more welcome here if you made quality contributions instead of trolled.--Skylights76 (talk) 07:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My brother has been trying to get me into Wikipedia and he edits here all the time. He told me that your what defines a Wikistalker. But seriously though. Just drop it. It was a simple link and you started to cry ZOMG VANDALISM!!!! You completely missed the theme and the tone of the article and my additions were a perfect fit. There's more important things in life then making a big deal over a link. I hope you feel so much better about your self for making Wikipedia such a safe place.--Rothchild (talk) 07:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I'm sorry if this isn't the appropriate forum for this dispute, but someone had removed all the explanatory info at the top of the page when I posted this section. Anyway, what do you advise regarding the edit war in question? I believe that he/she will just revert back.--Skylights76 (talk) 07:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there might be sockpuppetry, but without further evidence we can't link this user to any blocked or banned user, so that may be a dead end. However edit warring over unrelated items in a section is trolling, I recomend that a block be issued if the situation persists. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Rothchild blocked

Continued disruptive behavior, in my opinion. Blocked for 48hrs. I'm signing off, so any admin may overturn if he or she wishes... — Scientizzle 08:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to the admins who helped in this situation.--Skylights76 (talk) 08:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Image on Adolf Eichmann

In the past couple of days three different images have appeared on the entry for Adolf Eichmann. I'm simply not well versed enough on the fair use rules to tell which, if any, of the three should actually be used. One has a fair use tag on it, another is a scan of a book cover, and the third is a free image but of inferior quality. Can an admin with some knowledge of how fair use should be applied here help sort this out? AniMate 08:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

yes,can an admin see which one of these is best qualified to exist on wikipedia??thanks Grandia01 (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The third image, Image:Eichmann.jpg, is probably best, for two reasons. First, it's a free image, released into the public domain as a document of the US Federal Government. Second, it shows the subject in his military uniform, which is related to almost everything in the article (given that the subject appears to be a Nazi war criminal of some note). Free images are almost always preferred over similar fair use images, and the book cover refers to a work that is mentioned only briefly in the article. The casual image is a better resolution - but, again, the free image should be preferred in most cases. Hope this helps, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the second image, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Non-free content#Unacceptable images #8. We can't use copyrighted book covers for the purpose of illustrating the subject of the cover. We can only use book covers to illustrate the book cover in the context of critical commentary about the item.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it has to be three - three is currently used in the article and the other two are deletion nom'd as unused fair use images. Situation seems to be resolved for the moment. WilyD 15:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - number three it is! :-) delldot talk 15:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

One user is continually re-inserting the unfree image - given the circumstances, it'd probably be best if someone else could take him aside and explain how things work. WilyD 19:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Some admin intervention is definitely needed. Wily and Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) have both violated 3rr over the image, and I am still unsure the image that has been reinserted is valid under fair use. AniMate 22:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of auto-generated deletion summaries

Recently, in the middle of the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Sysop.js/Admin opinion (but not as a result of it), all auto-generated deletion summaries were removed. These are the pre-filled log summaries which say, "Content was ... and the only contributor was..." which admins can still change before deletion. A few admins have complained about the removal, including myself, though there hasn't been any overwhelming continued objection there seems to be only one person in favour of removal. I think few people are aware of what has happened. At first the summaries were replaced with "-", then they were replaced with "no reason for deletion was given", now the auto-generated summaries have been restored again, perhaps accidentally, by removal of content from MediaWiki:Excontent. It's all a bit disorganised at the moment. There is currently a bug report to get the auto-generated summaries put somewhere else on the deletion page instead of the log summary. I've raised it here so admins are aware of the change and any discussion about it, and to get more input. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am in favor of the auto-generated summary ("content was $1"). The argument against it seems to be that some sysops might include un-deletable libel in their deletion summaries, but I don't think that is a real issue (are there seriously still admins doing this? Why haven't they been desysopped already?) We should also delete MediaWiki:Excontentauthor to get the old behaviour back for pages with just one editor. Kusma (talk) 12:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback/Vote

