Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:49, 20 June 2009

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

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

Proposed standstill agreement on Bilateral Relations articles

The standstill Stifle and DGG suggest below has large community support, and is enacted in order to give participants in these discussions some time to cool off. It is in effect until 00:00 July 1, 2009 (UTC). Users should be warned apropriately before being sanctioned, as necessary. Collapsed to take up less space on the page. lifebaka++ 09:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There has been a huge amount of heat lately, and very little light, about articles named in the form "Foo-Bar relations" (hereinafter "FBR articles"), Foo and Bar being countries or adjectives derived from country names. This has led to divisive disputes at AFDs, DRVs, and across an assortment of talk pages. A discussion was formed at Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force, but this has had limited success to date.

In summary, the same sets of people tend to show up at all the discussions, and some of them tend to !vote the same way on all discussions. This has the effect that the decision on any given FBR article, once nominated for AFD, depends on how many of each side show up to the discussion. If additional references are found in time, the discussion focuses on whether they are substantial, but because of the many ongoing discussions, views have hardened to the point that very little either side does convinces the other.

DGG and I want to jointly suggest that it would be a good idea to freeze all AfDs and related actions on these articles, and defer creating new ones. This is not meant to inhibit adding information to articles, working on deleted articles in userspace, discussing existing articles on their talk page, and discussing policy at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force. This would be enforceable as a community sanction.

This standstill, if agreed by consensus here, will apply up to and including the end of the month (UTC). During the standstill:

New AFDs and DRVs created on FBR articles are eligible for speedy closure with no action
New FBR articles created after the standstill is commenced are eligible for speedy deletion
Persons disruptively violating #1 or #2 are liable to be blocked for a short period
Existing AFDs and DRVs will be allowed to run off
Nothing in this inhibits improving existing articles or working on deleted articles or new articles in userspace

The principal objection to #1 above in the past has been that it would give free reign for non-notable content to remain in the encyclopedia. This may very well be true. However, the damage that the AFDs, DRVs, and other discussions are doing outweighs any potential damage caused by leaving potentially non-notable articles to exist for a month or two. Having seen the result of several such polarized topics in the past (Macedonia, Sathya Sai Baba, Ireland, route names, etc.), I am very keen to avoid this matter going down the same path.

Should it appear necessary to extend the standstill, this can be considered here shortly before the expiry.

Please consider not immediately going into support and oppose mode, in favour of a discussion as to the merits of this standstill. Stifle (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what exactly is the point of this standstill, what happens at the end of the month? Loosmark (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully people will discuss the issues and come to some sort of consensus on the notability of FBR articles and/or an alternative structure for them. I am going to be away for the next two or three hours but in the meantime I'm sure there'll be plenty more discussion. Stifle (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is essentially a dispute over notability and sourcing guidelines, writ large. The best place to determine which of these should be retained is AFD. It is a mistake that wikipedia allow the creation of unsourced stubs of, in most cases, not even claimed notability, but that is the system at the moment. To both allow for the creation of unsourced stubs that quite frequently are not suitable for inclusion and not allow for an afd process on them (a process, i might add that skews in favor of retention since there are 3 possible outcomes, 2 of which yield the articles continued inclusion) is a rather radical departure from proven systems here, and for no clear need. To call something "disruptive" does not make it so. That people have strong feelings, one way or another, on this issue is not a good reason to shut down a process (and in service of nothing since all efforts to get consensus on this matter have failed). That there is a group of people who are more interested in this topic than average also does not seem a problem -- that's always the way wikipedia works. People work in the areas that interest them. There really is no problem here, and i don't see what the "damage" is. The various systems here should be robust enough to deal with issues of both individual editor conduct as well as determining what is, or is not, considered notable by the community. Bali ultimate (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support this proposed standstill. To get a sense of how intense these disputes are getting, please note Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/The League of Extraordinary Deletionists and to see the problems with how some are "voting" in these discussions, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Bilateral_relations#Article_copy_and_pasting. And we also had this recent incident. AfDs are being flooded by these nominations, renominations, and subsequent DRVs that are needlessly overwhelming our ability to focus on improving those that can be improved by forcing us to have to go back and forth in one AfD only to have them faced almost immediate renomination or DRVs. Why we would rather be a collection of AfDs and DRVs rather than articles that are relevant to someone always baffles me. Moreover, in these discussions, in loosely related MfDs and on user and article talk pages, the animosity among those saying to keep versus those saying to delete is escalating with little sign of decreasing. If Wikipedia does not have a deadline then there is no urgent need to rid us of all of these now, just as there is no urgent need to have to hurry up and create as many new articles as possible. Thus, I for one will not create any new bilateral relations articles during this proposed standstill, nor will I nominate any for deletion. If we do not take a time out from these disputes across multiple threads, I do not see how the participants will come to any understanding and how we will avoid an RfC and eventual ArbCom on bilateral relations. We should be here to build an encyclopedia. Let us stop the arguing and get back to improving our existing content in a mature and collegial manner. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - allowing the situation to cool down is certainly a worthwhile idea. PhilKnight (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose immediate deletion of all unsourced stubs on this topic (no information is "lost" when it amounts to "x y relations are relations between x and y. Y has an embassy in z.") with no prejudice to recreation by any editor in good standing who sources and writes a proper start class article. In exchange, a one moratorium on the sourced x-y stubs can be declared, so that those who think these articles have merit can seek to improve them. I have no idea why any of this would ever end up at Arbcom or anywhere else. Again, when we have a system that allow sockpuppetss to serially and abusively create stubs, derailing the process by which the mess the sockpuppet created can be evaluated and dealt with (and an open, transparent process at that) is very much against the encyclopedia's best interests.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see why we would want to force editors to start over when they already have a framework or foundation from which to expand. We should try to expand first per WP:BEFORE and then remove what we cannot. And yes, even if that takes years, that is no big deal as we hope to be around for years anyway. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily oppose it but I think that this standstill would only "move" the problem 1 month forward and then we would have exactly the same situation with the same "players" with the same attitude. Actually Bali ultimate hit the nail with his comment that the system should be robust enough to deal with these situations. At the moment it doesn't seems so maybe some modifications would be in order. Loosmark (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would support this 100% if all the articles created by the banned user who cranked these out are removed from the main space first. Most of the discussions are between those of us who believe the subject of an article has to meet notability requirements and editors who think a collection of verifiable factoids constitutes an acceptable article. There are other complications but that's the primary issue. I don't think a moratorium on creating articles on a certain topic is appropriate nor do I believe it is appropriate to stop deletion of inappropriate articles, especially since no one has worked towards a solution on the real issue. I have a lot of respect for you, Stifle, but I can predict who will line up to support this or not. Drawn Some (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of the above commenters are missing the point of this standstill. This standstill has nothing to do with the suitablity of these articles for Wikipedia. The point is the escalating acrimony among the editors who are involved in this issue. The standstill would allow everyone to take a month and discuss the larger issue, gathering as much of a consensus as possible. Once a rough guideline has been formed on how to determine notability on these, then things can go back into motion, with individual AFDs determining how these articles meet the new guideline. While I hate instruction creep as much as anyone, new guidelines are written for exactly this reason: to provide a consensus document that people can refer back to in future discussions, whether they be WP:XFDs, move requests, or anything else. I think a standstill would be a good idea, so that the same identical issues aren't argued over and over in little discussions, but instead are addressed in a larger discussion where all interested parties can have input. That's my two cents, anyway. I like the idea of a standstill. I just hope a month is enough time to calm the raging waters. :)--Aervanath (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am generally no fan of the "sit still and wait" method of dealing with problems, but this is a special case. Given the vast number of articles, discussions, disputes and arguments covering the issue it is nearly impossible to centralize our efforts; there is little use in trying to tackle this issue piecemeal. Therefore I support the proposal of a cooldown period, so long as efforts to tackle this issue in a more centralized fashion are not stifled by the lockdown. Shereth 20:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's wider than just one user creating these. Too much effort has been expended on AfDs and all (as noted, often along party lines, and whichever side shows up in more numbers wins). It would be useful to let these all rest for a month or two. If they develop to include what editors (not all) consider notable content, then they live on. If they remain a stub, then they get AfD'ed for quick delete. All too often something is created and editors rush in to nominate for deletion, sometimes because they believe it deserves to be deleted, sometimes because they want to harass the editors they know don't think it deserves to be deleted. Support see comments further below PetersV TALK 20:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's the problem in a nutshell, it's not enough for an article to have verifiable content, even notable content, the subject of the article itself has to be notable. That's the problem and a moratorium won't solve it. Drawn Some (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you're hearing everything I said. The month is useful for an opportunity for notable content to be created—if there are notable items in a relationship then those should bubble up to the article/topic being notable. If content of a notable nature is not created, then after a month the AfDs come out again. The problem right now is that articles are being nominated because editors maintain the topic of a particular A-B relationship in and of itself is not notable. That is a personal, not editorial opinion. Only after content is created can a judgement of notability be made. There the moratorium will be a tremendous help. see comments below PetersV TALK 20:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I understand exactly what your saying and it reinforces my point. Every day at AfD something like 100 articles are evaluated not on the basis of the content but on the basis of whether or not the subject of the article meets the notability guidelines in some way, most often through significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Frequently they are stubs and rarely are they big articles. The content is almost irrelevant. You can add 500 verifiable facts to an article and the subject still isn't notable. All of the bilateral relations articles are either notable or not, right now, today, regardless of content. AfD discussion determines which is the case. Waiting a month won't make any of them notable that aren't already. Drawn Some (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the standstill is a good idea, but suggest that instead of speedy deleting any new entries, they be speedily userfied / projectified instead, so as to preserve the work of any editors who are unaware of the standstill. Part of the problem here is that there has not been enough consideration by the community before now about whether we should restrict ourselves to particularly noteworthy bilateral relations topics, or whether all such subjects are potentially worthy. The standstill would give a time for that discussion to take place, centralized, and publicized so that it draws in more than just the two active factions. Mango juice^talk 20:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) Vecrumba, I'm not sure you've really looked into this matter. Take a look at the article creation log for the indef-blocked sockpuppet Groubani (talk · contribs) here [1]. Also look at the total failure of Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations which started sometime in the middle of April. Most of the articles have been around for a long time and there has been no "bubbling." In many cases where there has been bubbling, some of us feel that they are "puff-bubbles." (i.e. i once saw a reference that noted a passing similarity between costa rica and swiss banking laws that made "costa rica look like the switzerland of latin america" used in an effort to establish they had a notable bilateral relationship). There is no need for separate notability criteria for this class of article. The only reason this class has become "special" is because we tolerated serial, unsourced stub creation (it's amazing to me that we allow the creation of unsourced articles -- even BLPS -- every day by irresponsible editors) by a user making some kind of weird point. At any rate, an effort to create a special set of guidelines for these articles failed rather spectacularly, as any effort at the moment (not much time has passed since that resounding failure) will likewise fail. The answer is for users interested in the topic, to evaulate these articles on a case by case basis, with the outcome in some cases being deletin and others retention, just like every other article on wikipedia. I'm sorry people are upset that, well, that editors here might hold strong and opposing viewpoints. But wishing that away, or dismissing the real questions at play here about content guidelines as "disruptive" is not healthy for wikipedia.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My response was based on my personal experiences in my neck of the "A-B relations". I did look through Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations since and I have to agree that as a whole it has been a spectacular failure. In all honesty, I did the math myself some time ago on the minimum number of articles (all combinations of U.N. members taken 2 at a time). I do have to observe that a more manageable solution might be—as has been suggested—"Foreign relations of A". Any significant relationship can be denoted with a "A-xyz relations" category being defined and noted for the article. That way one can answer "does Chile have any interesting relationship with Estonia?" without a Chile-Estonia relations article. "A-B relations" would revert to being reserved for those relationships which have merited significant scholarly study. PetersV TALK 21:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i agree that "a-b relations" articles should be "reserved for those relationships which have merited significant scholarly study." But you will never get consensus for this proposal at the moment. A number of people will even call you mean names for requiring that the topic of an article in and of itself be the subject of in depth coverage.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also think a standstill is a great idea, since I believe (as do, I think, DGG, A Nobody, and others) that it is easier, more inviting, for editors to fill in the blanks, so to speak, than to start from scratch. That's how it works for me. The flood of AfDs prompted a bunch of people to get to work on the stubs with some decent results, but that initial enthusiasm to save them seems to have waned a little--certainly in my case. That these things were created en masse is unfortunate, of course, but these many, many nominations only antagonize editors. Let's leave them be. They're here, many of them are not great articles, many might be deleted later on. But let's leave it for now. Drmies (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some editors feel atagonized by the existence of non-notable "topics" unsupported by any reliable sources. Some other editors feel that any combination of x-y is, ipso facto, notable. Why should the AFD process be suspended to spare the annoyance of some, while adding to the annoyance of others? Is there some better community way for sorting out what should be included than afd? No one has proposed anything remotely workable in the months that this has been going on.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Cutting in here--Bali, you and I have butted heads on a couple of those, and have agreed on a few others. I personally take offense at unsupported articles, and I don't believe that every combination is notable. But it's a given that we have these stubs, and that apparently AfD is the only way to get rid of them (by deletion or by improvement--and I know that AfD is not for article improvement, but we all know that's how it often goes anyway). An AfD discussion should take some time, and I have not voted on a lot of them simply because I didn't have time to look into them. You may have noted that I did not copy and paste my answers, and have voted delete on quite a few of them. Oddly enough, I do agree with you that there probably is no better way than AfD--but if our interest is improving the encyclopedia, and if we agree that (at least some of) articles that were kept are now indeed worth keeping, and that improvement has come about precisely because stubborn editors (I won't name names, but I have been stubborn on occasion) have fought tooth and nail and have found and added sources and significantly rewritten articles *deep breath* well, if all that is true, then a slow trickle of those articles at AfD rather than a flood can only improve the project as a whole. Some will get deleted, some will be (improved and) kept. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think if anyone had stopped to do the math before thinking "A-B relations" were a good article to have, we wouldn't be in this mess. When articles are generated based on mathematical combinations and not topics explored in secondary source materials, nothing good is bound to come of it.
      In all of this I "voted" for Chile-Estonia as significant for my editorial reasons; that, based on "as long as we're going to have A-B relations articles, then there are items here of significance that merit being in such an article." If, on the other hand, that were a category (at best) and the normal thing to do was to document Chile-related items in a "Foreign relations of Estonia" article, that would have been just as fine.
       The mere existence of this type of article is what has led to the intractability of the morass.
       This issue can only be solved by appropriately combining the articles into the appropriate "Foreign relations of..." articles and then delete all A-B relations articles except, as mentioned, those involving areas of significant scholarly study. PetersV       TALK 21:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Drmies, you illuminate another problem: Wikipedia is created by volunteers and articles are created and improved because people want to do it, not because one user matches every object in a set to every other object in the set. 95% of the non-notable ones wouldn't have been created in the first place because they aren't notable and no one would have wanted to create them. The normal flow of article creation was interrupted by this one user in a cataclysmic event. Now we have all the articles to deal with. Why not move them out of the main space into user space and then let people work on them when and if they choose to do so? I don't have a problem with that at all. But some people don't want to let even one of these articles be deleted. Let's remember that they shouldn't exist in the first place and restore the status quo ante bellum by moving them out of the user space. Also, let's not forget that articles can be undeleted. Drawn Some (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know, Drawn Some. But I'll say what I said before: a bad article is for many editors a reason to work on it. I would NEVER consider making something up out of whole cloth on, say, relations between Mexico and Belgium. (Never mind that I'm Dutch and am not supposed to care for the Belgians.) Yet AfD alerted me to the article, and it's really kind of interesting (the Belgians bringing beer to Mexico?), and I found a book (De Belgen en Mexico), and then Richard Arthur Norton, like a terrier, bit into the article and is not letting go... As I mentioned above, AfD is fine with me--I think it's fair, usually anyway, and for better or worse it's a forum of sorts. Yes, again, they probably shouldn't have existed in the first place, and maybe the majority of them might end up getting deleted, but they do exist, and my interest here is to make something good come out of it. Thanks, and I'll see you at the next one, I guess! ;)Drmies (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Full steam ahead on all fronts!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time stands still for no one, not even a nobody. I don't think a work stoppage is enforceable. We're not a union. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What happened that made ChildofMidnight come out and speak up on a real topic? Ran out of bacon topics, did you? Drmies (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the same time, I do not see why we should allow a handful of accounts to act as self-appointed policemen with regards to a certain type of article. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My opposition to a break in the dispute is not adamant, only ardent. Consensus seems to be generally in favor of an informal peace. This will provide time to get started on the much needed multilateral relations articles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