Can we please have some more sensible eyes? I've blanked+protected the main voting page due to edit-warring, but the talk page is descending into one massive flamewar, with arrant nonsense being frequently added - so please feel free to go for some aggressive refactoring. It all got so bad we're off to a draft poll. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am profoundly confused as to what happened to the votes. I just went to check to see the number of votes for each proposal and I see the page has full protection and a picture of a cat? This is descending into utter silliness. Bstone (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It's utter madness, I can't understand why people is still arguing about it, it's not like it matters! I would suggest everyone just stop complaining about anything that has to do with rollback, and just let it be as it is now. If someone acquires rollback and is using it to do vandalism, then that person will be blocked, or if less severe, will loose the rollback bit. Also as a point is that I will in a near future change Twinkle to only use the built in rollback, so at that point, loosing rollback privilege will effectively disable twinkle rollback as well. _→AzaToth 17:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a really cool idea (with TW I mean} :b: Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I find it incredible that we now have a community consultation process to start a community consultation process to implement the results of a community consultation process. Rollback really shouldn't be this controversial. Hut 8.5 17:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Mentor needed for resocialising problem user

Can someone please head over to User talk:Burra and have a look if they could act as a kind of mentor for a somewhat problematic case? This is the former anon user "Dodona", lately known as serial sockpuppeter PIRRO BURRI (talk · contribs) (socks), trying to negotiate a comeback. The problem has been that over almost a year (or longer? I forget) he has been plaguing talk pages with rather confused, persistent rants, trying to push some weird ethnic fringe ideas about Albanians being descended from Pelasgians and therefore really Greeks, and actually better Greeks than the Greeks themselves, or something to that effect. He used to be unstoppable, and both his English and his grasp of scholarly literature is abominable. I'm a sceptical, but maybe I'm a bit too involved to make these decisions alone. Anybody willing to watch him? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User:NERIC-Security

The above account is a multiple-user account, used to keep tabs on vandalism from educational IP ranges.

Does this violate WP:SOCK under the role account clause? haz (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If they're using the account to edit, then multiple-user accounts would violate the GFDL requirement that an edit be attributable to a single person. Corvus cornix_talk 21:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, they have edited, but there's a phone number on their userpage. Should someone call them? Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering about this account as well, and have seen it requesting blocks/unblocks of related IP addresses. Since these requests seem to be granted, some kind of confirmation of the account's ownership should probably be obtained. I wouldn't block the account, though, as their work is benefiting ours. Any IPs they are keeping track of are IPs we won't have to worry about. - auburnpilot talk 22:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm calling called. Nobody answered. - auburnpilot talk 22:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I did a reverse search on the number for the heck of it. I am not getting any results. I did get a false positive though. Rgoodermote  01:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

See here on the Neric.org site. It's definitely their number, and the answering machine says the same (although I didn't leave a message). - auburnpilot talk 01:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

For some reason I did not trust the site, but a machine answered huh. If memory serves me, there is an account used by multiple users. It is owned by a shareholder or something like that. But it seems the account has a legit reason and as I have read not editing, the account is not a sock...maybe not the last of its kind. Rgoodermote  01:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Business hours are over in the US, and will be for the next 60 hours. Try calling them then. east.718 at 01:53, January 12, 2008

Probably best to do that, by the way I am not doing it I have school in 60 hours. Rgoodermote  02:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I set this account up as a "roll" account, to keep my personal edits (and POV) seperate from my responsibilities as an administrator for our regional educational network. I have two related goals; for my organization to insure that the districts that we serve become aware of the inappropriate edits, and I can say that based upon phone calls and e-mails received these past two weeks, they are waking up to this as an issue; by creating an account associated with this task, should I change jobs (no plans for that in the near future, but one never knows), that the work that I am doing in my roll as a network administrator would continue with my successor.