If anyone has read this far, then it will be obvious just what kind of deadlock this dispute is in: both sides are talking at or past each other, & not at all listening to one another. This is why, after a month, I walked away from this mess. I tried to propose that some articles in this genre were notable, yet had my efforts rebuffed. I would rather spend my time working on content than arguing endlessly in AfD. Maybe if we subject all of this to a 12-month moratorium, the less reasonable people in this dispute will get themselves banned from Wikipedia for their habitual misbehavior & the rest of us then can come to a consensus on this issue. -- llywrch (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cuncur with Llywrch that a 12 month stop would be better. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, "A-B relations" is unworkable because it is simply an unusable framework. To read about the "Foreign relations of X" one has to sift through a 100+ collection of stubs and articles? Think about it. I struck my earlier comments supporting the moratorium (which were based on my earlier more parochial experiences). We need an elimination, not a moratorium. PetersV TALK 22:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one has suggested that they all need to be deleted or that none of them are notable. There are hundreds or maybe even thousands of them that are notable but that leaves thousands of A-B intersections that aren't. No one has said Colombia-Venezuela or Israel-Egypt or US-Mexico relations should be deleted. In investigating certain stubs I have been surprised at what I have learned. Drawn Some (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually a few accounts have said to delete Indonesia–Papua New Guinea relations when the countries in question actually border each other, have been the subject or reliable, independent sources due to their border conflict issues. It is from such discussions as this example that some indeed are indiscriminately saying to delete pretty much all of them rather than working to improve them. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia–Papua New Guinea relations is not a good example, it was originally created in good faith as Indonesia and Papua New Guinea and referring to the combined land mass [2]. Many in the AfD said this was a misdirected create and that they would not support Indonesia and PNG but rather Indonesia–Papua New Guinea relations including me and I have since changed my vote to keep. LibStar (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How much better would it have been instead of saying to delete initially to have just proactively moved it as I did and started the article that everyone seems to think is now an acceptable start instead? I never get why anyone would say someone should do something instead of just doing it his or herself when he or she is indeed capable and able to do so. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

of course that is possible, but if the AfD was originally listed as Indonesia–Papua New Guinea relations it would have got a lot more keep even if it was a stub. In fact, that's the first X and Y article I've seen nominated, and it's not in the same class as X-Y relations. so let's forget this example. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we are urged to be WP:BOLD and what I did to improve this content I am confident my colleagues in the discussion are also capable of doing as well. Please remember that deletion is supposed to be a last resort per WP:BEFORE and as such, editors should try renames, merges, etc. first and then when all else fails take it to AfD. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - That's why we have a discussion at AfD, to share ideas and come to the right decision. Also, just because two countries share a border does not mean that their bilateral relations are notable. The relations probably are notable but we use Wikipedia guidelines on notability to make a determination. Once again your entire way of thinking about these things differs from the consensus of the editors of the encyclopedia. Drawn Some (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fortunately, my way of thinking about these things is consistent with the majority of our editors and readers, which is why we have no need to kowtow to a minority viewpoint that is inconsistent with established consensus, which overwhelmingly suggests these notable articles are worth including here. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Knock off the cheap shots at other editors. Your reply above is strong evidence of Llywrch's comment that too many editors are stuck on the rightness of their position. Also, cowtow, not cowtail. ThuranX (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree that Drawn Some should not make cheap shots at other editors. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Har-har. I was talking to you. Stop baiting him. ThuranX (talk) 02:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        An editor should not bait another by saying that "your entire way of thinking about these things differs from the consensus of the editors of the encyclopedia," which any reasonable editor would respond to in at least the manner that I did, although many might respond much more harshly. I can only take seriously any comments that first takes issue with that initial post. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        For a guy who spends an awful lot of time monitoring others, you sure seem unable to be the bigger man when you are involved in something yourself. Be the bigger man, and move on. Besides, DS is bringing up issues as he goes, and it doesn't look like you're in a vast majority. learn to move on, or stop commenting so often on the behavior of others. Hypocrisy's a poor color for anyone to wear. ThuranX (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, his post probably should not have been dignified by a reply in the first place and it is exactly hypocrisy that concerns me, i.e. saying something to me while ignoring the initial less than civil comment I replied to in the first place. Regards, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        It's really "kowtow". Drawn Some (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, I agree with you on that one per Kowtow. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support All of these articles have possible value. Until we've established how useful we think that is, there's no reason to get rid of them one by one. Shii (tock) 22:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That really doesn't make much sense. Some of the articles have value and some do not. How do you propose we sort out which is which if not "one by one?" I have seen no one with a proposal for a new method yet that would have any chance of adoption. Does anyone have one? Bali ultimate (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the whole point of the standstill: to remove everyone from the immediate "must rescue/must delete this article RIGHT NOW" attitude and give everyone some breathing room to calmly work on a consensus guideline for this.--Aervanath (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious solution is not a standstill or moratorium but removing the articles from the main space. That eliminates all time pressure. People who want to work on them may do so as they are interested and at their leisure. If a non-notable article is introduced into the main space it can be brought to AfD as all articles are. The problem is we have hundreds of non-notable articles in the main space that were dumped there by a rogue editor now banned. Undo that damage that he caused. No one is hurt, everyone is happy. Drawn Some (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About two months was spent on developing this white whale of a special conesensus guideline. And that conversation was an epic fail. Why would it be any different in anothe month? Special notability guidelines (which will never get consensus) aren't what's needed. What's needed is case by case evaluation, which is ongoing. Some hopeless articles have been deleted, some have been demonstrated to be notable (i.e. PNG-Indo, which will rightfully sail through afd with hardly any opposition) and some have muddled through as no consensus and will need to looked at again in six months or a year. This is all a good thing. Ostriching over the issue (and the meta issue of unsourced content more generally, and the way we're allowing original research to proliferate) will not help matters. Awright, i've said my piece enough on this thread.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the United States have a full set of bilateral stubs based on the US State Department website, and the same rational is used to delete other smaller countries stubs? Wikipedia "contains elements of an almanac" according to Pillar I. What good is an almanac if it only contains information on the United States? We are supposed to be eliminating regional bias, not increasing it. An almanac just has to be verifiable, we accept all townships as notable on the same concept and use a dump of census data from the United States Census Bureau as the sole source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually support deleting many of those US-very small country stubs as most of them can be merged into Foreign relations of Smaller country X. LibStar (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with LibStar, every article on a topic not notable by Wikipedia guidelines should be eliminated from the encyclopedia. Wikipedia incorporates elements of almanacs but see WP:NOT#ALMANAC. Drawn Some (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#ALMANAC points to raw statistics. You do know what a statistic is right? It is some numerical value. I don't see this at all in any of the articles under discussion. This is another red herring. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That shortcut should be speedily deleted as it is inconsistent with our First pillar. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to the above comment, I would like administrators to note that A Nobody has already proceeded to change wikipedia policies in order to suit his own interpretations, by simply deleting the ~~section~~ reference to WP:NOT#ALMANAC Drawn Some cited above: here and again here. Is it clear by now that some users are pushing a marginal interpretation instead of consensus by any means necessary? Dahn (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who added that minority and consensus lacking viewpoint to Not in the first place as it clearly contradicts our much older and consensus backed Wikipedia:Five pillars. In any event, we cannot have contradictory policies and guidelines. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, everybody is wrong but you. I know the drill. Dahn (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Five pillars has said we are an almanac since it was created on 4 May 2005. Now looking at WP:NOT from the same time, I am not seeing anything about not being an almanac. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. No guideline has ever said "we are an almanac". 2. The claim about time precedence is ignoratio elenchi and special pleading, misconstruing the mechanisms driving wikipedia. I shall ignore it as such. 3. The entire text accompanying that caption, which is the result of consensus, still evidently contradicts your claim about the "almanac" importance of factoids. 4. Not seeking every possible input at the exact same moment is not the same as lacking consensus, but time can verify that consensus. As it has. 5. My part in this discussion ends here, because I sense it won't be long before A Nobody will start over again with the same arguments (as has happened in the past), and following that trail will leads nowhere. I posted this here for other users, preferably admins, to assess what's going on. If anyone needs further comments from me, let them contact me on my talk page. Dahn (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus backed discussion has ever said we are not an almanac? Also, the disputed addition only appeared on 5 May 2009, i.e. a mere month ago. Earlier discussions, such as Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_9#Not_an_Almanac.3F and Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_1#Is_Wikipedia_an_almanac.3F and Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_25#Wikipedia:_Almanac_or_not.3F hardly reveal any consensus supporting a notion that we are not an almanac. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Nobody, the First Pillar of Wikipedia itself contradicts you. It says Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of... almanacs.... Elements of is important. If you're going to refer to text make sure it actually supports what your are saying, people are familiar with things and some even check on sources. Drawn Some (talk) 01:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It also says we incorportae "elements" of encyclopedias, so by your logic, we would "not" be an encyclopedia either. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#ALMANAC was a redirect using the wrong synonym to point to Wikipedia is not raw statistics. No almanac I know of is comprised of raw statistics, all info is in tables and comes with explanatory information. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose: 12 months? That is absurd on its face. A year of leaving non-notable articles in place? No thank you. A shorter date might be agreeable, but 12 months? Come on. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another arbitrary break

Support my own proposal. Stifle approached me about this early yesterday on my talk page, and I was delighted to agree; I suggested some modifications in wording, not in principle, which he accepted. He and I tend to disagree about standards of notability and quite a number of other things, but from any reasonable point of view the situation was becoming intolerable. I can accept if necessary an encyclopedia with most of these deleted; I hope Stifle can accept one with most of them kept; what neither of us can accept is an encyclopedia with a random selection of them. Nor do we want to devote the bulk of our energies on WP to arguing about this particular group of articles. At present the settlement of these depends mostly on how much pressure the various sides exert, on on the very varied personal view of whoever chooses to close, and neither of these is sensible. The only people who would oppose finding some means of accommodation here are those who would rather get their own way on some articles, however few, than accept a consistent compromise, and that does not help build a good encyclopedia. In practice the arguments at present depend on whether particular sources found are important enough, but the views expressed on that depend not on the facts of the actual case, but the general idea of keeping or deleting the articles. As I see it, whether the sources are significant depends upon the intended scope of these articles--whether to accept relations in the broad sense or interpret it as formal diplomatic relations only, and if we approach it this way, we may yet agree. We must have a rational procedure for resolving stalemates other than mutual exhaustion. That is what we have used in the past, and I hope nobody will support continuing that way, because it decision essentially by trial by ordeal, more specifically ordeal of the cross. I'd rather lose arguments than have them decided that way. Civilized people rejected that method of decision in more important matters many centuries ago. It's time we followed suite. DGG (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you're saying is not untrue but it misses the essence of the situation, that a bunch of articles were created without consensus and contrary to our normal flow of article creation and they were dumped into the article space and many of them are on non-notable topics and shouldn't be in main space. It would be better to remove them all from the main space to eliminate the time pressure and work on them at our leisure and on the ones we are interested in as we normally do. All of our processes and guidelines support that normal process and the problem is not with the process but with the dumptruck full of ill-conceived articles dumped into it. Remove that mess. Drawn Some (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to view this proposal favorably. The AfD process is perfectly suited to deal with articles on an ad hoc basis. This is fine for the normal random mix, but it can break down under the weight of sheer numbers. There is no good reason to burden that system with constantly re-deciding what is essentially one issue. As the proposers of this respite point out, the outcome of the AfD discussions currently is not a function of which articles truly are notable, but instead a function of who shows up to argue on a particular case. The repetitive nature of these discussions has the effect of self-selecting for the editors who feel most strongly about the subject, to the exclusion of those who have not become so firmly entrenched. I think it is worth a break to try to engage some of this latter class of editors into the process, and hope for a new perspective. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A comment from a completely non-involved editor: I haven't commented on a single A-B relations AfD, nor do I have any real opinion on whether these articles are generally good or generally bad. I have read some, but by no means all, of the discussion on this topic and would like to offer a neutral observation.

First of all, some sort of calming of the situation is needed. There is no way anyone can cognitively evaluate dozens of relations a day (as has often sent to AfD). Not surprisingly, given the volume of AfDs, people on both sides will fall back on standard arguments and not truly evaluate the case at hand. Further, both sides are so entrenched in their view that any attempts to provide evidence in a particular case will mostly just be dismissed by the other side. The community is definitely not served by rehashing the same basic argument hundreds of times. At the current pace, good editors are bound to burn out and leave the project entirely.

Second, this thread is strong evidence of how deeply the conflict runs. People on the "delete most" will largely argue that a moratorium is bad unless the "junk stubs" are deleted first. People on the "keep most" side will argue against any attempts to move "junk stubs" outside of article space. As someone who doesn't really care if these stay or go in the end, I would say there is very little harm leaving things the way they are until people have had a chance to cool down. Wikipedia's default policy normally is to keep things the way they are when there is a dispute.

Third, a break from the daily AfDs might not resolve the problem, but it couldn't hurt. When a page is being edit warred over, we protect the page to force discussion. While not an identical situation, of course, I feel it would be a good idea to force discussion into one location, rather than hundreds of AfDs, for now. Without the pressure of "saving" or "removing" A-B "right now", there is at least some chance that the situation will calm itself and the sides can start working towards a reasonable compromise.

Now, some will say the stubs harm Wikipedia, or stopping the normal process harm Wikipedia. They may be right, but I feel far greater harm will come if the situation is continues on its current path. Wikipedia has no deadline and waiting a little bit to give the situation a chance to calm itself down is highly advisable, In my opinion. Thus I support the proposal as written. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2009 (aUTC)

You're greatly overestimating the number of bilateral relations AfDs daily.

6/10 - 2

6/9 - 4, one of which was shut down procedurally even though the relations are non-notable [3]

6/8 - 3

6/7 - 2

6/6 - 1

6/5 - 3

6/4 - 2

etc.

So the problem is not fatigue caused by evaluating "dozens" daily.

Neither is the conflict over bilateral relations articles, it's over whether or not Wikipedia guidelines for notability should be followed or whether anything verifiable should be in the encyclopedia.

If the default is to keep things the way they are, it should be the state prior to the dumping of hundreds or thousands of articles on non-notable subjects into the main space by a now-banned editor. When vandalism is committed the default isn't the state of vandalization, it's the state prior to the act. Same principle should apply here. Move the articles out of main space if you want to stop action on them but don't interrupt Wikipedia's processes in an attempt to "fix" an interruption of Wikipedia's processes, that's only compounding the damage. Drawn Some (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support with the proviso that someone get to work on developing Wikipedia:Notability (bilateral relations) during the month-long freeze. I am normally adamant against the creation of new notability sub-guidelines, but even I have my breaking point. We need community driven guidance, and while WP:N should be enough, it clearly is not else we would not be here right now. What the community needs is a clear set of guidelines as to which sets of articles are likely notable and which are likely not, or else this will all just start up again when the editing freeze ends in a month. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This appears to be an attempt to do an end-run around the results (or, to be precise, lack thereof) at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. There is no consensus at all that a notability guideline is needed (see, for example, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations#What's the matter with WP:N? and no clear views on what such a guideline should include. By definition, guidelines have no hope of being completed or adopted if editors don't think that they're needed and can't agree on their content. As such, there's no reason to suspend AfDs to facilitate something which isn't going to happen. Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support—Provided that the freeze is time-limited, the moratorium on creating new X-Y relations stubs/articles is vigorously enforced, and AfDs that already in progress when the freeze comes into effect are allowed to run their course. These are all element of current/original Stifle-DGG proposal, and losing any of them would be a deal breaker for me. I would add that for AfDs already running if & when the freeze is affected, the existence of the freeze should not be considered a valid reason to !vote keep, and closing admins should disregard any !votes using this logic.
Also, I do not support a freeze solely for the sake of a freeze. Let's use this time to draft some binding notability guidelines or at least try. I realize there is currently a large chasm between two camps, but I think that if we can come to some agreement around the edges, it will still be better than the current situation even if we still leave a large gray area in the middle . So a suggestion: rather than formulate competing sets guidelines, none of which are likely to stand much of chance of gainng consensus, perhaps we could come up with an array of elements of a guideline, and !vote on each one seperately. At the end of the freeze, which ever elements have consensus would become the guideline. That guideline would probably still have a huge gray area, and there would always be a need to deal with some, maybe most, pairings on a case by case basis, but I believe it would be better than what we've got now, which is just the WP:N. (WP:N would still apply, but the emergent guideline for X-Y relations would hopefully help apply WP:N to these specific cases.) Some examples elements of a guideline that I hope would gain immediate consensus include:

In general, X-Y relations are not inherently notable.
Relations between any two countries that share a land border are alway notable.
Relations between states that, in modern history (20th century), were formerly part of the same country are always notable, i.e. relations among former Soviet states with one another, or relations between states that were formerly part of Yugoslavia.
Websites of X & Y's governments can generally be used verify facts in an X-Y relations article, but coverage of the topic of X-Y relations in these sites does not, by itself, establish notability of the topic.
Relations between countries having fought a war are generally notable, with the exception of fighting as part of a multination coalition. For example, the Falklands war is enough to establish that British-Argentine relations are notable, but that the fact Polish troops were part of the coalition in Iraq does not, by itself, establish that Poland-Iraq relations are notable.
Etc.

So I think getting consensus on as many little points like these as possible would be useful. There's a lot a gray area in WP:N and disagreements about how to interpret it. Even if the exercise only narrows that gray area a little and/or clarifies it only slightly, I still think we'd be better off for it. Yilloslime ^T_C 16:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There was already a lengthy discussion on what to do with the information in these pitiful stub articles without actually keeping pitiful stub articles on Wikipedia. Most of this work of merging was spearheaded by User:Ikip, but unfortunately he seems to be on an enforced wikibreak for several weeks, so I don't know the status of it or who's taken up the task in the interim. In any case, even then, bringing up articles with valid concerns against them to AfD was never decided to be suspended by concensus, and I see no reason to do so here, given the ability of these articles to be userfied or the ability of users to merge the (scant) information to another article within the week provided. I see no compelling reason not to continue to bring up these articles at AfD, only to end their creation. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The wikiphilosophical drama surrounding these articles is a waste of time only for those who choose to participate in it. Individual AfDs are a perfectly suitable forum in which to address the issue of their inclusion. Closing admins can give proper weight to the arguments expressed, so bloc voting should in principle not be a problem. We will probably end up with an encyclopedia with a random selection of them, as DGG fears, but these will tend to be the more notable or otherwise interesting ones, so I'm inclined to see this as a feature rather than a bug. Sandstein 17:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We need to do something. Editors concerned with this matter are dividing into mutually-opposing camps, and it's having an unnecessarily divisive effect.
Normally I would agree with Sandstein, but the trouble is that the results of the AfDs are not being accepted by either side. Instead, we have significant numbers of them ending up at DRV or being inappropriately relisted at AfD (in one recent case, less than a month after closure as "keep"!) because there's a determination among some parties to see these articles destroyed or killed with fire, and a determination among other parties to retain them, at any cost.
What I'm saying is that this content issue is in danger of becoming a very messy conduct issue and inaction will not do.
Also, inaction leaves us open to future editors repeating a similar exercise for purely disruptive purposes.
So if you don't like the Stifle/DGG proposal, come up with a better one that doesn't involve trying to cope with the whole morass of articles via one of the usual routes.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (as if it wasn't clear, but since we're in "It's not a "vote" it's a "!vote" mode...). Sandstein i think puts it very well. There is no better system for hashing out these kinds of disputes than the one in place. The insistence that i come up with some better system to replace this one because it's "messy" seems to misunderstand the fundamental messyness of people when they disagree. These disputes need to be aired and debated. And not airing and debating them in well-established (albiet creaky and imperfect) forums is a terrible idea.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warn and then topic ban disruptive editors Continually ignoring Wikipedia consensus as expressed in notablility guidelines is disruptive and shouldn't be tolerated. Editors are free to disagree with guidelines and to try to change them but to continually disregard them at AfD in order to interrupt the process of deleting articles on non-notable topics should be grounds for a topic ban from the AfD board. WP:NOTE is very clear about the need for article topics to be notable. Let's stop pretending that a break or process change will solve the problem. We have a bunch of articles that are on non-notable topics and they need to be removed from the article space. If an editor tries to interfere with that process by ignoring consensus, warn and then ban. Drawn Some (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Because the problem really isn't an intractable one over nationalistic or ethnic feelings, but that two groups have gotten themselves stuck together like two mountain goats who have locked horns. Both sides simply need to walk away from this for a while, work on something else, then return refreshed & with a clean slate. I offer proof of this with one example: a while ago I created Ethiopia-Qatar relations because I found I honestly could not create it. (Unrelated to this dispute, I have been trying hard not to create any new articles; for the most part, I have succeeded.) Then someone I exchanged heated words with, LibStar, saw the article, and improved it. I left a note thanking him for it, & we've been able to collaborate more or less successfully on the article since then -- which is the ideal of Wikipedia. (The irony of this instance is that much of the content of the article is duplicated in 2007–2008 Ethiopian crackdown in Ogaden, where it could be argued it makes more sense -- or Ogaden -- & in a less hostile environment we could have an amenable discussion about a possible merge.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- The purpose of our suggestion is to not change the general rules for resolving disputes over article notability, or changing the deletion procedure. Normally, I;d tend to agree with Sandstein's overall position: the WP concept of deciding article by article has merit--it prevents a small cadre from trying at some obscure policy decision to foreclose debate on a general matter. Small groups may be best for deciding technical matters, but then whatever they do needs to be exposed by the community and supported by it. Similarly in the opposite situation, in cases where the need for a supermajority prevents making formal policy, as for schools, the practical consistent decisions at individual article discussions can be effectively broadly supported policy. This suits me fine personally, because normally I am much more willing to do immediate time-limited advocacy than trying to fine-tune rules in interminable policy discussions which come to no stable conclusion.

But this is an exceptional situation. The sheer number of these articles prevents rational action. The quantity that are likely to be nominated for deletion and come to AfD greatly exceeds those we have already dealt with. The creation of these articles in this manner was wrong from the start, but given their presence , we must deal somehow with them. A method of sorting that gives 10% error is tolerable--actually I doubt AfD routinely does much better than that. sa method that gets 40% of them wrong is not much better than random, and not worth the detailed and extensive effort this is taking from dozens of people. In much simpler cases, this could perhaps be dealt with by batch nominations, but it has turned out in every batch proposed that some of two of them were much differently notable than the others & it can't really be decided without detailed work on sourcing each of them--sometimes discouragingly without success. This is not a fundamental dispute over the level of notability, but a question about a new type of article for which the old ways don't seem to work very well. The obvious thing to do would seem to be devise new ones. Not that I expect to like the new ones 100%, and neither would Stifle, but we can agree on something better. One cannot reach a compromise while the matters subject to compromise are unreasonably vanishing or unreasonably being kept, and where each decision reasonable or not is appealed individually. There are 3 rational things to do: throw them all out & wait till someone does them right, keep them all in and hope that someone does them right, or figure out how to sort them into those capable of rapid improvement and those incapable. This is not a topic I really care to work on personally, and I'd be glad of almost any stable compromise. The point of this is to free up AfD for the things we need to do there individually. DGG (talk) 02:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I only support this till June 30 and a review thereafter if issues resurface again. I do not agree that somehow during this time (or longer), a new bilateral notability guideline will be magically developed given that 2 months ago people tried to and it got nowhere. I think it would be really difficult to get any consensus on a guideline. So I support this solely for people to calm down and get over it. I do not support attempts by stop nominations from any other process except gaining consensus here or WP:SANCTIONS. I do not support any admins taking matters into their own hands and unilaterally starting to block people for nominating AfDs without community consensus. So on that token, if this proposal fails, people should feel free to nominate for deletion or create as per usual. I will however abide by any decision reached by clear consensus here. LibStar (talk) 08:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with everything Drawn Some has written, but I still would be happy to have a break to see if some better strategy can be determined. I would like some forum to be established where DGG and Stifle could moderate a discussion (please). There is no point in having a long is so vs is not hands-over-ears argument. Instead, I suggest a page with a Reasons to keep section that is edited by those in favor of keeping (no signatures; just edit to achieve the best argument), and another Reasons to delete section to be edited by those opposing. I would pick just one or two examples to discuss, say User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations. Perhaps something could grow from that? I suppose those who want to keep many of the X–Y relations articles are frustrated with people like me who repeatedly say that a particular relation fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. But I am more frustrated because I don't see any response from the keepers other than to add a few more sourced factoids, then say that the source is notable, so the factoid and the relation must be notable also. There is no attempt by those supporting the articles to engage in what "notable" actually means, or to say what their favored outcome is (18,000 X-Y articles?). For example, there are no "keep" arguments at User_talk:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg_relations. So I want one page where one set of arguments can be tuned, and we'll what is the best from each side, and whether some compromise is possible. Johnuniq (talk) 08:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support We need a wikipedia wide vote on the rules. As it is now, the policies and guidelines are determined by whatever small group of people can camp out there arguing the longest and get their way across. What you end up with, is the same arguments being made at the same types of AFD, this time national relationship articles. Sometimes they are kept, sometimes not, depending on whoever is around at the time to form a consensus, and the opinions of the closing administrator. Some wish to delete things outright, while others say leave them be, and others may expand on them over time. Some claim government websites shouldn't be used as references, because they don't trust governments, even when its just an announcement of a treaty which isn't something any nation would actually ever possibly have a reason to lie about. Some believe one nation once being a colony of another, and strongly influenced by them culturally is a notable relationship, while others do not. Same for economic treaties, one nation's troops inside another nation for peacekeeping or other reasons, and etc. Different opinions. We need to decide on what is acceptable, and what is not, before moving forward. Dream Focus 09:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support We're having the same argument at WP:Afd every time. Then re-arguing it at WP:DRV. The policy obviously needs to be clarified. I think we should try to resolve what the words "significant" and "trivial" with regard to sources in the notability policy really mean because that's where I see most of the problems arising. Is a visit by a head of state significant? Is the creation of an embassy? A big football game? Organizationally speaking, would this information fit best on a foreign relations article, a state to state relations article, or a specific article about that visit or embassy or football match? Is it against policy to have all three or is it just an aesthetic judgment? These things should have been clarified months ago but were not. In the interim, the Afd discussions have continued, resulting in a large amount of well sourced information being deleted (when it could have been merged but was not) and the acrimony between editors has increased. The pressure, on both sides, to just add votes instead facts to the Afd discussions has increased with the tidal wave of deletion nominations. This flood also prevents adequate research from being conducted to save worthy articles by the Article rescue Squad.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no flood of articles. I listed the numbers for the last week above and it is less than three a day, usually one or two. This perception that there is some huge number or that our process is flawed is not based in reality. Drawn Some (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tidal wave? how about the super mega mega tidal wave of Groubani in producing 100s if not 1000s of stubs that has soaked up weeks of editors' time in cleaning it up? Groubani was only stopped after being banned for excessive stub creation. If Groubani actually researched which were notable or not, we wouldn't have this problem. LibStar (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: the crux of the problem here is insoluable without wider concensus on if these topics are notable or not. The issue here is that one group of editors is convinced they are inherently not, and therefore can accept no outcome but delte, while another group of editors is convinced they are, and can accept no outcome but keep. This has devolved into a drive to nominate all such articles to be deleted and vote them up/down as quickly as possible so the otherside can't "win". The utter failure of the two group's attempts at compromise shows this issue must be taken out of their hands entirely, and a wider community concensus developed on these articles as a class. Note, that if this pause is not used by uninvolved editors to develop such a concensus (and the willingness to enforce it thereafter) this silly battle will just start up again. T L Miles (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support for one month. Beyond 30 days I would oppose. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support...kinda I opposed a blanket moratorium when it was proposed on WT:AFD (or someplace like that), because it seemed to me to be a tactical tool against opposition and a demand for inclusion masked by a call for consistency. I'm still worried that a similar freeze will result in the same outcome, but I don't really like the alternative. I will say that freezing these AfDs/articles and getting some centralized discussion will not resolve the dispute. I hate to shatter expectations here but the dispute isn't so much about the articles as it is about a philosophical stance regarding wikipedia. The articles themselves (like E&C articles before them and pokemon before them) are the impetus. we will not, at the end of 30 days, be any closer to agreement on where a line should be drawn demarcating the encyclopedia. At worst, we will sanction people who ignore this freeze and consider ourselves better off (the traditional DR result). At best we will come to some local agreement which respects BOTH sides as bringing points to the table. This "full speed ahead" crap or this "I think that nothing should be deleted" crap needs to be left out if any progress is to be made. I'm not optimistic, given that BOTH sides of the inclusion debate merrily torpedoed our last attempt at an amicable compromise over notability. But me being optimistic is not a necessary condition for action. Protonk (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support suspending this ongoing battle I'm not bothered if this is for twelve or two-hundred months but this ongoing battling at AfD, DrV et al is draining on the community and forcing them to civilly engage or desist seems the best option. There are hundreds of articles in these groupings and by the looks of things at leats a few editors won't be happy until they can remove everyone they don't approve. I have little doubt we'll soon see a merging war as well so please consider a moritorium on that as well. Staying just within community standards is actually still violating the spirit of why we have standards including guidelines and policies. -- Banjeboi 20:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I propose that we form a committee of 2, DGG and Stifle, and let them come up with a way forward during those 30 days. (Oh, wait, they have lives elsewhere, damn). Seriously though, I do think the two of them could come up with something reasonable in a few hours. I personally think WP:N is the right way to go here. But the block voting is killer. Hobit (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we don't have a consensus on why relationships are notable, and we will keep not having it if we can't test it at AfD and see how articles are saved. Also, this would artificially prevent the removal of any relation that totally fails to pass WP:N because of utter lack of any source talking about the relationship. And if it doesn't pass WP:N, then it won't pass any future guidelines interpreting WP:N, so why should it be kept. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Proposal

How about a mass-removal of all these articles from the mainspace into a special userspace where those who like these articles can work on them in the meantime? They can be moved into the mainspace when some reasonable criteria are agreed.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You want to move all of them? That sounds like it'll complicate matters. I don't think anyone could realistically think that Russia-United States relations should be temporarily erased from a main article space and it will never happen. There would just be a fruitless discussion about which articles should be moved that would mirror the current discussion about which articles should be deleted. I oppose this proposal.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I offered the same proposal and support it. It completely eliminates the problem and everyone is happy. The non-notable articles are out of the main space and none are deleted so if anyone wants to work on them they can. We don't even need a special userspace, I volunteer mine and I'll be glad to help move the articles. I should be able to do about two a minute or over 100 an hour so it is doable. Drawn Some (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question some of them are perfectly OK by anyone's conceivable standpoint with respect to notability, eg Iraq – United States relations, so I suppose you mean that this be done instead of deletion in all cases? Or just that closers consider this more frequently? DGG (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's articles should remain in one place, one namespace. There are no special cases to be made for certain classes of articles; forking is not a solution. (You could create a bilateral relations wiki if you'd like, though.) Cenarium (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many articles are drafted in userspace or project space. If the subject is notable the article should be in the mainspace, if the subject is not notable the article should be deleted, if the notability is unclear but there is a reasonable possibility it could be established through further editing, the article should be in user space or project space. In this case it would seem that project space would make the most sense. In fact we have WikiProjects with this in their scope, viz WikiProject International relations. Maybe a subpage or even a subproject of that project would be a good place to move these. Instead of a moratorium, we could continue with the current process but when an AFD consensus is unclear or particularly contentious move the article to project space for further work. When enough sources are available it could be moved back to the mainspace.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 13:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but in those cases, project space or user space is used as a sandbox for creating articles, or a workplace for improvements. There are a few wikiprojects doing that, but they plan to move the content in mainspace eventually. Doing so couldn't address the issue of notability for those 41 209 potential articles, anyway, which is the main problem. Cenarium (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in your assessment of the problem. You need to divide by two for the potential number to account for Greece-Italy and Italy-Greece not being separate articles. The actual number is much lower. You may not realize that these articles were created by a now-banned user. Removing the articles from the main space would restore the status quo before that vandalism. Drawn Some (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, actually it makes 20 503 articles by excluding relations with oneself (with 203 states, based on List of sovereign states). But that would be much work to move them somewhere else. And I don't see how it would address the main problem, their notability and the ensuing disputes, and there's the problem of which ones should be moved, I'm sure people would disagree and we may have arguments and maybe even move wars over this. Limiting the number of AFDs to give time to improve or merge those articles would be a better solution, in my opinion. Cenarium (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Cenarium says. Removing all is overkill and will cause lots of complaints. And I'm not sure that this makes a good predecende, with a whole class of articles being downgraded to a second-grade tier. And specially since some have managed to pass AFD with flying colors after being improved, so we would be degrading those too. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed closing of consensus on June 17

Dear all, as Stifle started this ANI on June 10, I am proposing a non-involved admin to close this on June 17 and make a decision regarding on consensus of this proposal. If it is passed, I think the actual time of the proposal standstill is not clear as many editors differ on the timeframe. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with this proposal. If there is a consensus to enact it, I intend to begin work on notability criteria for FBR articles (along the lines of "topics with features A, B, and C are presumed to be notable, topics with no features other than X, Y, and Z are presumed not to be notable, and anything in between is a matter for discussion in each individual case"). Stifle (talk) 08:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And just signing here to stop the bot archiving. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriateness of allowing multiple banned sockmaster Dr.Jhingaadey to return

A notorious sockmaster has been allowed to create a new account, but with limitations on his editing rights. I question the manner in which this happened and would like to see this discussed thoroughly. IMO, this sets a dangerous precedent that makes the project vulnerable to gaming and undermines confidence in the blocking and unblocking processes. Just how far should AGF be stretched toward such disruptive users?

I would like to see wide community input. So far very few editors have been involved, and I am unsure of the matter. I have my own opinions on the matter, but the community should make the final decisions.

Notifications of this thread:

Relevant links:

Dr.Jhingaadey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dr.Jhingaadey

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dr.Jhingaadey

Requests for checkuser/Case/Dr.Jhingaadey

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#NoOtherIDAvailable

User talk:NootherIDAvailable: Lots of discussion.

Archived NPOV Noticeboard discussion

Newer developments:

Discussion at Talk:Georgewilliamherbert that started the reinstatement of the banned user. It was started by User:JWSchmidt, whose role should be examined. Is his role a form of meatpuppetry? Should he be allowed to (mildly) "intimidate" (maybe a strong word, but I'm not sure what other word to use) users who question the "new" incarnation of a banned user? While I believe his actions may be unwise and ultimately futile, I AGF that he has the best intentions, and the desire to help someone in need is generally a good character trait. For that I applaud him.

Latest block discussion with lots of input by the involved User:JWSchmidt

User talk:Avathaar: New identity of User:Dr.Jhingaadey.

Note that this user was still evading his blocks using various IPs right up to while these discussions were occurring!

Fundamental matters of principle to decide:

Was proper unblocking procedure followed?
Shouldn't the unblocking of such a community banned user first be discussed using an RfC/U, rather than occurring on an obscure corner of Wikipedia (a userpage) where few editors realized what was occurring?
To what degree should editors here be allowed to act as advocates/meatpuppets for banned or newly returned users who are under "probationary" status?
Should this banned user be allowed back at all under these circumstances?
Should the new account be closed and the banned user's bans be reinstated?

Consider this thread to be the start of such a discussion.

-- Brangifer (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

I don't a problem with it as long as he is watched closely, we can see where it goes from here. Banned users should be given the opportunity to reform. Triplestop (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the links? There are procedural issues to discuss that are setting precedent. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't the Supreme Court; we don't have to follow precedent. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's human nature to follow examples of what's been done before as a guide and justification for how to behave now. Wikipedia will be no more successful at waving its hands and saying "Precedent doesn't matter" than Communism was at denying the existence and power of the profit motive. Precedents do matter, and we'd all better get used to the idea that things we do now will potentially be used as models for things done in the future. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 21:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Therefore it would be extremely helpful if BullRangifer could clarify what these precedent-setting procedural issues are in his opinion. His thinking tends to be a bit woolly, and I simply can't follow him here. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those procedural issues are mentioned in part of that last five point list. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy
Since this isn't a full unblock/unbanning, that is not a big problem. What occurred here is pretty reasonable. However the community should have been alerted to this, as they are now.
If someone wants someone back then there is probably a good reason, assuming good faith. A ban is a community thing after all.
We can take this slowly from here and see what happens.
If the community objects to this allowed return then yes.