Our "normal" operating hours are M-F 8-4 (+5) which is why no one answered (I'm at home right now). Whatever the consensus is, I will be more than happy to follow. Let me know. --NERIC-Security (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding edits, the only edits that have been made with this account have been reverts to vandalism, and notices on the associated User_talk pages. --NERIC-Security (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not the edits we are concerned about. You identified yourself with a corporation/businesses which is a concern because we do not know how many people use the account or have access to it. The guideline here states that there must be only one person who uses to account as to make sure no one is improperly blamed. Rgoodermote  02:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. It is a multi-county educational agency, chartered by the NYS Ed Department. I am the only one who has access to the account. If it would eliminate any concern, I'll agree that should I leave NERIC, the account would go with me and not the position.

The only addresses that I will ask to have blocked, or unblocked, are associated with our class B address 163.153.0.0/16. This link to ARIN will show you the netblock information, and my business contact information (the e-mail listed is one that attracts spam and is not checked regularly, but if you want to use it to verify my info, let me know and I'd be happy to log into that server).

--NERIC-Security (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I am stepping out of conversation as the matter seems to be settled, I have not verified information but I believe the user is telling the truth. Rgoodermote  02:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

So long as the account is not shared, I don't see any real issue with you continuing the work you've been doing so far. If you leave the position, rather than passing the account onto the next person, allow them to create their own account and note it on your user page. Your efforts are obviously beneficial to our project, as a great deal of IP vandalism is traced back to school addresses, so hopefully a few others will chime in. - auburnpilot talk 02:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be the "occasional exception" in regards to a multi-user account. A SPA with fighting vandalism from a shared range? That sounds fantastic to me. --CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 22:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest from 202.49.173.99

This IP address resolves to Canwest MediaWorks New Zealand which has actually been sold to another operator but one can only assume this IP points to this company still. Users of the IP are editing articles such as The Breeze (New Zealand) and More FM which are the names of the Radio Stations that are run by MediaWorks. Bhowden (talk) 00:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Re-adding RfR to watchlists

At the risk of crucification, I am advocating that; as we seem to be in at least some sort of a near agreement to try this out a while; we add WP:RfR back to watchlists. Requests have basically stalled since we took it down yesterday sometime, and implementing the course of action we're in the neighborhood of advocating involves notifying the community at large. Please don't kill me, --CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 01:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not sure we need to advertise RfR anymore than we advertise RfA or RfB. It might've been good to let people know the discussion ended and they could now ask for it, but by now, everyone who was involved and wanted it, has it, and anyone who wan't involved, and wants to expand their vandal-reverting abilities, will find it on their own, IMHO. MBisanz ^talk 02:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

SSP Backlog

Hello. Dear Admins, WP:SSP has had a backlog for days now, and cases files in 2007 are still open. 34 open cases as of a moment ago. Perhaps some reviews can be done tonight? Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Bot out of control?

User:CBM has tagged literally 6000 new pages as patrolled in the 60 minutes. This can not possibly be. I see that he operates a bot, User:VeblenBot. Somethings wrong. I mentioned this to CBM but I'm 99% sure he's not online and New Page Patrol is not going to work well unless we get to the bottom of this.--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 03:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User:CBM is doing something extremely useful for NPP. I should have waited for a few more minutes to let him respond before coming here. My apologies.--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 04:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

New CSD criterion

Debate for a new CSD criterion has been taking place on the CSD talk page. The criterion would be CSD#T3, which would allow orphaned and deprecated templates that are not part of series to be speedy deleted after seven days.

The debate has been listed on Template:RFCpolicy list for the past several days. It seems that they are not any strong objections to adding the new criterion, however, as CSD is official policy, some users thought it would be best to post on a pump or noticeboard to ensure that a healthy number of people were aware of the debate. If you have a comment or would care to join in the debate, please visit WT:CSD. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you know... that T:DYK is an hour late?

Yup, as usual, the update is late at T:DYK/N if an admin can take care of everything. I went and did all the hooks already; if I weren't logging off for the night I'd do the update myself. Wizardman 04:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It's updated now. I wouldn't have noticed it because I was looking for the "DYK is late" box to turn red. It appears to turn bright yellow now, rather than a screaming red, so that threw me off. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

mirror site with dyslexia?!