Triplestop (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do a lot of this - if a blocked/banned editor says "Oh I get it, I won't do that anymore" we tend to give them another shot. You mentioned that this user was evading blocks with IPs recently - do you have evidence of this you can share? If so, did it come after the I promise to behave note? Its fairly easy to reblock someone if it turns out they don't truly want to contribute productively. Shell ^babelfish 20:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe many if not all of the IPs are in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dr.Jhingaadey. But it's a bit tricky to find them because they are mixed with those of last year. I am not aware of any since the promise. By the way, as he seems to be using dial-up, changing IPs should not be held against him. I guess part of the problem was that admins did not have the technical means to communicate "we really mean it" under the circumstances. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's welcome to use dial-up IPs, but he should have logged-in. That's why we have usernames. Avoiding the scrutiny of other editors, especially for disruptive purposes, is forbidden here. If you have a username, you're supposed to use it. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BullRangifer is overreacting to RJ (I will call him by the initials of his Citizendium username). Currently he is the only one doing so; last year, when RJ first appeared at Homeopathy, there was an entire mob. In my opinion:

The greater part of the disruption that surrounds RJ is caused by overreactions from the anti-homeopathy camp.
Even under the most favourable circumstances that we can realistically expect, RJ will not be a net positive to Wikipedia. To one side he is an easy target; to the other he is an embarrassment with his extravagant claims of healing cancer and AIDS and whatnot with homeopathy.

This opinion is based in part on what happened here before it was found out he was User:NootherIDAvailable and on his editing history at Citizendium.

BullRangifer's questions are bit misleading. They, and the title of this section, assume that he is formally community banned, perhaps even multiply. His real status is that of an editor who was getting on everybody's nerves, who was blocked a bit out of process, and who acquired the status of a "no admin willing to unblock" de-facto indefinitely banned user through a series of naively transparent block evasions. (E.g. initially he used various subsets of his real name in various spellings.)

Under these circumstances and assuming what I believe is the standard reading of the "no admin willing to unblock clause" (that the ban ends as soon as an uninvolved admin is willing to unblock – please correct me if there is no general agreement on this) it would be totally OK for JWSchmidt to unblock one of RJ's accounts. I am not sure why the new account, but there doesn't seem to be much wrong with that either since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the user was banned by the "no uninvolved administrator is willing to unblock" community ban process and that any uninvolved admin may unblock; but I also believe that decision to unblock is subject to community discussion to determine whether there is consensus that the user remain banned. In other words, we all have a stake in the "de-facto ban" and we have a right to consider whether in the absence of a de-facto ban we would have banned the user by another process and would not now lift the ban; in which case the unblocking would be a bad idea.
I generally think we should give the user a chance and that sock bans can become poblematic because a blocked user trying to get a fresh start but not understanding how things really work quickly becomes an illegal sock, even if no harm is intended. So, in general, I would support unblocking. However,
I find the link provided by Scientizzle at User_talk:JWSchmidt#Nootheridavailable to be particularly troubling as it shows the user has been given a "second chance" before and I do not generally support third chances.
I applaud JWSchmidt for this bold and demanding endeavor.
I am not willing to give the user a third chance but I will support giving JW a chance to prove to me that I should. In other words, you won't get any leeway from me and I'm fairly certain you'll be bashed against the rocks, but I wish you luck and will support your attempt by waiving from the shore you crazy fool.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re your first point: I totally agree, and I expected that BullRangifer would start a community ban discussion. If that's what he intended, he could have made it a bit clearer. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last two points in the five point list mentions this, and I ended with a shot from the starting gun, so to speak. Now the community is having its input, and that's what I believe is the proper procedure BEFORE unblocking such a user. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I offered this user a "second chance" months back because I felt the banhammer came down too quickly on an obviously upset newbie editor that may not have received sufficient instraction and warning. It became quickly apparent, however, that this editor (at that time) was not willing to appropriately engage the relevant issues, instead engaging in largely combative behavior to achieve ends that were at odds with the Wikipedia pillars. It's been a while since then, and little I've seen since convinces me that this editor is willing/able to distance himself from his deeply held beliefs to work within NPOV, UNDUE, RS, FRINGE, NPA, and all the other relevant acronyms.

I also can't help but note that the most recent incarnation, Avathaar (talk · contribs) was created 12:05, June 11, 2009, half an hour after his latest IP sock made an appearance and four hours before JWSchmidt's generous offer of another chance...my suspicion is that this editor would likely have continued this nonstop cycle of disruption and block evasion using this account anyway. (Note: I see no evidence of block evasion since JWSchmidt's offer.)

All that said, I'd be comfortable echoing every point Doug made here. JWSchmidt appears perfectly willing to see this through and has laid out a rather restrictive re-imersion program that has at least a chance of working. I wouldn't have the patience...As I said to JWSchmidt: give it a shot. — Scientizzle 00:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that anybody who sees any good in someone with this user’s history has just completely lost the plot. There’s assuming good faith, and then there’s handing an escaped mental patient a loaded gun. I don’t see any good in allowing this user to return, other than maybe giving an admin some training in chasing him around fixing the damage he does. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 22:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"chasing him around fixing the damage he does" <-- That is a fair description of what Wikipedia got from past treatment of this editor, including the initial failure to welcome him and explain our rules. "allowing this user to return" <-- Wikipedia cannot stop him from returning. "completely lost the plot" <-- The problem is larger than this one editor. Wikipedia has systemic biases and the world is not blind to this phenomenon, even if many administrators are. I agree with "Dr.Jhingade" that there is room for improvement in Wikipedia and I'm willing to listen to his suggestions for how to improve articles such as Homeopathy. All I've done is make it clear that I'm willing to listen as long as he follows our rules. It is up to him to decide if he will follow the rules of Wikipedia and make constructive contributions. It saddens me to see administrators who only have one tool -the mighty ban hammer- and an approach to new editors that treats difficult contributors like nails. I have the time to treat "Dr.Jhingade" like a person. If my effort falls short then all the nail bashers can continue their game of wackamole. --JWSchmidt (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't see any problem with JWSchmidt helping the editor to become a constructive contributor, but the multiple accounts are a bit worrisome. I'm frankly not sure what talk page to leve a request on, but I think s/he should be strongly encouraged to pick one username and stick with it... whichever one is preferred can be unblocked by JWSchmidt, but the other accounts should be locked down. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 02:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SB Johnny. Right now, TTBOMK, none of the blocked accounts have been unblocked, so we are actually dealing with a currently blocked editor who has never been unblocked, but who is allowed to edit anyway (at present in a limited manner). I don't think I've ever heard of such a thing. He needs to have one account unblocked and use only that one, IF HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED BACK AT ALL. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Jhinghaadey has shown absolutely no respect for or interest in this site's goals, content policies, or conduct policies; he constantly creates disruptive socks and then lies blatantly, if unconvincingly, when caught red-handed... someone please explain why we're contemplating abusing the time and goodwill of editors who actually bother to respect this site's policies? I'm not going to stand in the way of allowing him to edit one account's userspace, but I will reblock him myself without a second thought if he fails to adhere to those terms, or if those terms are expanded without input from the people whose volunteer efforts are most adversely impacted by Dr. Jhinghaadey's inappropriate advocacy. MastCell ^Talk 03:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have tweaked my statement involving JWSchmidt in the introduction to this thread. I AGF in his intentions, even if I think they are unwise and ultimately futile. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question for JWSchmidt: Who formulated the statement in Avathaar's first edit? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Who formulated the statement? Several days after I exchanged a few words with "Dr.Jhingaadey" on his user talk page, he contacted me. I told him what I thought he would have to do in order to be able to participate at Wikipedia. After several more days he informed me that he had posted a statement at User talk:Avathaar. That statement says what I told him he has to do if he wants to edit at Wikipedia. --JWSchmidt (talk) 06:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was wondering about that wording as it doesn't sound like anything he would have the slightest ability or understanding to formulate on his own. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find that the restrictions set by JWSchmidt are enough to warrant the least disruption possible while trying to recover a banned user for wikipedia. Whether Jhingadeey is actually recoverable is a different matter. If JWSchmidt manages to get him to become a productive editor then he can bring him here for review, if he doesn't manage it.... then... well, then JWSchmidt will have learned a valuable lesson about how you can't force people to change unless they don't want to change. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment by Doug - Oh, and the user needs to disclose all socks, certainly he may not be able to disclose IPs as a practical matter (he may have no idea what ones he's used) but any registered accounts must be listed on his userpage before we go any further. Any that are discovered post hoc, even if created before this discussion, would be a VERY BAD THING.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 12:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews needed. I would like to have users question him about each of the four parts of his statement:

""I have previously been blocked from editing as User:NootherIDAvailable. I agree to editing restrictions and mentoring: 1) I will only edit my own user pages until the Wikipedia community lifts this editing restriction. 2) I will restrict my edits to specific suggestions for how to improve Wikipedia 3) I will not behave at Wikipedia as an advocate of homeopathy or proclaim any personal partisan point of view with respect to the efficacy or medical value of any treatment, therapy or style of medical practice. I now recognize that such advocacy disrupts Wikipedia and does not help to improve the encyclopedia. 4) I now understand the goal of creating neutral Wikipedia articles that describe, in a balanced way, what is said in all reliable sources about each topic."-Avathaar (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)"[reply]

I'd like to have him explain to their satisfaction what his understanding actually is. That can be done in appropriately titled sections on his user talk page. We can thus ascertain for ourselves if he is (1) capable of rehabilitation and (2) really willing to reform. This is a process that I envision will be happening with candidates for rehabilitation in the Wikiproject User Rehab. Personally I wouldn't recommend him for that project, but at least a probing of his thinking might satisfy many here about his suitability for readmission to full rights here. This can be done as a form of RfC/U where he is participating. Anyone can start the process. Go for it! -- Brangifer (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that any further sockpuppetry by this user will put a speedy end to the slack he's being given. MastCell ^Talk 18:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, and I agree with BullRangifer that he must be subject to questioning. I'm not sure I'd say he has to run all of this before there is any decision, just make the decision "subject to". It's a valid part of his rehab anyway - part of "coming clean". If he balks, he's toast.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the past he has shown no hesitancy to tell bald-faced lies when it suits his purpose. So, his response to any questioning should be taken with a few grains of salt (or a whole shaker-full). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 08:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I think it's pretty clear that he should stick to one account and disclose the others, but outside of that I think we should do best to close this thread and let JWSchmidt work with him without a parallel discussion hanging over them. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The experiment isn't working, so reinstate ban

The fourth edit he has made has been a resumption of his advocacy campaign, in violation of the promise he made at the top of his user and talk pages. Since he obviously didn't formulate or understand the promise he made, what else can one expect? He still doesn't understand our policies and the EXACT same complaint has been made by him literally dozens(?) of times. Seeking to enlist meatpuppets is a serious offense. The indef ban needs to be reinstated. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, Bran, let the experiment run its course and give time for JWSchmidt to realize by himself who he is dealing with. It will be a valuable learning experience for him (no, seriously, he will learn a lot). Also, watching slow-motion trainwrecks is fun, and this one looked promising, so don't be such a party pooper. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.D.: Mind you, I respect and admire JWSchmidt's efforts to recover users for the project, it's just that I don't think that this particular user has any interest in becoming a NPOV-respecting wikipedia editor, so I find his efforts to be doomed from the start. Still, he needs to learn this by himself. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I could commit a combined sin of omission / point violation by doing nothing.... I just have a soft heart and hate to see needless suffering. As an experienced hunter, I'm accustomed to putting an end to the misery as fast as possible, but there is a certain sort of sick and sadistic pleasure one can get from watching such a train wreck. Let's see what the community decides to do with an indef banned user who isn't unblocked, but yet is allowed to create a new username, and who then immediately reverts to his old POV pushing, even though his return was on condition he wouldn't do such things anymore. Hmmm... -- Brangifer (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's kept to his talk page, so it seems to be "working" at least to that extent. JWSchmidt has dealt with even tougher cases before [4], so I doubt he has any illusions about the chances of success here. It's only been a few days and a few posts, so way too early to judge success at this juncture. IMO, at least. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pow pow pow! — NRen2k5^(TALK), 06:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another overreaction. The user is staying on his talk page. It would have been enough to instruct him clearly not to use the helpme template again. BullRangifer's reaction reminds me of a news story I can't find anymore. An American was convicted of indecent exposure for walking around naked in his house. This could only be observed by using binoculars. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The experiment hasn't, in my opinion, had enough time to work or fail. In the course of less than a week under the new paradigm we've had precisely one comment from Avathaar (talk · contribs). It was certainly a poor start, as I noted on the talk page, but it's only an n of 1 in the new experimental conditions. I support giving JWSchmidt a little more space to work for now. — Scientizzle 22:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a colossal waste of time and effort. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In his response to the notification of this thread, for some reason DrJ decided to attack me and my edits at Chiropractic - an article I am hardly involved in (I find it quite dull). I, and others, have wasted far too much time trying to help (initially) this editor, and all they do is attempt to subvert the project with their version of WP:THETRUTH, abusing socks (which have been explained many times) and sources (ditto). I don't mind him being allowed to work on his user page, so long as John comes down hard on any more attacks or swipes at other editors, and keeps his abuse in check (such as the "helpme" template abuse.) So long as he's there and doesn't mention me I'll ignore him. Verbal chat 14:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With n up to 3[5][6] and little beyond personal attacks, consider my support vanishing like so much active ingredient in preparation of a 30C dilution... — Scientizzle 15:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"DrJ decided to attack me" <-- please list here the text of exactly what you feel is an "attack". Also please explain how his use of the helpme template constitutes "abuse". "little beyond personal attacks" <-- please list the "personal attacks". --JWSchmidt (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. In the first of my two links immediately above[7]: it was unacceptable to the skeptics-they want only negative stuff to be in the article ← this statement distills multiple discussions into a simple and objectionable claim that a swath of editors are deliberately acting in bad faith. Additionally, the assertion that this editor should be defended because he "doesn't know all the rules yet" is...disingenuous, in my opinion. This person has made hundreds of posts, since at least March 1, 2008, and has been spoon-fed advice on Wikipedia sourcing, neutrality, and behavioral policies and guidelines. Many of the previous incarnations of this editor have also claimed to be "new". At some point, though, the proverbial training wheels need to be ditched; when can we reasonably expect some understanding of, for example, WP:UNDUE, WP:MEDRS & WP:FRINGE?

In the second link[8], Avathaar lists three editors by name with the clear implication that these individuals are not working in the best interests of the project.

By the way, I don't think these two edits are particularly awful. However, they fit the pattern established over the last year-plus. I don't yet see any change in behavior occuring, and still no concrete suggestions for article improvement, thus my diminishing support for continued tolerance of this editor. — Scientizzle 16:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JW, If you can't recognise clear misuse of the helpme template and rather obvious attacks directed at specific editors (linked above, including "not neutral" and "battling at chiropractic" and implication of puppetry) then you shouldn't be mentor to this person. I no longer support this process. Verbal chat

Charges of abuse and personal attacks. I requested explicit descriptions of the claimed abuse and personal attacks. Judging from the the replies( here and here), it seems to me that Scientizzle and Verbal are unable to document any abuse and they are unable to document any personal attacks. --JWSchmidt (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I stated above, I don't consider those two particular edits in isolation to be all that bad...I just don't see them as any improvement over what the last 15 months have provided from this editor. I'll agree to disagee as to whether they're "personal attacks" (they're minor ones--I wouldn't block someone for those statements, for example, just call them on the incivility); but they're obvious broad allegations of bad-faith editing, which is completely counter-productive. Do you agree with this assessment, JWSchmidt? If so, as his mentor I'd hope you would point this out. — Scientizzle 17:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was some trash-talking (in the sense of rather dismissive comments about the intentions of other editors), and DrJ should be discouraged from doing that. Scientizzle and Verbal wouldn't have to get involved if you (JWSchmidt) would do the discouraging, rather than compounding the problem by dismissing their concerns about that. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 18:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like the folks closely involved in this could take a step back - you're smothering an editor who is clearly going to need some instruction in how Wikipedia works. Instead of jumping on him for every move he makes, let someone without a horse in this race try educating him on policy. If that still doesn't work, fine, but lets not pretend the situation right now is anything like giving it an honest try. Shell ^babelfish 17:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current situation is an excellent demonstration of the fact that some of the editors opposed to homeopathy are a significant part of the problems in the area. I really don't know what's so hard about not watching the talk page of an editor who is getting on one's nerves and who is under a restriction not to edit outside his talk page. After all, given the overall quality of this editor's contributions to our discourse, it seems extremely unlikely that this develops into a pro-homeopathy think tank that will suddenly become so influential as to change the homeopathy situation in a significant way. --Hans Adler 17:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very slim outside chance that an editor with DrJ's track record might reform, given a mentor. There is zero chance that he will reform if given an enabler. We seem to be well over the line here into the latter scenario. MastCell ^Talk 19:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it help if someone more neutral was found and a more standard course of teaching someone the rules was followed? I agree if this is just someone trying to add another voice to "their" side its not going to be good for Wikipedia or the problem editor. Shell ^babelfish 21:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is ridiculous. I can see no indication that the homeopathy side (which currently seems to consist only of Whig) is interested in recruiting Avathaar. Quite the contrary, because of his extreme opinions. What JWSchmidt and Avathaar discuss on Avathaar's talk page is not disruptive unless you choose to read it and interpret it in the worst possible way. If this circus doesn't stop soon, I will ask for the worst offenders to be banned from Avathaar's talk page per WP:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy#Discretionary sanctions. Of course JWSchmidt's rehabilitation attempt is going to fail, but I am not going to watch it fail prematurely because a bunch of hysterical homeopathyphobes start shouting at the top of their voices each time JWSchmidt is showing a bit of empathy with Avathaar. Without empathy there is no effective mediation. Here is the current ranking for User talk:Avathaar, in terms of number of consecutive edits:
    1. JWSchmidt (7 edits)
    2. Avathaar, BullRangifer, Hans Adler (3 edits each)
    3. Scientizzle, SB Johnny, Verbal (2 edits each)
    4. Brunton, 龗 (1 edit each)
  To me this looks very much like collective baiting. It may not be intentional, but that's the effect. --Hans Adler 22:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I only commented there as my name was mentioned, and it was brought to my attention. I will support mentoring with a neutral mentor. As I said at the start, JW is enabling rather than educating DrJ. It wasn't on my watchlist until the comment, and my edits were consecutive. I have on other talk pages of DrJs been supportive and given him the benefit of the doubt, and have even had email exchanges with him (before his NootherID persona). Verbal chat 22:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a huge overstatement to say that JW is enabling Avathaar. As Hans says, he's showing empathy. He may also be naive, or he may just be very optimistic, either way but that doesn't make him an enabler. What's he enabling? These "attacks" are extremely mild and should be ignored. Maybe, it would be best if JW were to remove them. If venting like this is necessary maybe JW should take the conversation off-wiki. Maybe the community would support this more if someone more experienced and with a more neutral appearing attitude rolled up and said I'll step in here and work with this guy and see if he has any potential and report back. But it's not about to happen. This guy is under a community ban but for the fact that there is one and only one editor who would unblock him. No body else is willing to help, myself included, so we should all just stay the heck out the of the way. JW has the lead on this for lack of any other interested parties. Let's let him work at it because God knows there's a lot of work to be done!--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe JWSchmidt could suggest that Avathaar edit the article about his favorite pet, I have a developing theory that editors will find battlefield editing impossible when writing about small, fluffy animals. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns with "abuse log"

I just looked at my contributions list and it now has an "abuse log", not present a few days ago. Is this new?

This is very tactless. I've engaged in no abuse yet I now have a criminal record. I merely created my own sandbox for article work and this is called abuse.

Perhaps it should be renamed "filtering log" or "filter log". Wikipedia has some areas, procedures, or people that are very hostile. That's not nice.

Requests:

1. Rename abuse log to something less nasty.

2. Possibly start a rule book. There are too many unwritten rules or rules that are scattered. I am willing to help organise such a rule book. No writting is needed, just some links to existing pages.

User F203 (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the morbidly curious, here's the abuse log. Nothing exciting.

17:01, 14 June 2009: User F203 (talk | contribs) triggered filter 176, performing the action "edit" on User F 203/sandbox/Liz. Actions taken: none; Filter description: user space link added in article space (details) (examine)
19:46, 2 May 2009: User F203 (talk | contribs) triggered filter 98, performing the action "edit" on User F 203/sandbox. Actions taken: none; Filter description: Creating very short new article (details) (examine)
19:46, 2 May 2009: User F203 (talk | contribs) triggered filter 98, performing the action "edit" on User F 203/sandbox. Actions taken: Warn; Filter description: Creating very short new article (details) (examine)

User F203 (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Abuse filter log"? And maybe a message on the log screen to explain what it is? Dcoetzee 00:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The abuse filter did its job in alerting that something wrong was going on. From your talk page, I presume you know that you created the article User F 203/sandbox/Liz when you presumable meant to create a user subpage of User:F203/sandbox/Liz. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the current naming sucks. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we do add a message to this page, I suggest something like the following: "The abuse filter is a tool that automatically flags suspicious edits for review. Sometimes valid edits are accidentally included." Dcoetzee 00:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's new. It's useful for those dealing with the abuse filter. That may be renamed to something like 'filter log', yes, or only visible by default to admins, with option to enable for users, as it's not of much use for the vast majority. But I still don't get why Special:Log/abusefilter is installed but doesn't work, we could avoid having this at all with that working (just one more click). Cenarium (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, only just noticed that on my contribs page. I have triggered the abuse filter a few times, and even filed a false positive report, but I can see how "abuse log" could be taken the wrong way - even knowing what it was I was embarrassed to see that it logged me "replacing content with obscenities" (on Michelle McManus articles, for anyone curious as to why I'd be replacing content with obscenities). This part worries me: anyone seeing my abuse log might take it out of context and assume I've been up to no good, when in fact I have a perfectly good explanation. Could the abuse log be made so that it's only visible to admins and the user concerned, maybe, or - better still - could items be removed from the log if they're reported as false positives?
Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 01:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I just noticed, too. To me, it sounds like "long term abuse" as opposed to setting off WP:ABFIL. MuZemike 03:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The name does seem problematic, as is the opaqueness of the information. I think I understand what triggered two of the three entries in my new abuse log, but after examining it quite thoroughly I still don't understand the third: "user space link added in article space" which is apparently link 176, which was triggered by an edit to Union Square (New York City) in which I moved images around. I think if the information is going to be openly available to everyone, then it needs to be much clearer and labelled something other than "Abuse log", since what is being logged is not necessarily abuse, but the triggering of a filter which indicates the possibility of abuse. On the other hand, if it were perhaps made to be visible only to admins and the user involved, then what it's called is less important (although I'd still say that "Abuse log" is a poor choice; "Filter log" would have been better). Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - This edit triggered filter #176 because you had "[[User:Ed Fitzgerald/spacing]]" in the wikitext. Uncle G (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced it with "abuse filter log" on two special pages I could determine and {{userlinks}}. Someone who knows how the $2 in MediaWiki:contribsub2 is generated may want to change that as well. Regards So Why 07:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, for Heaven's sake, guys—it's a piece of software. "Tactless"—it's obvious what it means, and I don't think anybody should get offended. Can we not get on with improving the encyclopedia, or is it absolutely necessary to continue griping about really minor and cosmetic issues? ╟─Treasury Tag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 07:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? Yes, it's a piece of software. A piece of software we all use far too much. ;) Until it's sentient and makes decisions for itself, however, we have some say in how it is presented. And, while I think User:User F203 needn't be quite so disappointed in the wording, it can and probably should be phrased a bit more clearly. user:J aka justen (talk) 07:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fairly easy fix. Just edit MediaWiki:Abusefilter-log-linkoncontribs to say "abuse filter log" or whatever. While you're at it, you might also want to change MediaWiki:Abusefilter-edit-action-flag, MediaWiki:Abusefilter-log-linkoncontribs-text, MediaWiki:Abusefilter-log-search, MediaWiki:Abusefilter-loglink, MediaWiki:Abusefilter-topnav-log and MediaWiki:Abuselog (which appear as a consequence description on (say) Special:AbuseFilter/80, the tooltip for the abuse log link on Special:Contributions, the box description on Special:Abuselog, the navbar at the top of Special:Abusefilter and don't know respectively). MER-C 08:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for identifying those messages. I just went ahead and replaced "abuse log" with "abuse filter log" on those. If someone working on the filter objects, they can delete/revert those again but unless anyone does, I do not think that anyone will mind that I did so. Regards So Why 11:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know that depending on route, it's 52-55 miles from Penistone to Scunthorpe? I didn't think it was that far, but there you go. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no need for opacity. We have an actual article on the Scunthorpe problem, which of course all people managing or reading the output of these filters should read. Uncle G (talk) 11:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the changed name is a good idea, but I'd still try to find another term than, and least for the contribution list part, which seems the most sensitive. DGG (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not simply "filter log" ? –xeno^talk 13:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My vote would be to make the abuse log visible only to admins. Why? As you can see from my abuse log, edits that I made to pages that have since been deleted are visible. Now, of course, the pages on MY abuse log were deleted at my request, but what if those pages had been oversighted? The abuse log could potentially provide a workaround for anyone to see exactly what it was that was oversighted. Not a good thing. Matt (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TFD

... is developing a bit of a backlog. Anyone else who might be interested in helping to clear it would be appreciated. :) JPG-GR (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not for reporting Administrator backlogs.--gordonrox24 (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's very common to post admin backlogs here as a large number of admins keep an eye on this page so they can be aware of things that need to be noticed (hence the title of the page). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the place to report backlogs. In truth, my feeling is that a lot of the stuff here (complaints about specific users, etc.) should be an AN/I. This should be more of a general... um... "noticeboard" to notify admins of important policy changes, backlogs, ArbCom rulings, requests to close old discussions, etc. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically one shouldn't post notes about backlog here, owing to the instructions at the top of the page to just use the template, but people do it often anyway. –xeno^talk 20:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You have a point, but that cat doesn't seem to get looked at quite as much, so if there's a major backlog this will attract attention faster. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - yea, I never said it was effective ;p –xeno^talk 12:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something's going on here

Over the last few days, I've expressed legitimate concerns over the article List of nu metal bands which have resulted in attacks and misguided accusations. When several editors, including an administrator, attempted to block my attempts of working out a resolve, I nominated the list and its poorly-written sister article nu metal for deletion on the basis that it is clearly a neologism, and that no attempt has been made to work the main article into a serious discussion, and the "list" is very poorly-verified. This resulted in one editor continuing to make false accusations and the administrator threatening to block me if I didn't "step in line" and stop trying to improve these articles and limit the content to what is fully verified. I don't believe that these kinds of actions would be considered justified responses to good faith edits. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

List of nu metal bands had just been kept at AfD two weeks prior. [9] reverting the AfD seems like the right call there as it would have most certainly been proceedurally kept per WP:Snow, and nu metal, which would be the "parent" article would certainly not been deleted if the list of article, the "child" article, was kept. The most that would have happenned is the two being merged. Even that seems unlikely. This seems more like a clean-up issue of a list and WP:List may help. The WP:Lede of the article could spell out better what the inclusion criteria would be. There isn't a rush to fix it but you can certainly work to improve it. Also a note about the items listed there. If the sources for each band state "____ band is a nu metal band" the Wikipedia article for that band does not also have to state that. It would be nice but that's something to work out on each article's talkpage. If it's a subject that interests you I suggest working on the nu metal article and develop the history of the genre. On that main article not every band would be included; just the most notable ones that shaped the history of the genre in some way. -- Banjeboi 15:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who exactly has been attacking you, Ibaranoff? You say I'm a liar, and that people like me are what is wrong with Wikipedia, yet you claim you have been attacked? By whom, and some diffs to support this claim please. What are you trying to accomplish, first consensus did not agree with you, then you nominate the article for deletion after not getting your way, and now this thread? What is next? I would not complain about Gwen if I were you, she could have blocked you and been well within her rights to do so. As an indef-blocked user you promised not to engage in this type of behavior. You did well for a few months, don't throw it all away now. Landon1980 (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While you didn't directly insult me, you appear to show condescension in your tone towards me. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Care to back that up with some diffs? Please highlight exactly what you took to be condescending, and why.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 05:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this example, Landon responds to my statement about what is sourced by telling me, essentially, that anything that doesn't reflect the "accepted" opinions is original research. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

since it's here, let's judge it by the results. DGG (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if he was being uncivil to you, that does not give you the right to call him a liar, or tell him he's what's wrong with wikipedia. You should know this.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 03:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the diffs of me being uncivil, or attacking you, Ibaranoff? In fact, I see no evidence to support a single claim made in this thread by you. Landon1980 (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Declined AfC submissions needs clearing

This category contains over six thousand articles deemed "unsuitable" for the article namespace. I am unconvinced by the reasons at the AFC talk page for keeping these around. One editor suggests that deleting these old pages "would add to the burden on administrators". However, these pages can easily be deleted by a bot or by some PROD-like process. Nakon 00:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, these pages are just as scrapeable as the rest of WP. If they're crap (as a great many of them are), why keep them? DS (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But, at the same time, why delete them? There isn't a good reason to do either, so I'd say we don't need to use the system resources. Some might be useful for possible future article creation, though, so do be careful if you decide to delete them. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them are maybe possibly good, yes. Others are idiotic scribbles and self-obsessed babbling. DS (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly an appropriate topic for discussion, but Nakon, using G6 as a reasont to delete these pages is completely inappropriate. In the thread you point to on WT:AFC, there are three administrators who declined to delete the archives at all. While I agree that many of these can be deleted without any issues arising, they are kept for a reason, and that is so the submitters can continue to work on them, and also see what was wrong with their submissions. They do not show up on most search engines, and they are not linked from anywhere except the category pages themselves. So while I don't disagree that some are deletable, I can't see a reason for a mass deletion for which there is clearly disagreement and where the pages cause no harm to the project. Please stop. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The opinions to not delete these pages came from the idea that it would cause more work for administrators. This is not the case and keeping these pages that are months and years old does not make any sense. I am not proposing that these be deleted immediately or withing a few days upon rejection but rather after an extended period of time (1-3 months). Nakon 01:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with making the proposal, and I'm sure one could be worked out that satisfied everyone. The only issue I have is the deletion of hundreds of archives without first making that proposal. I'm thankful that you've paused. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For those that are unfamiliar with the project, here are examples of pages that require deletion: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], and that's just a very small part of the pages beginning with "A". Nakon 01:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The pages should not be deleted, the policy has been to retain these pages. Many of the proposed articles in tehre are actually superior to others in article space, because higher standards are used to accept. The idea is not to accept and article that then will be speedy deleted. But you will find many proposed articles that only have a problem with missing references. The pages that could be deleted would be the same ones that we blank, such as copyright violations and attack pages possibly after a month so that the submitter can work out why their proposal led to no article. Otherwise I would urge not to delete stuff from the AfC project, and let the administrators who are part of the project do the needed deletions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that the pages shouldn't be deleted because of past "policy" doesn't provide a reason for keeping them around. Please review the examples I provided above and tell me how you think that these should be kept because they are "superior" to article space. Attack pages should be immediately deleted per CSD G10, regardless of where they are in the project. Nakon 04:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the category contains a tangled mess of pages that should be deleted. However, we must take into consideration the fact that there are many submissions there that should be kept, at least temporarily. Well, my admin friends, who is going to volunteer to manually delete over 5,000 pages? We couldn't go ahead and nuke all of them; they should all be checked, at least minimally, before deletion. I suggest changing the method by which submissions are declined at AfC. Here's a proposed solution: submissions could stay in the category for three months (at most) after they are declined before being deleted. Of course, this would pertain to submissions with actual content. Declined submissions that are copyvios, or declined submissions that have been cleared using {{Afc cleared}}, can and should be deleted at an earlier date. The process would be maintained by a bot (I'd be happy to run it, as I already run three other AfC-related bot tasks), which would check the category at regular intervals, and tag submissions that have been declined for over three months with a special tag (PROD, as mentioned above, perhaps?), or if possible, simply delete them. It would immediately tag articles in the category that have been declined as copyvios, jokes, or anything with the template {{Afc cleared}} on it. Those numbers are arbitrary, of course. Maybe something like six months for normal submissions, and one month for the special cases outlined above? Regardless of the numbers, does anyone support this? The Earwig (Talk | Editor review) 03:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are not too many pages to delete. I was able to nuke a good handful of these old pages without the use of a bot. Throw a handful of admin wikignomes at the backlog and it'll get done eventually. As long as pages that are not up to article standards are removed after a reasonable period of time (IMO no more than three months, but that's debatable), I don't see an issue with either of your suggestions. Nakon 04:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Earwig to keep the submissions for six months, or longer (a year, maybe). I watchlist all submissions I decline, and I do see editors continue to work on them even months after being declined. As for articles that meet speedy deletion criteria, I have seen submissions that started as empty, copyright violations, A7's, and spam turn into something that could be accepted, or at least not be deleted by CSD from the mainspace. Now, I have nothing against deleting attack pages or copyright violations early (I delete the more serious violations immediately), but there's actually nothing there to harm the project. When blanked, the bad edits are hidden in the page history, and are as harmless as bad revisions of an article, which the same, no one cares about except in the more serious cases. But regardless, I think deleting all of them would be rather pointless. We have marginal, hypothetical value to these pages, and equally hypothetical harm, which is why I've always supported leaving them right where they are. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of blanking versus deleting? Nakon 05:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The blanking makes sure that the offending material will not be visible to the casual visitor, or scraped off by the Wikipedia mirrors, or seen in search engines, but there is some feedback for the contributor so they can see that their page was declined. If they want to they can then fix it. For copyvio's they are often actually COI situation so the copy may not really be a violation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For submissions that are only deficient in sourcing, (d|v) I believe we should keep them indefinitely. Other people are welcome to fix them up too by adding references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if I have this got this right: (times in UTC)

User:Nakon sees a discussion on WT:WPAFC back in March and doesn't agree with the points made
(00:00) Without any discussion, proposal or warning he goes against the consensus from that discussion and starts deleting the pages
(00:11) Nakon makes his first announcement about his actions on this page
(01:31) The first request for him to stop his deletions is posted on this page
(01:42) Resumes his deletions
(05:36) Despite concerns from several editors here, he continues to delete these pages

If this is correct then I believe it is appalling behaviour and misuse of the admin tools. I strongly urge Nakon to stop these deletions and obtain consensus before continuing. I will consider a block if this behaviour continues. There are various reasons for keeping these archives, and I shall be glad to share my thoughts (I suggest WT:WPAFC is the appropriate place). G6 is specifically for non-controversial actions, and so ceases to be valid when editors express concern. Regards, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider deleting pages that meet CSD G1/G11 abuse. The CSD general criteria apply project-wide. In the future, I will include a better deletion reason. Nakon 14:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nakon, it borders on abuse when you know there is no consensus to delete the pages. The response to the deletions should be evidence enough that these are not the sort of non-controversial deletions CSD was created for, even if the pages would be deleted anywhere else in the project. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Docu signature RFC/U

A RFC/U has been started regarding Docu's refusal to use a normal signature. Please comment there if you wish. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better if someone with a signature in the Roman alphabet posted rather than 日本穣 User F203 (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's customary for the user who opened the RFC to post the notice. If you think Nihonjoe's signature is problematic, you can talk to him directly. Regards So Why 20:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of usernames around here in the Roman alphabet that I can't pronounce. Where's User:Llywrch, anyway? I just think of him as being pronounced "low-rock", because that sounds cool. Nihonjoe, on the other hand, I think of as "crazy asian character man".