What gives - anyone seen this?

Here is a weird mirror

of my userpage. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Strange, my eyes didn't even see the problem until I read it twice. My eyes are warped now. Checking my version my userpage says "I am a rokllabcer." Quite a funny read in the mode, but is it worth the mention on WP:AN? Maybe someplace else would be more appropriate. — Save_Us † 11:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That is actually kind of funny, guess its the result of a bug when translating the material, I do have to wonder if they have a "arsimintdator's" noticeboards :-) - Caribbean~H.Q. 11:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I know...just begs the question why...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure but its certainly not reading the detailed template that I use on my user page, [13] so it seems that is the more plausible explanation, as to why, the world may never know... but maybe somebody can contact the webmaster about it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 11:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps its an experiment with keeping the first and last letters in place but jumbling the middle of the word (people can still read it). Why they would upload userpages I don't know although perhaps they just got a bot to do it? James086^{Talk | Email} 11:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of the links stay on his site and are current but others will send you back here. Click on the please leave a new message bar. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It's being instantly updated, which probably means that it fetches the current version from Wikipedia and then jumbles the letters. User:Dorftrottel 18:12, January 12, 2008

Proposal to make uploads autoconfirmed

There is a proposal to make "upload" an autoconfirmed right rather than an automatic right, as default on all Wikimedia wikis except at the Commons. So after you sign up, you have to wait 4 days before you can upload. Individual projects could opt-out from this. See m:Metapub#Set upload to autoconfirmed Wikimedia-wide. Please comment over there. Lupo 12:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC) (Also posted at WP:VPP.)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Right March.com radio broadcaster Bill Greene, who edits here as User:Profg, has made a podcast available at http://web.mac.com/profg/iWeb/Site/Podcast/7D1AFD6C-C07F-11DC-B69C-000A959E8368.html calling on supporters to edit pages on intelligent design, evolution, or creationism, and to organise mass attacks. A transcript of part of the broadcast has been posted at WT:ANI#Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed – meant to post it here but got mixed up. Feel free to move it here if that's better. ... dave souza, talk 12:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's move it to the parallel thread at WP:ANI. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recombinant text

I feel this requires admin attention. The article Recombinant text has been nominated for deletion today, following what in my opinion is a canvassing spree[14]. I would like to know whether this is indeed canvassing and how this could or should affect the AfD, if at all. User:Dorftrottel 14:48, January 12, 2008

It doesn't seem to be target toward gaining a particular outcome...--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 16:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. User:Dorftrottel 18:06, January 12, 2008

Disputed the balance in articles Albania , Greece ,Epirus ,Pelasgians, Illyrinas,Macedonians