I hope that helps. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm lurking, GT. I agree with your point, though. FWIW, you pronounced my username wrong. Everyone pronounces it wrong -- including me. :) -- llywrch (talk) 23:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can almost guarantee that my usernname gets mispronounced; I've had it for years, and rarely come across anyone that gets it right on the first attempt. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting unblock using {{helpme}}

Hi admins, please consider the unblock request at User talk:Thantalteresco.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally (as an unrelated yet involved admin) I do not know whether it is Premier or not. The person is pushing the same controversial race theories that Premier/Steakknife/various other alteregos was on Australian Aboriginal topics (especially Talk:Indigenous Australians, but appears more literate. However we had evidence that that user was a student of an Australian university, so it is not beyond possibility they could have gained literacy, but this user hasn't moved into the republican debate issues that user did. I'd say this one is a common or garden SPA, but don't quote me. Orderinchaos 23:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Message left at user talk:Gnangarra, as the blocking admin — this isn't a field of sockpuppetry that I've had any dealings with before, so I can't help much further. Bencherlite ^Talk 23:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just for people's benefit, memories fade - Gnangarra was referring to User:Premier, who was blocked in 2006 and more recently used User:Steakknife and a whole swathe of IP addresses. Orderinchaos 05:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I was refering to User:Premier, this appears to be consistant with the user and some of his socks is based on the standard Duck test. Gnan garra 10:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gnangarra: if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck... but, if you say that he edits like Premier and speaks like Premier but someone says that his IP is not like Premier's, is he Premier? We can know what is the truth with this.

I don't know who are Thantalteresco and Premier, and it's your word against him. Has he violated any policy (apart from the alleged 'block evasion') by which deserves to be blocked ad infinitum? ~~×α£đ~~^es 16:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closure on merging several articles on the subject of XLEAGUE.TV

I would like some closure on this subject, as I believe it will soon end up becoming an "edit war", which we all would like to avoid. From the discussions on it's talkpage, I believe merging would benefit the article as a whole, as it would greatly improve that particular subject. Others have said it should be left alone. I would be greatful if an admin/moderator could look at this and give their opinion on the subject. Thanks! Ryoga3099 (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that most of the articles which have spawned into shows outside of/after Xleague (Games Night, Reviewmageddon, Wez and Larry's Top Tens and Guru Larry's Retro Corner) deserve to remain intact. There was a vote of 5:1 in favor of retaining them as well as severe WP:COI violations for over two years from the only person in favor of the merger whom is an employee of Xleague/UKeSA (and yes, I do have full evidence to back up my accusation if any moderator/admin would like to see) whom has already been questioned once for WP:COI for trying to put up false "speedy deletion" claims for the exact same articles for copyright infringement. On top of that vandalized several of my comments on said talk page whenever I mention the name Steven Tu.--FirecrackerDemon (talk) 08:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though I do agree the lesser popular/smaller show article such as Game60 and trailblazers could essentially be merged.--FirecrackerDemon (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 5:1 favour, for me is a little dubious as one of the comments come from the presenter of some of these shows and the other 3 are just comments saying how "stupid" the merge is without a concensus reason as to why it isn't a good idea - thus not placing a valid argument for not merging the articles. If there is a severe WP:COI violation to these pages, then that would also single out Guru Larry for creating and editing some of these pages in the first page, which I found from the history of these pages. I feel that placing COI violations are counter-productive and doesn't resolve the primary reason for the merge, which is to improve upon a particular article.

The speedy deletion was not solely for copyright infringement, but rather to have these shows into a single article on the XLEAGUE.TV page. I do realise that, that was the wrong proceedure and found out recently that requesting a merge would be more appropriate for creating a better article. As I've said before, I would like an admins input to find out a resolution to this. Ryoga3099 (talk) 10:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I am not an employee of either XLEAGUE.TV or UKeSA and I am not on their payroll. I have been through this before when users were asking whether I worked for UKeSA when I created and edited the UKeSA article. Employers/employees have confirmed to these people that I am not part of the organisation. Ryoga3099 (talk) 10:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryoga3099, you have been an employee of Xleague which is evidential by your own confession on several websites, You were the "Steven Tu, XLEAGUE Community Manager" amongst other jobs. Also being on a payroll or not has no bearing on employment. Again, by your own hand you've admitted that you've offered volunteer work to the company (for written articles and creating the logo) therefore you are part of UKeSA, so even if you're not a current PAID employee, you are at least an affiliate of the companies and always will be.--FirecrackerDemon (talk) 12:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does writing articles on Wikipedia mean I have an affiliate to the company who owns Wikipedia? Does public beta-testing a video game voluntary mean I'm associated with a particular company? Does knowing a person in a particular company mean I'm associated with a particular company? Doesn't your argument also puts Guru Larry under the spotlight for having worked for XLEAGUE.TV?

Regardless of where I come from or what I do or where other people come from or what they do, it doesn't resolve whether these articles should be merged or not. A personal attack, which is what it appears to be, is counter-productive to the original issue. This is why I request an admin to look at this and avoid this "war of words". Ryoga3099 (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

civility

User:OuroborosCobra seems to be having problems being civil and may need a time out. --Protostan (talk) 03:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like you're engaged in an edit war with him on multiple articles and several people are saying that your edits are original research. My advice would be to stop edit warring, take it to the talk page, and not draw attention to yourself by asking for a block of a user you're in a content dispute with. Also baiting is considered a form of incivility. Mr.Z-man 04:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying he's not in any way in violation of the rules when he write "I don't give a damn about cliches, it is the wrong category and you know it. You know it here, on Paul Harvey, on Abraham Lincoln, and everywhere else you edit"? --Protostan (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "and you know it" might be pushing past WP:AGF a little (not being completely familiar with the context, I can't tell whether that's warranted), but it definitely isn't block-worthy. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think swearing at people is smiled at here either)--Protostan (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We want to have a collegial environment, but we don't achieve that by being a police state and blocking people for saying "damn" once in an edit summary. I also note that you haven't notified OuroborosCobra of this thread, I've gone ahead and done that. Mr.Z-man 05:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

blocking does sound like a bit of an overkill. What the next step down from it? --Protostan (talk) 06:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing (intentionally or not) that your actions are part of the problem here, and any action you think should be applied toward your enemy could just as easily be applied to you. Dispute resolution implies that people are trying to resolve conflict. You seem to want to escalate it and try to prevail then by getting your opponent in trouble. That's not how things work here. If you want people to be civil you first need to be civil yourself, both in words and, even more importantly, actions. DreamGuy (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admins with history merging experience wanted

This discussion is now in Wikipedia talk:New histmerge list#Automating these history-merges?.

I decided to embark on a little project, and wrote a program to try and figure out just how often cut-and-paste moves happen. The answer seems to be "OH MY GOD! THAT OFTEN?!?!". The program is working its way through the most recent database dump, and as of this writing, it's 6% of the way through, and it has registered over 3,700 hits. I've been in touch with User:Anthony Appleyard, the only admin who performs history merges on a regular basis. Both of us agree that this is way more than what he can handle, and I, not being an admin, can't do anything to help him.
So, with that, any admins who are willing to help should take a look at User:Mikaey/Possible cut-and-paste moves.

Closure requested

Can someone close the discussion at the top of this page please? Stifle (talk) 08:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading through it now. lifebaka++ 08:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And done. Phew. lifebaka++ 09:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog at WP:SPI

I'm sure you guys are already aware (as it is tagged), but just as a precautionary FYI, WP:SPI is backed up. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 14:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible for Wikipedia to pay me a salary?

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

Resolved

– No. ╟─Treasury Tag►constabulary─╢ 16:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do quite a bit of editing and would like to quit my job and edit Wikipedia for a living. Would it be possible to get some advertising for these pages and use the income to pay regular editors a salary? Betty Logan (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this advice has never been more appropriate: "Don't quit your day job." --64.85.222.104 (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Highly unlikely. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marking "resolved" – obviously. ╟─Treasury Tag►constabulary─╢ 16:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Man, I wish. (I wish I could get paid for editing. I'm NOT in favor of advertising.) Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 16:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the opening poster was being 100% sensible, and I don't think that we should continue humouring him/her. No administrative action is required here. ╟─Treasury Tag►secretariat─╢ 16:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec - please don't shoot me for editing an archived thread!) No. The idea of putting adverts on Wikipedia has been discussed plenty of times before and a large proportion of the community has been very much against it. It is possible to get a third party to pay you to edit Wikipedia, although you need to be careful there (there is an RFC on the subject going on at the moment here). It is also possible to get a job working for the Wikimedia Foundation (see here for current openings), although editing content would not be part of your job (except possible to enforce WP:OFFICE actions). There may also be jobs working for local chapters, but they wouldn't involve editing either. --Tango (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rollback abuse?

Resolved

– No action necessary. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that rollback was supposed to be used for blatant vandalism. Surely all of the recent edits by User:Jenuk1985 changing "Notes" to "References" don't qualify as undoing vandalism. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 18:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look to me like rollback was used to perform those edits. Matt (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the problem - rollback cannot be used to make edits, only revert edits. Shereth 18:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am here to also announce my confusion. Nothing was reverted. Tan | 39 18:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I get it - you're seeing "[rollback]" next to every edit - that's because you have rollback and that gives you the option to rollback his edit, not because he's using rollback to perform the preceding edit. It's kind of odd to start with. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed—tagged as resolved. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly correct, as I don't have rollback, so I don't see what you're describing. The problem here is that I made an unwarranted assumption. Thanks for clearing it up for me. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 00:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOAP

Resolved

– Userboxes reworded, agreement reached on moving text to draft article. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per SOAP, Wikipedia should not be used for Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. A number of users have included this banner along with a recruitment call to action (sign a political petition) on their user and talk pages. While I actually support the cause they rallying behind, I object to their use of Wikipedia for recruitment. What's the official Wikipedia stance on this sort recruitment? Does it violate SOAP? Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, not a soapbox.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks. So what should be done? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was speedily deleted. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 20:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This item contains material of similar vein. Unomi (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to a user's main userpage, I think it's best to bring up any concerns you might have with the user first. I note that a discussion was started on the user's talk page on just this subject. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 21:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable. Would it be fair to say that Add your signature to the thousands of others. constitutes advocacy and/or recruitment? Unomi (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that's a fair assessment. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 21:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. Whether the position has merit or not, this is completely unrelated to WP and is inappropriate to have on a user page; there are plently of sites which offer free web space and allow people to blog or advocate to their heart's content. Wikipedia is not a free web host. – Toon ^(talk) 21:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not really true, people have reasonable latitude to discuss non-Wikipedia issues that concern them on their userpage, unless this material is extremely offensive and might bring Wikipedia into disrepute, such as pedophilia images. See Wikipedia:UP#NOT for more discussion on this point. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They have a right to discuss non-Wikipedia issues - not recruit signatures for a political cause. This is obviously WP:Soap. --stmrlbs|talk 00:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the other material on his userpage, linked above by Unomi. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add your signature to the thousands of others. is arguably advocacy / recruiting. This text is on his userpage linking directly to a website of a lobbying organization. The situation is like a group of rabbits being spotted by a hunting dog. They have hoped to remain unseen by the hunter (the public), but they made fun of the dog, and now the hunt is on. They and their dubious practices are now very, very visible and publicized by the entire British press! This text is also there seemingly solely for the purposes of gloating/advocacy. The full text which he put on his talk page is even worse, while there may be some sources useful for a future article the text is in no way laying the foundation for it nor engendering such a discussion that would help bring it about. BullRangifer/Fyslee has also been made aware of the potential copyvio problems surrounding making copies of emails available via wikipedia. Unomi (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"making copies of emails available via wikipedia" ?? What's that about? I haven't heard anything about that from you or anyone else. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was brought to your attention by Toon here and you responded to it more than 4 hours ago. Perhaps you did not give his post a careful reading. It explicitly states the reproduction of the letters here may infringe on various individuals' copyrights (an area I work extensively in on WP). Unomi (talk) 07:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Those aren't "emails available via wikipedia". I thought you meant that I had copied someone's email sent from Wikipedia. I wouldn't do that. OTOH, the material (letters) from the chiropractic associations has been deleted per Toon's request. Since it was source material that will be used, I had just copied it from one of the myriad sources available. My userspace is my sandbox, but I have complied with Toon's request, so no problemo. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of it is problematic, other parts are acceptable and within the latitude we give to editors on their talkpages. I've advised this editor myself to reword parts of his userpage. Other material might be moved to a subpage and developed for addition to the relevant articles. However, I don't think this is ready for mainspace yet, since the sourcing isn't good enough. However, as this is a current event, that will probably change, so I think it is quite reasonable to keep a draft that can be updated. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intriguingly the whole text could constitute copyvio see here. Unomi (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worthwhile concern, but I see versions of the text being actively edited on WP several days before the blog post. Beyond that, I can see why users might take issue with recruitment links or template, but otherwise would like to see more voices in the discussion before we go about removing self-expression on userpages. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's my own blog. I knew that my own comments wouldn't be acceptable as an article, but still legitimate here as my own personal opinion. I also realized I could use it on my much neglected blog, so I placed it there. (I have now moved and am revising the material per NPOV.)

Now, just how far is everyone willing to allow the chiropractic profession, through their unofficial representative here, Levine2112 (and his sidekicks), to replicate their censorship of Simon Singh in England here in my own userspace at Wikipedia? Since when are the chiro thought police allowed to keep my opinion off my own userpage? They don't like it? So what! -- Brangifer (talk) 07:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any place the Levine has said that you shouldn't be discussing the issue. The problem is with the solicitation of signatures. He has stated that several times. Imo, if you want to rail about censorship, then you should be contesting the WP:SOAP policy instead of attacking the editors that noticed the policy violation. --stmrlbs|talk 20:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other uses of the banner outside the above template

The banner is also used on several other user pages and at least one other template. The File links section on this page will provide illumination.

And with regards to Toon05 comments above, I believe that this whole section merits investigation for possible violations of WP:NOT#WEBHOST and WP:SOAP.

Please note that in this discussion, the user wants this to blow up into a big to-do on Wikipedia and this bring more attention to the cause. I personally believe that the offending material should simply be removed wholesale - without any big production - and then we can all get on with our day. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and posted a CSD G11 request on the other template page, per the rationale given in the main thread above by SarekOfVulcan. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining usage of the banner/template appear on just a few user and user talk pages:

Notice has been given these users; however the notice has gone unnoticed, ignored or rebuffed. How to proceed? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how long did you give them to respond? Not everybody is in the US time zone or on Wikipedia 24 hours a day. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BullRangifer - the engineer of this campaign - responded very quickly, removed one message of recruitment, but seems reluctant to remove anything else. Totally understandable. Verbal responded pretty quickly as well, changed one statement of recruitment but kept the link, and when pressed further gave me an edit summary of Arkell vs Pressdram (which is exactly tantamount to telling me to "fuck off"). Crohnie has not responded. I have not informed QuackGuru, but somehow I think he is well aware of this discussion - as following me around Wikipedia seems to be his favourite pasttime. I'm flattered! ;-) Anyhow, we can certainly give Crohnie more time to respond, or a well-intentioned admin can simply remove the egregious violation of WP:SOAP from her user page (as was done on BullRangifer's talk page). I prefer the latter, but am patient enough to wait for the former. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, patience and calmness are two virtues I admire. She may choose to remove it, or reword it. This doesn't seem to be any kind of emergency, so I'd favor letting her decide. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The box and recruitment link has been added here now. Don't you think we should nip policy violations in the bud? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just discovered this whole drama by THE arch-protector of chiropractic's reputation here at wikipedia (yes, that's his avowed purpose, in nearly those exact words), including keeping well-sourced criticisms out of articles.

I notice that the template has been deleted, even though I had revised it per the concerns of the nominator. That's not right. It should be restored and I will then revise it if necessary. Please AGF.

I will definitely address all concerns now that I have a little time. I haven't been aware of any of this. Please be patient. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that google indexes and caches wikipedia pages is one of the reasons why this is problematic witness that your user page is ranking ~~very high~~ for "libel suit filed by the British Chiropractic Association against Simon Singh" Unomi (talk) 02:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that dead last can be called "very high", especially when searching for a handpicked quotation that's known to be there. Try removing the quotes. --NE2 04:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, very high was incorrect, but the fact that it is listed at all should be a cause for pause. What is also interesting is the fact that almost the entirety of the questionable content is in fact a copyvio, which is not allowed anywhere in wikipedia, including user pages. BullRangifer should be aware of this and remove the content, after all he can just reword it from his external source. This shows that it was never 'the start of an article' merely copy paste soapboxing. Is that kind of behavior coupled with reticence and attacks on levine for bringing it to wider attention really something to be rewarded on wikipedia? Unomi (talk) 05:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares if Google indexed the page? It's not criminal, and it doesn't need to be suppressed from Google. It's just not appropriate for Wikipedia, so let's remove the incitement to sign the petition and move on. MastCell ^Talk 05:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are overlooking the fact that Bullrangifers userspace text is identical to external content, a fairly blatant copyvio. I have asked for further guidance here. The fact that the domain trust for wikipedia is quite extensive means that we have to be fairly careful about the content that we host. Copyvio or otherwise. Unomi (talk) 06:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have already done what I can about it. Why the impatience? You should have dealt with me first and given me a chance. That's MY blog, and you've found it commented on exactly ONE place, with a few weird mirrors. That's pretty LOW placement. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea that was your blog. I am not sure if wikipedia is the right place to use as a notepad for your blog posts. I initially thought it was a copyvio, and as such the number of times the external content is reproduced beyond the first is immaterial. The fact is that wikipedia has a high domain trust value with google, one of the reasons that wikipedia is sought out by self-promoters and advocates of all sorts. As stated below, I am disentangling myself from all of this for the moment. I suggest that you sort out the verification of your identity with OTRS and remove the content in the interim, there is no deadline, after all. Unomi (talk) 08:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is abundant evidence from the edit history that I wrote that content HERE long before placing it on my blog. I dont' normally do that, but I realized that in that form it couldn't be used here, and it was too good to waste, so I copied it to my blog and was intending to start cleaning up for an NPOV article. Levine2112 and yourself beat me to it and started all this rucus without giving me a decent chance using only my talk page. You two could have saved a lot of trouble for a lot of people. I am always open for discussion on my talk page, and if the arguments aren't Levine2112's usuall chiro thought police "I don't like it" type, I can be reasoned with. Now I have to run. Please leave anymore concerns on my talk page. I will indeed deal with it when I can. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I just now saw all of this and I am so disappointed and to be honest disgusted with some of this. I came on line this morning at 5 AM to see a message from User:Levine2112 on my talk telling me to remove this. I had no problem with complying and did so immediately then left a message for him to let him know I did. Then I see a message up above that I am ignoring! What happened to assume good faith? I wasn't online prior to this morning after logging off yesterday morning. I do not spend the day on the project here. I also do not have ESP or any other special talents to know that an editor is upset about something that to me was no big deal, and it still isn't in my opinion. Other editors have things like this on their user pages so I don't understand this being a big deal other than Levine and others don't like it. I am always polite so I am sorry but I am angry right now. The total tone of all of this isn't because of the box notice, it's a personal thing going on from previous dramas with Levine's POV verses User:BullRangifer. If you notice, this was found from watchlisting BullRangifer's contributions. The rest of us who put it on our user pages was an after thought. If you look at other users pages you will see they have links on their user pages about all kinds of things including personal blogs and/or the favorite website. This kind of thing comes to these boards and usually it's not a problem being on a user page as long as it not an embarrassment to the project, which I don't think this is. I think it's time to tell Levine to stop his WP:Advocacy because I'm sorry, this is what this is all about. He doesn't like it so it's got to go. Sorry for the angry tone I have here but this was totally uncalled for. Leave a message to me and I respond usually in a timely manner, like I did here! --CrohnieGal^Talk 09:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Administrators, please feel free to refractor my comments if they are too angry, thank you.[reply]

Crohnie, first, apologies for any perceived incivility. Second, apologies for not alerting you to this thread. I believe that if you were to reread my two statements about you above, it is rather clear that I am not stating or implying anything uncivil about you. I don't feel that you ignored my request on your user talk page, nor do I feel that you rebuffed my request. I simply stated that my request was unnoticed by you and that we should give you more time to respond (or have an admin remove the SOAP violation from your user page, no harm done). Again, apologies for anything which you perceived beyond that.

I can certainly understand where you are coming from. In the past 24 hours, I have been on the receiving end of much incivility and assumptions of ~~bad~~ the worst faith. I've been told in so many words to "fuck off" and then had vicious hyberbole misapplied to my intentions many, many times over. I've been attacked for acting out of vendetta, assuming bad faith, and out of professional bias. None of these are even remotely true, which is evidenced by the fact that I stated quite clearly at the start of this thread that I actually support the cause associated with this SOAP violation. I am all for free speech and think that nowadays people are often overly sensitive and too quick to sue for libel, especially in the scientific and medical arena. However, on Wikipedia we are bound by a set of rules which marginally limit our free expression. We all need to abide by those rules. Having this situation examined under the light of those rules was and is my only intention. And really that's all this thread should be about. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banner question

Is this banner appropriate. I tweaked the sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 02:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend you just stated "This user supports the Sense About Science campaign to defend Simon Singh against the British Chiropractic Association lawsuit." That way nobody can accuse you of trying to advertise an external petition. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting ongoing campaign

Why is it that Levine2112 and Unomi are doing their best to ensure that Brangifer's (somebody whom they have both had "episodes" with in the past) User Page is splattered all over various WP boards? Don't they have anything else to do on WP other than harrang an editor they have had "issues" with in the past? Shot info (talk) 06:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its worth noting that if bullrangifer had actually followed up on what he had been advised of from uninvolved editors, none of this would have come to pass, am I supposed to simply ignore copyvio because it happens to have been created by bullrangifer? If you look thru this you will see that bullrangifer was made aware of his being in absolute violation of WP:SOAP more than 24 hours ago, to which he responded as if it should be taken to rfar?! I think we all can agree that free speech is something that should be defended, but it is activism that should be done outside wikipedia. The matter of copyvio came up later, but it is crystal clear that the content currently featuring on bullrangifers userpage is also featured on external blogs as original content with no clear indication that it is under gfdl or CCA/SA. This is not really a matter of interpretation or wikilawyering. It would not be acceptable on any user page and you should try to refrain from acting as well-nigh disruptive enablers. Unomi (talk) 06:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, I don't live in front of my PC. I'll get to it when I can, and I've already done what I can right now. I have left messages on the pages of those who have copied the old version. What more can I do? Oh, I forgot....never criticize chiropractic, because of course it's not the slightest bit controversial in the real world, and there isn't a single RS that ever criticizes it. NOT!!! And even if there was, you and your shadow Levine2112 would try to get me to delete it. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am detaching myself from this drama, I am glad to see that you are increasingly trying to abide by our copyright policies and general consensus regarding using wikipedia as a staging platform for activism, however well intentioned it may be. I would suggest that you follow Tim Vickers advice regarding a more neutral wording for your userbox, one which leaves out external links to lobbying organizations. Best Regards, Unomi (talk) 07:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have already complied by revising the userbox. The external links are perfectly fine. Any delay in dealing with this was because I wasn't aware of the drama going on here. I have done what I could to cooperate. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but where is the immediate urgency in all of this and why is it splashed all over the place? I've looked and from what I can see BullRangifer and others, including myself, have been trying to tend to all the complaints as they are brought up in a reasonable manner. Unomi and Levine are not assuming good faith or patience to this supposed problem. I think if any editor looked at these two editors they will see that this is becoming close to tag teaming already. I honestly do not see why this subject is being brought up at multiple locations either, this is getting close to WP:Forum shopping and WP:Hounding already. I would also like to note that BullRangifer was notified of the supposed WP:SOAP violation yesterday and it appears he responded in a timely manner for a non-emergency situation. Can someone get these editors to back off now and allow editors to make the adjustments without being pulled in multiple directions? There really is no urgency here and it seems to be only a couple of editors have a problem with this, time to close this already I think. Thanks for listening. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the past history of BullRangifer and Levine, this recent discussion has been about adherence to fairly clear wikipedia policy. The above userbox was in violation of WP:SOAP and well out of sync with WP:USERBOX. Please refer to existing related userboxes, not one of them comes close to the tone of the one above, see also Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes/New_Userboxes I very much doubt you will be able to find many if any userboxes in wikipedia which contains external links or even directly endorses lobbying groups. Wikipedia is already plagued by infighting, we do not need to loosen the existing norms to cater to even more of it. Consider Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising. Consider the discussion regarding deleting all political userboxes as they foster divisiveness.

I do not believe this is a case of hounding, the userboxes are so blatantly and absurdly out of touch with policy that it pains me that people who otherwise seem able to function in daily life would even think that it might possibly be a good idea. I really, honestly, do not think that the kind of thinking that would precipitate these userboxes has any place on wikipedia. This has nothing to do with the relative integrity or veracity of chiropractors,medical bloggers or anyone external to this project wikipedia. This has to do with us. Create a userbox stating 'This user supports free speech in science' and I will put it on my userpage, so would the majority of wikipedians. Making a userbox that links directly to a lobbying organization and which alleges that a broad group of people are responsible for the actions of a single(?) trade organization.

Bullrangifer responded to the initial queries by stating If I were so inclined (which I'm not at the moment, but if pressed could change my mind), I could press the issue all the way to a major RfArb and thus get your censorship actions widely publicized. and was to rather sound critique with a, imo, solid foundation in policy. A complete and rather defiant disregard for policy based reasoning which seemed to force levine to bring the issue to AN, where there was, understandably, support for resolving some of the policy violations by completely uninvolved admins. Unomi (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, to summarise, if I have understood the discussion above, BullRangifer has agreed to move the quote of the petition and the comments on the "Chiropocalypse" to User:BullRangifer/Backlash to chiropractic lawsuit against Simon Singh, is free to add links to his blog on his userspace, and is encouraged to further reword the userbox. Are there any remaining non-personal issues that need to be dealt with? Tim Vickers (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I am still bothered that the link now installed in the restored template goes to a page on the site with the bold header "Sign up now to keep the libel laws out of science!" Linking to a page with this sort of bold recruitment message still seems like a violation of WP:SOAP to me. Further, outside of the template, some users are providing another link which reads something to the effect of "See who's signed the petition by clicking here". That link takes you to a page with a brief introduction and then a bold "Sign the statement now" link. I don't know. These links on user pages still IMHO seem like political advocacy/recruitment links and thus, SOAP violations. That said, I would like to read others thoughts on this. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that this template still needs more rewording. However, editing an unprotected template isn't something that needs administrative powers. I'd agree that the userboxes with external links to a lobbying organization are also not acceptable, which I think was agreed above. Is there any thing else that needs admin attention? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing more from me. Anyone else? Thanks, Tim! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing from me. Hear hear, Thank you Tim. Unomi (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overused non-free images

I couldn't find a better place for this, WP:CP is for text and Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Non-free is inactive, so I'm posting this here.

There are currently 42 images tagged as non-free that are used on 30 or more pages. Many of these are being used in templates, including talk page templates and userboxes, so fixing it is as easy as editing one page, though some may have questionable fair use rationales. So if people are looking for something to do:

List of files

File	Uses
File:UMass_Seal.png	380
File:Glogo-small.png	174
File:Liga-Nacional-de-Futbol-de-Honduras.png	99
File:Seal_of_the_Prime_Minister_of_Thailand.svg	96
File:Canadian_Forces_emblem.png	85
File:EnverHoxha.jpg	82
File:INS_Vikrant.jpg	81
File:U-47s.jpg	79
File:Seal_of_the_National_Assembly_of_Thailand.png	65
File:Minneapolis_flag.svg	61
File:OMosley.jpg	59
File:Tennesseestateseallrg.png	57
File:JoseAntonio-DeRivera.jpg	57
File:Arkansas-Razorback-Logo-2001.png	55
File:Ion_Television_logo.svg	54
File:UnionArabeFootballAssociation.png	51
File:Gpap.PNG	50
File:Uk1pnd2000.jpg	50
File:GLRockwell.jpg	49
File:Paralympic_logo.png	49
File:INRNPA.png	49
File:PrefSymbol-Chiba.png	48
File:Trans-Canada_Highway_shield.svg	48
File:RiverCityLogo2007.jpg	46
File:JCL_Seal.png	46
File:Miami_Dade_County.png	46
File:Libertarian_Party.svg	45
File:Abclocalradio.png	44
File:FloridaGators.png	43
File:MarylandTerrapins.png	43
File:Virginia_Senate_Seal.png	42
File:Us-ok-tu.png	40
File:Newpalmlogo.svg	39
File:StMartinCoat.png	38
File:Artix_logo.jpg	37
File:CBCRadioOne.svg	37
File:DaytonFlag.png	33
File:LSUTigers.png	32
File:Oklahomastateseal.jpg	32
File:Dharmalogo.svg	31
File:Seal_of_ASEAN.svg	31
File:CMCLogo.jpg	30

-- Mr.Z-man 20:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at some of these. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I did some of the ones higher up on the list. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify a few things:

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions is the more appropriate place to post questions of this nature in the future.
Images used in templates will show as being used in every article where the template is used, which is technically true
Non-free images may not be used in lists within articles, navigational boxes, or galleries in articles or categories
- The standards are Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, Wikipedia:Image use policy, Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline
Example: File:Seal of ASEAN.svg is incorrectly used in the navbox {{Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)}}

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this directed at? This wasn't really a questions, so MCQ didn't seem like a very good forum. I'm not asking if these are overused and used inappropriately, I'm pointing out that most of them almost certainly are. Mr.Z-man 22:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, frack; I didn't notice it was you. Never mind. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm working on these now. J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make an example of it, I'd say that 90% of the uses of File:LSUTigers.png are complete bunk. Reso lute 23:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Same with the other sport logos. However, removing them would probably be deemed "controversial", as there is a long history of editors completely failing to get it with regards to sports logos. Of course, sports logos, especially for universities, are so different to other non-free content. I'd have removed them myself, but my Twinkle is playing up. Dealt with a good few, but more eyes are needed (and a tool for mass removal would be nice in some cases). J Milburn (talk) 23:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't there a long RfC on sport logos recently? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming they're being used in mainspace with rationales, that question is still up in the air (there's an attempt to get mediation on it). However, any use outside of mainspace is clearly a violation of NFC policy (no ifs, ands, or buts) and that action is what needs to be undertaken. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a RfC, yes, but it was a joke, naturally. Policy is clear, some people just refuse to accept it, as articles look so much prettier with logos splashed all over them. They should just be removed, I don't really see why it's still being discussed. J Milburn (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the comedy RfC and whatever "mediation" takes place (since when do we do mediation on policy?), of course overuse shoudl be removed in the meantime. Black Kite 01:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went through over half the list. The majority of the issue was these were being used in templates, which isn't allowed per NFCC 9. Also, while we have half a dozen places this could have gone, I think Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review would have been the best place personally (take that Gadget850 ;) I also didn't want to touch the sports logos with a 10 foot pole. Seems like majority rule/consensus of avid sports fans get to circumvent NFC, and I'm not up for any fights like that again. Just curious, how was this list generated?-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I generated the list with a Toolserver query. Mr.Z-man 00:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When we have respected admins unwilling to deal with blatant abuse of non-free content (presumably because of a fear of drama/general backlash?) we have a problem. This sports logo issue needs sorting... J Milburn (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try going after television screenshots. I had more fun dealing with the Croatian/Serbian fights. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC is completely clear that non-free images are not permitted outside the main namespace; removing them from user pages is perfectly appropriate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's not an issue; article space is different though - still, remember that WP:3RR is your friend and doesn't apply to removing NFCC violations ;) The use of File:MarylandTerrapins.png is ridiculous, for example. It should be used in the main article and nothing else. If someone else hasn't fixed this by tomorrow I'll be wielding the NFCC axe. Black Kite 00:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I misread the original post above. The uses in mainspace are more painful to deal with, unfortunately. Was there actually an RFC on the sports logos? — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was. I can't find it now - can anyone link? Of course, it was just a small number of users pointing out policy vs. a collection of editors who didn't give a shit about NFCC. I've just cleared File:MarylandTerrapins.png in about 12 minutes, incidentally - I'll do the other sports logos tomorrow if no-one else steps up to the plate. If you do remove the violations, watchlist the pages - you will be reverted. As I mentioned above, though, you are in the right - and point it out. Black Kite 01:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC was at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos/Archive 1. Mr.Z-man 01:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was the (still undetermined) RFC. The Request for mediation is currently going on and most (on both sides of the issue) have a de-facto truce not to remove or add anything until the issue is decided. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some of the images are Trademarked and NOT Copyrighted (apparently the Maryland Terrapin one cited), so that makes the issue even more thorny since they are very likely to be allowable. (as discussed ad nauseum in the sports logo discussions, for anyone interested) Cardsplayer4life (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:MarylandTerrapins.png? That is without a doubt under copyright protection. Yes, its trademarked too, but that doesn't mean its not also copyrighted. Mr.Z-man 02:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) The terrapin image is tagged as non-free copyrighted. If it were tagged as a free image, I believe it would not have appeared on the list above. If it really is not copyrighted, the license tag should be updated. NFCC does not apply to images that have a free copyright tag, even if they are trademarked. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaah, you might be right, I am not sure. I don't know specifically about that image. I just know that it is the case that there are several that had originally been misidentified as copyrighted and then (over the course of the many, many months of discussion in the sports logo fiasco) it was realized many were only trademarked. (and not copyrighted) Again, not sure about the Maryland one because I haven't researched it specifically. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every time I look at the NFCC, I can never ever find the wording that Black Kite always asserts is in there and is being flgrantly/abusively/deceitfully/outrageously ignored by everybody except him. I am always amused by the thought that, by just using one logo in one place instead of x places, for the exact same purposes in each place, that that is somehow protecting a copyright holder, or upholding the free content mission. Sort of like, 'if we hide it in just this one article, nobody will find it to copy it' bizarreness, or even worse, 'look dear re-user of free content, you can have all these page for free, but just not the one that explains the whole topic'. There are many many other examples of simple abc wrongness that surround certain users attempts to 'interpret' the NFCC. I find in these never ending POV wars over the NFCC, its always best to actually look at what the foundation lawyer has actually said about NFCC about a hundred times. And although my memory may fail me as the kilobytes have stretched into eternity in the Good Fight, I am quite sure that not once have I ever seen him agree with Black Kite, and in most cases he never even responds. Too busy on important legal type stuff I guess. MickMacNee (talk) 03:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to be a lawyer to be able to read WP:NFCC#3 - "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.". 43 usages of one logo isn't minimal use. I notice that all the overused logos that I removed last night have been put back by User:Strikehold quoting the mediation. My temptation would be to keep removing them until editors get the message that policy = policy. The mediation is irrelevant because mediation won't change policy. Black Kite 10:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The mediation is not about "changing policy", it is about determining the policy's actual meaning. I'm sorry, Black Kite, I guess those who don't agree on your interpretation of NFCC are just a bunch of simpletons. As for the policy: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." Why would that be interpreted to mean anything other than on a single article? You don't think readers go directly to articles like, say 2000 LSU Tigers football team, without ever going to LSU Tigers, or LSU Tigers football, or Louisiana State University, or whatever article in your interpretation is the supposed only allowable usage? And if they do, that means they are not gaining the "significant information" available through the logo's use. Strikehold (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And they're back: File:LSUTigers.png and File:Arkansas-Razorback-Logo-2001.png. Good effort, though, J Milburn. -Andrew c ^[talk] 04:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And gone again. If they come back without rationales I think that a hard line is required. Poor rationales are one thing....totally missing ones are a different matter - Peripitus (Talk) 07:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine, although WT:COPYCLEAN might have helped too. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha! Just great. Another page to add to my watchlist. *grumble* -Andrew c ^[talk] 12:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here is an idea. Text-only logos. Seeing the Arkansas – Texas A&M rivalry article made me think of this. I could imagine a sports fan being really upset that their arch-rival gets to have a pretty logo in the infobox, but not their team of choice. So I made File:LSU text logo.svg. I imagine almost every sports team has a text only logo equivalent. I believe a coordinated effort with the Graphic Lab could help produce a series of these text only (and thereby public domain) logos that all the sports fans could use in templates and infoboxes and userboxes and so-on. It may take a little work, but I think this is a rather ingenious compromise that would still allow logos on these pages, but still be in compliance with NFC. -Andrew c ^[talk]
  - File:Arkansas text logo.svg. Since these two files have been the source of some edit warring. There are probably hundreds of others to do, Category:Academic sports logos seems like another place that needs clean up, if we really are going to push removing these logos from by season and by sports articles. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am fine with the text logos (as evidenced by me changing several of the logos to the text ones, haha), but I know most people will not be. Get ready for a lot of pushback if this is widely implemented. (I speak from experience in the many discussions that have taken place on this issue.) Cardsplayer4life (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cardsplayer4life