Could you please, I very much call your attention because all related articles concerning Albania, Greece ,Pelasgians ,Illyrians, Epirus have their balance very much disputed by a group of editors, understandably from where, that mistreat every Albanian editor and express only their view of interest. I would like to ensure you that I am not the only one described with such terms as “weird “ , “confused” “fringe ideas””abominable” while you also tangentially want to influence other administrators by expressing his view for “ skeptical future “ and extensively ban them and their computer including main communication phone service as AlbteleCOM ,so no anyone from Albania itself phone network can not contribute in Albanian related pages. For so long period I am testimonial of Albanian user and Albania offended by some of members of this group and they have become really paranoid with me deleting and my apologias . They communicate with each other and coordinate their movements, of course they are smart and academic persons but they change or modulate facts, post new maps ,delete section and even talk pages. They deleted the section Albanians as Pelasgians although enormous secondary sources and references that mention the argument. I agree to be in control as any other editors but this situation got to change, I am sure that my work will go ashtray you will delete any post of mine. I expressed my apologies to them, on my part, to show good will and to collaborate but no one of them cared to apologias back and trust me they are not angels here, they express a strong bias, old mentality and extreme and unreasonable nationalistic ideas, they all know Arvanitika a form of Albanian and are all ethnically let us say Greek-Albanians. I would propose that the mention articles to be watched by equilibrate independent administrators and the balanced to be strongly guarded.Dodona--Burra (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: this is about the case mentioned in this posting above. I'd be extremely glad if some other admin could look into this and give some advice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If the above post is exemplary of that user's encyclopedic contributions, then they need to "go ashtray" indeed. Why should he not just be indefinitely blocked as an admitted sock of banned user "Dodona", lately editing as PIRRO BURRI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? If the user wishes to appeal the ban, he should do it from his original account. Sandstein (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait a second, this is the appealing of his ban. And he can't do it from his original account because he never had one before he was banned. (Used to edit from IPs only.) Please let's hear it here, or on his current talk page; it doesn't matter which account he's using. But the point about the quality of the contributions is valid of course. I was just glad he was showing some willingness to at least try and come to a constructive arrangement. So, I'd like to give him a second chance in recognition of that, although I'm skeptical myself. But either way, I don't want to be the one to decide this, because if I tell him he can't edit, he'll just accuse me of being part of the Greek cabal again, and resume his daily sockpuppet show (which was a nuisance.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone watching Category:Requests_to_undelete_images?

Is any administrator watching Category:Requests_to_undelete_images? There are only three images there now, but I might be adding more soon if I start working more with fair use images. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to undelete the two images you requested (Image:USB Icon.svg and Image:Firewire Icon.svg) because, as SVG images, I believe they fail WP:FUC #3(b). If you have a low resolution raster image (jpg/png) with a proper fair use rationale, I would not be opposed if you re-uploaded the icons.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, this is my first time noticing request to undelete images. What exactly is the process for admins? I can understand if the request is granted, it's just as easy as undeleted the image and reverting to the previous version. But what would I do if I wanted to deny a request? Re-delete the image page and contact the user who requested? or should I respond on the image page? or something else?-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Being an SVG file does not disqualify an image from being claimed as fair use. It simply must be uploaded at a lower detail than the original, and meet all other fair use requirements. There's a template out there somewhere that SVG files can be tagged with; it explains the restrictions on their use (I can't remember its name). I didn't know about Category:Requests to undelete images, but there's no real process as far as I can tell. If somebody wants an image restored so that they can update its information to comply with policy, simply restore the image. If they don't make it comply with policy, delete it. If you want to deny the request (maybe the image doesn't meet fair use criteria [i.e. an image of a living person]), simply explain on the user's talk page and leave the image deleted. - auburnpilot talk 18:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

For such simple logos, I think SVG:s would be fine. I could try to hunt down the same file again and upload with the same same, but this would save some work. For images from the big mass that were speedily deleted for missing fair use rationale, I think they can be restored without much process. The fair use rationale will be reviewed later anyway. --Apoc2400 (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Do these logos even meet the threshold of originality for copyright? I know they are trademarked, but that's a different thing. *** Crotalus *** 01:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD formatting

Resolved

Hi, could someone more experienced please look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This Is Fake DIY (3rd nomination)? Specifically there seems to be a recent 2nd AfD ending in no-consensus which may have been quite recent but when I click to find it it seems merged with the presently opened 3rd AfD. I didn't want to step in if I was missing something though. Benjiboi 18:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No, they all seem to be there.--Phoenix-wiki 19:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it seems fixed now, thanks! Benjiboi 20:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Dethzone again

Resolved

 – Removed again, note left.

He's doing the userpage thing again. He undid the stuff that was removed, and only slightly renamed it. --Ebyabe (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Multiple issues

I have multiple issues that I need dealt with, so this may be a complex admin.

• Issue 1.
  

On the 3rd of January I requested from the Military History Project coordinator (reposted to the article discussion page by Buckshot06 (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)) that the article named Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive either be renamed (previously requested by - Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)), or moved to the existing English titled article from which it was redirected, Iassy-Kishinev Offensive. The name this event is known by in the works of David Glantz is Yassy-Kishinev, so that was also suggested.

When the discussion went on into a polemic and Google hits counting, I consulted the Wikipedia standard for Cyrillic transliteration, and based on the ISO 9 standard moved the article to the Yassy'-Kishinev Offensive since this confirmed to both Wikipedia Style Guide, closely confirmed to most widely used source (David Glantz), and above all was a productive move towards continuing work on the article without continuing polemic which has continued due to a bias POV based on, I think, national feelings of Rumanian editors for over six months. It was my reasoning that editors who were intransigent on the issue of the article name for six months were unlikely to be productive on the content of the article either.

Unable to shift the decision-making process one way or another, I then created a new article called Yassy-Kishinev Offensive Operation, and tagged the Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive for deletion. In part this is due to the one sided content of the article, and the very much incomplete description of the historical event, and persistent POV, or lack of NPOV in the editorialship. The newly created Yassy-Kishinev Offensive Operation article was immediately tagged for speedy deletion as a forked article, where as in fact it is not a forked article, but merely one with an English name that conforms to both the best known source and to accepted Wikipedia ISO 9 standard, and above all seeks to actually productively complete the article.

Reguest for Issue 1.
I request that the original Rumanian-titled article Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive be speedily deleted along with the redirect from the Iassy-Kishinev Operation since it does not conform to Wikipedia standards, and actually prevents active completion of the article. I also request that the new article Yassy-Kishinev Offensive Operation be protected from malicious editorialship that seeks to impose a POV of a particular national perspective without appropriate references. I also note that the contemporary name for Romania for the purpose of the Second World War history appears to be Rumania as used by the US Army War College by its former educator, and the most prominent source on the operation, the above mentioned David Glantz. I can not very well change the source quotes I intend to insert into the article because they do not conform with the current official Romanian spelling!

Issue 2.
In attempting to understand the rationale for renaming the article above into Rumanian, I visited the Romania article. What I found there was that inconvenient truths about the origin of the name Rumania (as I see them within the time period of the above article), were removed from the Etymology section, and shunted off into a separate, equally fact-bereft article that uses predominantly Rumanian or Italian (sympathetic POV) references that have not been translated into English, or in some cases even dated. The primary source for assertions are from a source unknown in English and originates from Rumanian sources. When I tried to point this out in the Romanian discussion, and then to offer suggestions, discuss and show sources, I was abused, rediculed, and my comments were interspersed with nonsense comments by another registered user Nergaal. I was further issued a warning by a suspected sock puppet:

"To user mrg3105mrg3105: your interventions are but semieducated spinning. It is of no interest, if you are doing so out of ignorance or you are deliberately trolling. Your behaviour is disruptive. If you continue, you'll be blocked.--84.153.17.16 (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)"

I note that not one of my statemes has been repudiated or alternatives offered in the discussion page.

Reguest for Issue 2.
I would also request that this be taken as unwarranted abuse from the user, and the user be advised to desist from spamming my contributions and my user page with comments that include "hey commie, you should stop using the archaic term rumunian (i.e. that term was in use in soviet russia/ussr) and use the one that is currently in official use (i.e. Romanian). Nergaal (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)" since I am free to use the name for Rumania outside to the published articles, and where the use is a direct quote from a source, since the term was a historical term used during the period under discussion (source provided in the discussion page).--mrg3105mrg3105 22:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin response, re. content forking and enforced deletions: no way. If you can't get consensus for a move, the article will stay where it is, and forks mustn't be done. Sorry, that's just how we do things here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I've redirected the POV fork Yassy-Kishinev Offensive Operation to the original article Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive. If you try to undo that redirection I'll protect it. This is for as long as there is no consensus to move the Iaşi- article somewhere else; no prejudice from my side, I don't care either way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not forking. The issue is that the editors of Iaşi- article refuse to comply with the need to have English titled articles. Did you read the above? Is this Rumanian Wiki or an English one?--mrg3105mrg3105 22:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I don't care which which title would be better. The only point here is that the article history must be kept together in one place. If you want it moved, the only way to do so is to achieve consensus and then move it, not fork it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The consensus is not possible due to lack of NPOV, so what are you going to do about that?--mrg3105mrg3105 01:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. John Gohde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Question from a new editor

Since I discovered Wikipedia, I really love it and believe it's one of the most (if not THE most) important resources on the Web.

I'm not the sort of person who usually gets involved in this sort of thing but prefer to remain a passive bystander and silently give thanks to the many people who make these wonderful resources happen.

However, today I was reading some articles about different episodes of Open All Hours, a British comedy series starring Ronnie Barker, which is one of my favourite shows.

As I native speaker, I noticed that the grammar, vocab & sentence structure of the articles was not so good, and I later discovered that these articles had been written by user fernandogoaz who I think is from Spain. Although I applaud him for making such a valiant effort in setting up these pages in the first place as he obviously also loves this show, it seems to me that there are no procedures in place for making sure that articles written by non-natives are edited and improved quickly after being created. Personally, I wouldn't dream of entering Spanish Wikipedia and writing an article in my faltering Spanish about something.

I am an EFL/ESL teacher in a foreign country, and it is important to me that the articles on the English Wiki are of good quality language wise. For example, after a lesson where my students and I watch a comedy DVD and then discuss it for half an hour, I ask them to pretend they are Wikipedia editors and write a Wiki article about what they've just seen. We then go into the computer room and they compare what they wrote with the real article, and if there's time, we discuss those similarities and differences as a group.

I intended to use Open All Hours sometime soon, and that's why I was looking up the articles, and why I was dismayed to see the poor quality of them - but in no way do I criticise user fernandogoaz for this. It just seems a bit strange that the articles have been up for about six months but nothing substantially has been done to improve them.

In my line of work I often get asked to do proof reading and I'm finding that an increasing part of my workload is editing, correcting and improving, so I like to think I have a bit of a gift for it.

So, against my better judgement, I registered and signed in for the first time this afternoon and spent a few hours editing 4 or 5 articles. When I came back to them a little bit later, I found that they had all been deleted for "notability" reasons by user TTN.

This is my real gripe and reason for writing to the administrators. What gives user TTN the right to delete articles?? How does he/she know that these articles are of no use to other people in the world? Surely the whole point of Wiki is to increase and build on the amount of articles.

I really must protest about user TTN's actions which seem to have been done with no discussion with anyone else. Also, when I investigated further, it seems that this person has been doing other similar things all over Wiki.

How can I restore the undeleted pages?

Thank you.

Roses2at (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really an admin issue, advised at talk page --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussed elsewhere at AN/I in fact. All the articles in question failed WP:FICT. Redirection was clearly in order. I have reverted Roses2at's undos. Eusebeus (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• It certainly would have helped to have some references so uninvolved editors could reach an informed overview. There is too much groping around in the dark going on here, and although it may be OK when you're a teenager, there does come a time when reliable information, or any information at all, helps. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Roses2at, as you are familiar with the topic and (very funny) show, individual episodes may be recreated if 3rd party sources note them as significant. Given the standard and high esteem much of Ronnie Barker's work is held, this may not actually be too hard. I urge you if you do have 3rd party refs (books etc. which highlight individual episodes, then these can be recreated from the article history then. I myself have been trying to add reference material from what I have at home - the shame is there is a huge amount out there which unfortunately cannot be accessed readily by sitting in front of a keyboard (and its 35C and stinking humid here which is a powerful disincentive for me to try) - thus to maintain a collaborative and constructive approach, finding material is great. If you need a hand at the time for deleted material, there are a number of admins who have offered to retrieve deleted material. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You just beat me to this. Most of TTN's redirects involve episode articles which haven't a chance of ever being notable enough for their own articles, but these (while they're weren't at the moment) might just have. There *must* be enough Barker related material to source some of these, in print if not online. BLACKKITE 02:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)