The actions by Cardsplayer4life (talk · contribs) here have been extremely negative. Considering, above, he said that many had taken a truce to not add or remove any content, he has taken it upon himself to mass-revert myself and others, often without comment (a clear abuse of undo) and other times pointing to the lack of consensus at the RfC as support for keeping these images. Clearly, the burden of proof lies with those wishing to include the content, so these actions are wholly inappropriate. J Milburn (talk) 12:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were the one mass removing content. I am trying to keep the status quo that was agreed upon. If it changes, that is fine, but I am following policy. The "burden of proof" argument has already been raised and answered in the many, many months of discussions. (multiple times) I am not going to rehash every argument here again, please read through the discussion or make any arguments there if you wish. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree to any "status quo". I see a large number of images for which there is no consensus, so I remove them. A second mass reversion is completely disruptive. You are really crossing the line now. J Milburn (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am "really crossing the line now", because I have been 1) placing images in allowed spots based upon the current wording, and 2) been upholding a well-established status quo truce? Not sure what line that makes me cross, but ok. I never claimed you agreed to anything. Whether my reversion seemed disruptive to you or not is irrelevant since it upheld wikipedia policy, sorry. To try and accommodate you further (why, I have no idea) I changed most of the images to the less-desirable (for many reasons) free alternative image. (But, that was before you even wrote the above.) If you feel the image policy should be changed (or clarified), then please take any argument you have to the appropriate discussion on the subject instead of trying to argue with me about it, (Lord knows there are enough of them.) as I have no interest in arguing over changes in image policy, but only upholding current policy. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions need administrator closing

I mentioned this a few days ago, but it seems to have been lost in the archives without discussion. Wikipedia:VPR#The .5Bedit.5D link for sections and Wikipedia talk:Upload#Free images and Commons need to be closed by an uninvolved admin who can determine consensus. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these look like a no consensus. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What would you say the default result is then? On the upload one it seems certainly a no consensus... the edit links seems trickier (granted though, my view would strongly be in support of moving them). There isn't a huge consensus either way there, although the majority supports it (last I checked). Anyway, if we're saying that that one closes as "default to keep as-is", I'll implement the gadget discussed there. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism 1RR limit

A few days ago I responded to a protection request by Vision Thing for semi-protection of Fascism, to stop edit warring by an IP editor. I semi-protected the article. Soon after, the IP editor correctly pointed out that we should not use semi-protection in an editing dispute unless all editors involved are IP or anon editors. I unprotected the article, apologized on my talk page, and pointed all editors to my talk page in my unprotection summary. You will see that I said I was seriously considering full protection of the article, and I urged all editors to keep discussing changes.

The next day my real life interfered with my Wiki life and I was unable to be here. However, EdJohnston responded to an AN3 report by Vision Thing reporting the same IP editor for a 3RR violation. Ed blocked the IP for 24 hours and left a note on my talk page about it. Looking back, I think this reporting editor was trying to keep the anon editor out of the discussion, but that may be oversimplification.

In the interim between Ed's block and my return here, the edit war at the article has not stopped, and instead is careening out of control. Instead of full protection, I took Ed's suggestion and placed a 1RR restriction on the article, which may be viewed here.

I know there are admins involved with Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect also are aware of the problems at this article as well as others. I may have jumped the gun a little by imposing first and asking here later, but I think the situation more than warrants quick action. The article is a hot mess, 158Kb long now, and we've got to take control of it. I ask for support of the restriction, extra eyes on the Fascism article, and any help my fellow admins can give. Thanks. KrakatoaKatie 04:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a bunch of fascist BS

--NE2 04:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah? That's typical coming from a guy who tries to railroad others. :-P - KrakatoaKatie 05:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that the particular RFC/U was about as messed up a one as ever found, and that the editors who cite it repeatedly seem to think that are showing how good they are <g>. Further that I made no recent reverts on Fascism at all, which means mentioning me here is a teeny bit irrelevant. One of the editors involved seems to deleight in calling me "deranged" and worse, and on the basis of "do not feed the trolls" I have avoided filing WQAs on him. I also recommend that anyone reading this also read User:Ikip/Disclaimer and User:Ikip/Guests as well as the current ArbCom AMIB case/ It might result in a better balanced view of my posiions. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010 film)

This page was created, not enough content was added so it was turned into a redirect to future section on the the franchise page. More content was discovered, still, not enough, the page again was deleted and the little new info was added that future section.............. I agreed with all of the deletions, but recently more critical content was added (see this edit). Is this enough for it's own page or not? ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 05:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, per WP:NFF, if a film has not been released then its production itself must be notable per WP:GNG. We do not have production info on this film. We have a select number of casting, a release date, a director and writer, and one controversy over filming in a school's pool. That's the exact same information we've had for months, and it all fits into a single paragraph. The "critical content" added today was a source where one of the actors said, "It's going to be just like the original", and Craven's opinion (about 80% of the Craven quote was not directly tied to this remake). Not really that relevant, and certainly doesn't indicate a notable production. I pointed out to my fellow user that this film has another year before it's even set to be released. The recent Friday the 13th remake's page was not created until 7 months before release, and this is how much information we had when we finally moved it off of its respective franchise page. The upcoming Halloween II film, which is due in August, did not get a page until just 2 months ago. This is how much info we had when we moved that off of its franchise page. There just is not enough information to warrant a whole page, especially when WP:NFF indicates that future films require notable productions and we don't have true production information, but really the same pre-production info we had months ago. Nothing has really changed. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 05:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of AfD debate by Cirt

Resolved

– Cirt undid close, I reclosed - Fritzpoll (talk) 09:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt (talk · contribs) closed the deletion debate Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Estonia–Luxembourg_relations_(2nd_nomination). Previously he participated in the Deletion Review of the previous discussion. That deletion review that was closed by User:King of Hearts contrary to his recommendation. His closure is contrary to the relevant guideline (Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Deciding whether to delete). -- Docu (talk · contribs) 19 June 2009 08:48

Deletion review is that way. This board isn't for deletion review. Whispering 08:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this closed AfD is taken to Deletion review, I will defer to the outcome of consensus there. Cirt (talk) 08:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, would you consent to undoing the close, and/or allowing me to reclose it? Fritzpoll (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, see [15]. Cirt (talk) 09:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, re-closed Fritzpoll (talk) 09:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fritzpoll (talk · contribs)! :) Cirt (talk) 09:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fritzpoll, much better. -- User:Docu

Merge and delete

Everything seems to have been said in this discussion and the debate hasn't be active in two weeks. Would an admin take the time to close it? Preferably someone who didn't previously delete any of the merged articles. As far as I know, the main outside view came from User:Moonriddengirl. -- Docu (talk · contribs) 19 June 2009 / 10:21

Page moves contrary to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC / WP:2DAB, leaving links to disambiguation pages behind

Resolved

– Further discussion to occur elsewhere. –xeno^talk 17:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please try to explain to Arcadian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) why

1) disambiguation pages are not necessary when there are only 2 usages - a WP:HATNOTE on the primary usage is all that is necessary and

2) if one does vacate a primary usage and replace it with a disambiguation page, one should repair the links to disambiguation pages that were created

I had a tough time dealing with them when they did this on Amoeba (see User talk:Arcadian#Amoeba) and notice they're still doing it, i.e. most recently with Acanthocyte (I've already moved back). Thanks, –xeno^talk 14:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if someone informed Arcadian of this thread - they've asked me not to post to their talk page even though I tried to bury the hatchet at User talk:Arcadian#Amoeba redux. –xeno^talk 15:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User notified. Tan | 39 15:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, I believe my conduct has been compliance with disambiguation policy. On the Amoeba page, the links to the page were genuinely ambiguous, and so a disambiguation page was the most appropriate target. For Acanthocyte, the reason there was an overwhelming majority of references to the blood usage was because I had already updated it on Template:Abnormal clinical and laboratory findings. --Arcadian (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you would've explained that to me up front. We couldn't gotten on a lot better. However, the 2DAB rule still applies to many of the "disambig" moves you've made. You could save everyone a lot of trouble and not create links to disambiguation pages that later need to be fixed by just adding a hatnote. –xeno^talk 15:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that this is an accurate summary of the relationship between my conduct and Wikipedia:2DAB#Disambiguation_pages_with_only_two_entries. Please provide a diff. --Arcadian (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You vacated Acanthocyte (moving it to Acanthocyte (blood) when it should have probably just remained as the primary usage) on the 16th to place a disambiguation page with 2 links in its place - as a result, pages such as XK (protein) pointed, inappropriately, at a disambiguation page. You could've then repaired the link, but it would have been better to simply add a hatnote as I did [16] after reversing your move to point users to your newly minted article if they landed at Acanthocyte looking for Acanthocyte (mycology). –xeno^talk 15:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To make sure I understand your position -- are you stating that after a disambiguation, an editor is required to edit all the pages that pointed to the prior version? If so, I would welcome feedback from other admins on this page to confirm that point, since it does not seem to be supported by the policy pages you've linked. For reference, here is the version before I disambiguated. Per Wikipedia:Disambiguation, "However if there are two topics for a term but neither is considered the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is used.". --Arcadian (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say "required" (it's a volunteer project), but cleaning up the links to disambiguation left lying around is the responsible thing to do. Nevertheless, in the present case, Google seems to indicate that the "blood" usage is the primary topic, with only 355 of 26,400 results making reference to Stropharia. However, if in your expert opinion there is no primary use, then yes, repairing the links to disambiguation pages yourself would be a good idea (as we saw in the Amoeba case, this required some more refined knowledge of the subject). –xeno^talk 16:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate someone telling me if I'm completely off-base here - but as far as my understanding goes wrt to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:2DAB and WP:DPWL, these page moves are unnecessary, or where they were necessary, they made work that Arcadian didn't follow through on, i.e. repairing the links to disambiguation pages that were created as a result. Such repair may in fact require some specialized knowledge of the topic area and as is seen at the #Amoeba thread on Arcadian's talk page, I didn't have the requisite knowledge to properly repair all those disambiguation pages with links and Arcadian wasn't too forthcoming in offering advice on which links should go where after I attempted to do the clean up myself. –xeno^talk 16:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder, Xeno, and Arcadian, if you would both do me a personal favor, and make an effort to alter your relationship with each other. What started out as (I think) being annoyed by the other's perceived attitude was reciprocated in kind, only each time a little worse, and it kept spiraling into a situation where two prolific, long term admins can't have a calm, grownup conversation on each other's talk pages.

Arcadian, meet Xeno. Xeno's been around a while, is a good egg, and knows quite a bit about disambiguation pages. He could probably be a useful person to know. Is he welcome on your talk page again?

Xeno, meet Arcadian. He's been around even longer, is a good egg, and knows his stuff backwards and forwards with regards to Medicine. He could probably be a useful person to know.

And Dear God, if you're not interested in burying the hatchet, please just ignore this instead of saying something like "I'd be happy to, but he's the one who started it"; it will reduce me to a whimpering amoeba-like lump lying on the floor weeping in frustration. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to bury the hatchet and would be pleased to assist Arcadian repair links to disambiguation pages on his advice if he feels there is no primary topic and makes moves like this in the future. –xeno^talk 16:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xeno reported me as "reckless" on the Administrator's noticeboard, which makes this process more formal than any of us would like. It's possible that he's indirectly withdrawn that claim, per this header edit. However, that's a very indirect way doing this, and since he's using past conduct as evidence to support his claims in this current thread, I want to make sure that this thread is as easy as possible for people to understand in the future. If Xeno is withdrawing his claim, I would be delighted to let the matter drop. --Arcadian (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, I decided "reckless" was escalatory and thus amended - however, the problem of leaving behind links to disambiguation pages remains. If you make moves like this in the future (vacating a page to make a disambiguation page), the links need to be repaired - links to disambiguation pages are almost never appropriate. My bot is approved to do this and if you gave me some pointers on distinguishing to which usage the links should point, I can do the grunt work if you don't feel like doing it. –xeno^talk 17:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given this edit, xeno is welcome on my talk page again, and I look forward to productive collaboration in the future. I do think in certain examples, linking to a disambiguation page is the best choice, but I'm confident that we can resolve those issues on a case-by-case basis, rather than raising it to the level of the Administrator's noticeboard. --Arcadian (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. Marking resolved and we'll go forward on a case-by-case as you suggest. cheers, –xeno^talk 17:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc on self electing groups

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Self electing groups. Administrator's opinions are solicited on the issue of self electing groups on Wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London Grid for Learning blocks

See User talk:82.198.250.66 where the hardblock rangeblock of the LGFL is being protested. Is the vandal these blocks were intended to prevent still active? –xeno^talk 15:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, this month we've had this request in extremely uncivil terms, and vandalism of the talk page on the 9th. I'm not convinced it would benefit Wikipedia to unblock, but I'll go along with consensus. Dougweller (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe his/her main concern is that the block is a hardblock, registered users can't edit without requesting IPBE. –xeno^talk 16:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've read it again and am beginning to understand the issue, luckily one I haven't had to deal with yet. :-) Dougweller (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My username has been spoofed

Resolved

I'm traveling and my username has been spoofed. I haven't gone back through all of my edits since June 13, but I just learned about this one: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geography#Location_maps_for_continents_-_proposal. I'll change my password, and I'll create a new account for use while traveling. But I'd really like to know who spoofed my account (and others at WikiProject Geography are probably interested, too, as the action effected their discussion). Perhaps a checkuser can assist. Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Spoofing" means to imitate, for example, if someone created "Rosistep" and acted as if they were you. Do you mean your account was compromised? Tan | 39 15:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on [17] and [18] I would say that yes, what she intends to say is that her account had been compromised. Shereth 15:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably foolish to speculate based on insufficient information, but since this happened at a page that was likely on your watchlist, appears to have only happened once, didn't advance any other editor's dispute (i.e. a pretty lame hack if it was a hack), and appears to have been a use of rollback, I wonder if it isn't more likely that you accidentally clicked rollback on a diff or on your watchlist, and didn't realize it. It's not that hard to do, I've accidentally rolled something back before and almost didn't catch it. I think this might be more likely based on Occam's razor. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that the account was used by anyone at a different location than the two locations you routinely use. There is a 5-1/2 hour gap between the revert you say you did not make and the rest of your editing that day, but the location is the same as the other edits that day. If it was not an accident, could it have been someone else using your computer, and finding that your account automatically logs in? Thatcher 16:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. It seems Floquenbeam is right. After logging in, I must have accidentally clicked on rollback... I feel pretty lame about that. I guess it was just easier for me to assume that some jerk compromised my account, rather than the error, though accidental, was mine. So I'll go back to Polargeo and the project talkpage with an apology. And thanks to all of you for being so speedy assisting me with this. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, stuff happens some times. Better than that someone guessed your password. Thatcher 18:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've rolledback and not realized until someone pointed it out to me later. It happens.--chaser (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've unintentionally rollbacked when I was trying to get to an article section. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 18:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

update to {{Italictitle}}

A function of the {{italictitle}} template broke following an edit to {{str sub}}.

I've done all the dirty work already fixing the code, all that's left is a copy-and-paste job from User:Bob the Wikipedian/test (yup) to {{italictitle}}. After that, I'd appreciate that user subpage being deleted (but only after the code has been copied). Thanks! Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a huge fan of moving code around like that and destroying the underlying work (attribution and all...). Perhaps move the subpage to Template:Italic title/sandbox 2 or something? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point...it is an odd situation. I was the only contributor to the user subpage, and it was all done within a matter of minutes, so the history on that page is worthless. The changes to the code are very minor (I added the code "+ 1" and "- 1" to two sections). I'm not sure how moving the code to a new subpage will preserve my name on the code...it might be appropriate to simply credit me in the edit summary. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(p.s.) Perhaps it would be easier to unlock the page long enough for me to make the changes? Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done, and seems to work. As you said, it was a minor request, pretty much like any other {{editprotected}} request (which you can use the next time you want a change to a protected page). Thanks, Amalthea 21:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Warady Group

Could I have a copy of the deleted article Joel Warady Group if you dont mind? TrioRuleYou (talk) 01:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following up at user's talk page. lifebaka++ 02:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sent location. TrioRuleYou (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please review uploads of Cowbell31 (talk · contribs)

Can someone please review the uploads log of this editor? I have found two blatant copyvios uploaded under Creative Commons licenses (they're screenshots from the movie Back To The Future III). One other upload, an obviously professional promo-photo of Don Knotts. I tagged the blatant copyvios but someone should review. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those were screenshots of Back to the Future III, and were unused, so I went ahead and deleted them as copyvios. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 970: / Line 970: @@
 Could I have a copy of the deleted article [[Joel Warady Group]] if you dont mind? [[User:TrioRuleYou|TrioRuleYou]] ([[User talk:TrioRuleYou|talk]]) 01:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 :Following up at user's talk page.  <font color="green">[[User:Lifebaka|''lifebaka'']]</font>[[User talk:Lifebaka|'''++''']] 02:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
+::Sent location. [[User:TrioRuleYou|TrioRuleYou]] ([[User talk:TrioRuleYou|talk]]) 02:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 == Please review uploads of {{user|Cowbell31}} ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards