Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

In the USA and Canada (and I believe the rest of the world), copyright exists as soon as a work is created, and has done so since the mid-70's. That you think something can be trademarked without being copyrighted is a rather disturbing proof that you don't really know much about how copyright works and probably shouldn't be opining on any discussion involving it.//roux   17:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's only true if the material has sufficient originality to be the subject of copyright. Clearly, "IBM" can be trademarked but not subject to copyright. I haven't checked whether this applies to any of the materials discussed, but it is quite possible for something to be trademarked and not copyrighted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. This also makes Roux's "haven't the foggiest" edit summary above to be interesting. However, this is all sort of drifting from the intent of the thread. Tan | 39 17:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well no, actually. IBM can trademark that arrangement of letters without being able to claim copyright on them... however, we are talking about images here, logos, which as original works are indeed subject to copyright. Indeed, in order to successfully trademark something (Kleenex, Google, Xerox), one must aggressively defend the trademark and not allow others to use it. But again, that's all rather beside the point, since we are in fact talking about logos, not text, so it's all a bit of a red herring for you to be bringing up here. But hey... if you're okay with someone who doesn't actually understand what copyright is and how it works having any influence on copyright policies, by all means go ahead. //roux   19:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• The previous wording of #3a (it was changed on a basis of consensus here) read: As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary. It was changed because of discussion here, where it was agreed that "Wikipedia as a whole" was understood to be redundant. That discussion is a further extension of this one where it talks about how these points in #3a are duplicative with #8. The core of all these arguments is that given a piece of non-free artwork, there is likely one and only one article where that article is significant and necessary; if there is an additional article where the image can be placed, it needs a strong rationale as to why it couldn't just be replaced with a link to the core article. --MASEM (t) 12:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

• This is fine, although WT:COPYCLEAN might have helped too. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Ha! Just great. Another page to add to my watchlist. *grumble* -Andrew c ^[talk] 12:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • If this "pushback" comes in the form of edit warring and abuse of non-free content, I see no reason not to block those involved. As you're familiar with the subject matter, perhaps it would be better if you worked on your idea of implementing non-copyrighted text-only logos (though the threshold of creativity is very low- any styalisation at all would be copyrightable) rather than edit-warring with myself and others? If you meet with resistance, I'd be more than happy to help you as appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
          • "If this 'pushback' comes in the form of edit warring and abuse of non-free content, I see no reason not to block those involved."---I would tend to agree (although that seems a little harsh) since that is what those attempting to make non-policy changes were doing, but I'll leave it to others to pursue that course of action if they feel it is warranted, as I do not wish to pursue it myself. On the subject of non-copyrightable text only logos; As I said, it is an acceptable compromise for me personally (although I certainly would not be excited about it enough to undertake any projects implementing that fix), but I know it is unacceptable for a variety of reasons for a number of people, and I do not wish to have that fight either. Good luck with your edits. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
            • I don't really care about the text only logos. I'm not certain about their status as PD, but I am happy to trust other administrators in that regard. My concern is that these non-free images are not abused any longer. J Milburn (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I am very interested as to why the text "burden of proof lies with those wishing to include the content" is wikilinked to WP:NFCC, which doesn't make that claim at all. It's true that a rationale is required (which is what NFCC means by "there is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article") but that's not the same as saying that without a strong consensus on the validity of a rationale or a set thereof the default position is to exclude. That position is contentious as you well know. As for the subject of this section, you're welcome to open up an WP:RFC/U of course but there are several editors who have been far less civil and far more tendentious regarding these issues. Oren0 (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you people ever actually read the non-free content criteria? Direct quote- "Note that it is for users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale, not for those seeking to remove or delete it to show that one cannot be created. See burden of proof." No consensus to include the images, no inclusion of the images. Seriously, I'm starting to think you people are just trolling now, I'm getting sick of this crap. J Milburn (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I've read through the NFCC more times than you can count, and there ARE valid rationales provided for these images to be included. Links have been provided to the arguments back and forth on it. (It is likely that the reason the fight has gone on for so long is that there are valid rationales that can be provided to support either side of the debate.) If you would like to read through some of the rationales provided, I would read through the links here. (especially the arguments back and forth in archive 1, where in the initial support arguments you can find most of the rationales, although some are scattered throughout) I am not going to compile and paste every single pro and con argument here because it would be too time consuming, but rest assured that we are certainly not trolling. (please assume good faith in editors, and try to avoid personal attacks) Cardsplayer4life (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I was heavily, heavily involved with the "debate" to begin with. I have seen the arguments offered, yet when I continue to see people willing to edit war to keep these images, I become a little dubious. Being agnostic as to the necessity of the images is one thing, but edit warring with multiple admins experienced in NFC issues is completely another. J Milburn (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Just because it has a rationale for every use doesn't mean it has a valid rationale. Many of the rationales for File:MarylandTerrapins.png are just ridiculous. Some of them just give "infobox" for the purpose of use. The "Purpose" field is supposed to describe "How does the media contribute significantly to the article(s) in which it is used" (quoted from the FUR template documentation). How does "infobox" do that? Others have "Used to illustrate athletics at Maryland." - That's pretty much the same as "decoration" Mr.Z-man 23:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Funny to see how this is being brought up in multiple corners of Wikipedia. The concept of overuse is being misused when it comes to team individual or multi-season pages. The community has seen fit to pass FAs, 2005 Texas Longhorns football team and 2007 USC Trojans football team, and the logos were permitted because they represent the essence of the team (itself the basis of trademark). The same can be said for bowl and conference title game FAs (example 1, 2, 3, though there are sometimes slight difference when those logos are changed from year to year (example 1 vs. 2). What it boils down to is, though the idea of overuse is valid in some circumstances, this is a case of square peg in a round hole. To make an analogy: interpretation is the cornerstone of the American common law system, which isn't the rote inflexibility of continental civil law systems. The rationale already exists for why these images are being used, and claiming the burden has somehow shifted back to us is inaccurate. --Bobak (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

As a separate note, I find J Milburn's conduct here to be a little harsh. --Bobak (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course you would- you've done your best to create an "us and them", and I happen to be the "them". The fact that there are FAs is sad, certainly, but I'm not quite sure how that suddenly justifies abuse. You claim that the problem of overuse doesn't apply in this case, yet make the classic "mistake" of forgetting to explain why. You can state as much as you like that these logos should not be treated as other non-free images are, but stating doesn't make it true. J Milburn (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little unsure why it needs to be explained, yet again, that an image can have the most fantastically written rationale possible, but if it doesn't pass all the criteria of NFCC (in this case 3a and 8) then the rationale is irrelevant. No-one has yet managed to explain how a non-free logo in a sports season passes NFCC#8, and I suspect no-one ever will. Black Kite 18:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Trademark vs. Copyright

I only just discovered this AN thread today, but I have also been keeping an eye on the sports logo RFC and mediation efforts. In my opinion, I think the biggest issue confounding editors in this area is the status on English Wikipedia for trademarked images that are also ineligible for copyright. For example, Commons has freely accepted the text logo for Sony (Image:Sony logo.svg), and it is marked with {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Trademarked}} licensing information. So far, editors on this wiki have refrained from using that image on the many articles in Category:Sony, but only showing it on the main Sony article as though it was non-free. (But I see that the Chinese Wikipedia have no concerns about its appearance in a navbox: zh:Template:Sony Group.) On the other hand, the text logo for House (TV series) (Image:House logo.svg) is used widely across every page related to that television show, through Template:House and Template:WikiProject House. In the situation at hand, the college sports editors seem to think that text logos of their favourite universities can be used widely on many per-season per-sport results pages, like the House text logo. But in the larger scheme, it seems to me that there is very unclear guidance for editors, from the combination of statements at WP:Restricted materials, WP:General disclaimer#Trademarks, WP:Logos, and so on about what is acceptable usage for trademarked images. We are very clear on our policy with regards to copyrighted images (well, clear to me at least) but not so much for trademarked non-copyrighted images. It would help tremendously if some knowledgeable editors (i.e. no "I like it this way" opinions) could help craft clearer guidelines and policy explanation. I believe that acceptance of those images on Commons does not immediately equate to "not non-free", but I am unsure about what exactly it does mean... Policy for this Wikipedia (which will be different from Commons policy) ought to be clear. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless I misunderstand, trademarks that are not copyright should not bother us. The property only applies to the use of the mark in relation to the products or services for which it is registered or similar products, not writing about it. DGG (talk)

Since Wikipedia is neither a for-profit nor a commercial entity, the use of non-copyrighted trademarks is a minor concern. This is the reason they are accepted on the commons and are freely available to be used across the various Wikimedia projects. This issue is not just limited to trademarks. There are other IP protections, such as Personality rights, House rules against photography, etc., which some jurisdictions observe. These non-copyright restrictions vary widely from one legal jurisdiction to another. It would be virtually impossible, and of very little (if any) real value, to try to apply them all on a consistant basis. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)@DGG: Perhaps, but perhaps not. My point is that the relevant policy and guideline pages on this Wikipedia are not clear about how "free" trademarked images really are. There seems to be an undercurrent that we should be "careful" in using them, but how? Should they be treated the same as free images (placed anywhere without concern), the same as non-free images (per WP:NFCC), or somewhere in between? I suspect it's "somewhere in between", but that needs to be more fully explained. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

@Rreagan007: The problem is that this position doesn't help average editors decide what is acceptable usage and what isn't. Can we at least find a definitive position for this Wikipedia for text logos (since personality rights etc. wouldn't apply)? With some concrete examples, do you see any problems with how File:House logo.svg and File:LSU text logo.svg are currently used? Why or why not? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok let me say it another way. Unless it's being used in a commercial context, you're free to use non-copyrighted trademarks. As Wikipedia is non-commercial, I think you can use them on Wikipedia just like you would use any other "free" image from the commons. And I used personality rights as an example as there are many images of living people on the commons and used across Wikipedia without a second thought given to it. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. We only accept images on this Wikipedia that can be freely used by anybody, not just free for our specific noncommercial website only. We should not be excessively using content that limits the rights of any "downstream" user, even if it doesn't interfere with our own rights for usage. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

By that standard, all pictures of living people would not be allowed on Wikipedia either. Just like I can't take the LSU text logo off of Wikipedia, slap it on a product and sell it, I also can't take File:Michele_Merkin_1.jpg off of Wikipedia, slap it on a product and sell it. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

But that image is not used on dozens of mainspace pages. That is my point: in many cases where a non-copyrighted image has other potential restrictions (e.g. Merkin's photograph, the Sony logo), we seem to respect a "minimal usage" guideline (as though it was under NFCC, but without the need for a fair-use rationale), but for other non-copyrighted images (House logo, LSU logo) we use them on dozens of pages without regard for those other restrictions. Why the discrepancy? We need some non-vague guidelines that the average editor can understand. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There is really no reason that a non-copyrighted image can't be used widely on Wikipedia though, since it's not trademark infringement. All the trademarked image pages (should) have a trademark warning on them that clearly states that certain commercial use restrictions apply. If a person ignores this and removes an image from Wikipedia to use it for a non-permissible reason, that's not our concern. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is. And I've seen this debate elsewhere, but with no conclusion. The essence of the question is how free do we want Wikipedia to be? As free as possible? Or relaxed in a few areas (such as fair-use images)? And if relaxed, where is that bar set? I understand our consensus criteria for non-free images. I do not know the answer for trademarked content. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Anderwsc, I agree with your original assertion that further guidance would be useful and there is no current conclusion. If you would help me in coming up with a Mediation Case, I'd appreciate it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

There seem to be some misconceptions here. Wikipedia isn't allowed to use trademarks because we're non-commercial, but because we aren't using them in an infringing way. As long as we don't use the trademarks to suggest we're affiliated with the organization that has the trademark, we can use it. Being non-commercial has little to do with it, its primarily because we're an encyclopedia and only using the images for illustrations rather than to market something. If someone founded a non-profit delivery service, painted their trucks brown and called it UPS, it would still be trademark infringement. Mr.Z-man 17:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the basis for your argument (even using an apple to market a new computer could be infringement), but the line then becomes what is trademarked? A trademark lasts as long as a company protects it (i.e. indefinitely) while a copyright is only good for so long (basically 70 years or so...depending on when it was created) and then it becomes public domain for everyone. While you can have an image copyrighted and trademarked, your protection with it as a trademark runs out when it becomes public domain. Consequently, organizations vigorously protect their trademark and don't copyright them.

So, the question remains, what do we do about trademarked images that expressly state they are such (i.e. they have a TM or (R) on them)? Can we use those with no restrictions? Can they be used on user pages? Can they be used in discussions? In short, we aren't outside of the law here, but it's just a matter of defining how we use such images. This is the way I see it:

Content moved to comments. So much was wrong with it that I didn't exactly mean that it is simply easier to start over and re-explain what I really meant.

Thoughts? — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

"What is trademarked" is an irrelevant question. Unless we replace our logo with something that looks like this, trademark is not our concern, as there's almost nothing we could do to infringe on a trademark with normal editing. Almost everything you wrote is totally wrong. "organizations vigorously protect their trademark and don't copyright them" – This makes no sense at all. Copyright protection is separate from trademark protection and both are automatic. Not copyrighting a trademark will not help protect it in any way and trademark doesn't expire when the work copyright expires. Forget about trademark. Unless there is strong evidence that a work is not copyrighted, we assume that it is. Strong evidence would be: 1) Evidence that the copyright expired due to age, 2) Evidence that the copyright owner has released the work into public domain, or under a copyleft license, or 3) The work clearly does not meet the threshold of originality. We don't wait for people to complain before we consider an image copyrighted. Whether or not an image is trademarked has no bearing on whether or not its copyrighted. Mr.Z-man 02:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"What is trademarked" is certainly a valid question to specify an answer to. Organizations indeed protect their trademarks vigorously. Copyright is automatic, as is trademark, but you must defend the trademark as courts have decided that failure to bring timely action against a known infringer may give the defendant a defense of implied consent or estoppel. Furthermore, a trademark goes out of trademark status for 5 years after failure to use. You are absolutely correct that we are concerned about copyrights. Trademarks on Wikipedia are of little concern within Wikipedia and the general disclaimer pretty much covers everything else. I will re-summarize what I wrote above with a little better context:

1. Trademarked images with no possibility of being copyrighted or that have expired copyrights: Can be used with no restrictions within Wikipedia, but need to be identified as trademarked images. Restrictions oustide Wikipedia fall under other disclaimers.
2. Trademarked images, regardless as to whether they are clearly marked or not, as trademarks, that do meet the threshold of originality: Should be treated as copyrighted images and all afforded protections under fair use law and WP:NFCC
3. Copyrightable/copyrighted images: used in accordance with fair use law and WP:NFCC.

Hopefully that clears things up a little. Sorry about the ambiguity in my previous response. I can see how that would have been taken the wrong way. My bad. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Three separate but related topic ban proposals for NYScholar

I believe NYScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is known to this noticeboard. Given some of his/her recent activities, I am proposing one topic ban against her/him and Ssilvers (talk · contribs) is proposing another. [Update: a third discussion/proposal has been added.]

Proposed topic ban on discussing copyright issues

NYScholar does a lot of work on copyright issues. Unfortunately, he/she combines a very poor understanding of the relevant issues with zeal, persistence, and an absolute conviction of her/his own correctness, even in the face of unanimous disagreement from other editors. Most recently, this has manifested itself in discussions about an image of Harold Pinter; these discussions can be found here, here, here, and here. It has become apparent to those of us participating in the discussion that NYScholar does not understand either fair use or WP:NFCC, continuing to make the same point (that the disputed image is under copyright, which is acknowledged by all) in numerous lengthy and often difficult to decipher posts. This has been an issue with NYScholar for some time: to see older examples, see this discussion and pretty much these entire talk pages: 1, and 2.

In light of this continued pattern of behaviour, I do not believe that NYScholar is ever likely to be able to contribute usefully to discussion of copyright issues, and that his/her involvement in such discussions is necessarily disruptive. Also note that I anticipate this section being overrun with lengthy posts very shortly, and so am taking the initiative to hive off a polling section immediately, notwithstanding polls being evil. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 23:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Endorse proposed ban

1. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 23:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Ssilvers (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Jack1956 (talk)
4. Dreamspy (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2009
5. Orderinchaos 19:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
6. teb728 t c 04:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC) In particular NYScholar should be banned from saying that an admittedly fair-use image may not be used because the copyright owner does not agree to its use. (comment added —teb728 t c 22:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC))
7. Broadwaygal (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Tim riley (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
9. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 18:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
10. Sarah 02:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
11. Verbal chat 14:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
12. Given the information in the total ban discussion below, I feel this is an appropriate response. rspεεr (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
13. Endorse but only for a period of a couple months at most for a time out. Longer later if necessary. DreamGuy (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose proposed ban

1. User:NYScholar
2. NYScholar appears to be perfectly logical and cogent in their arguments. Triplestop x3 03:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
3. There are very often free images of well known people in the public domain, and there is at least a decent argument that if someone was alive after 2000 that this will be the case. "Free use" is then a crutch for laziness. Please see [1] for discussion of one particular case. AKAF (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

   Er, what does this have to do with what's being proposed? So you don't like fair use images of recently deceased people; that's fine. There's room for a wide diversity of opinions on the extent to which fair use images should be used. Nobody's proposing topic banning NYScholar from copyright issues because of her/his beliefs; we're proposing the topic ban because NYScholar i. repeatedly makes flagrantly incorrect statements of fact, and ii. when told by literally everybody else in the discussion that these facts are incorrect, he/she refuses to budge. This has been, as indicated above, an ongoing problem for more than a year now, and not just with regards to fair use images (see, for example, here, where NYScholar disrupts a debate that he/she initiated by posting enormous amounts of irrelevant text on the subject of an entirely free image). Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

   It is the rather pertinent fact that "not liking" fair use images of (recently) deceased people is the default wikipedia/wikimedia position. Your position is hindered by being wrong on this topic, and there is a fair amount of precedent to show that for most famous persons that free images exist if only one is prepared to search. NYScholar may have made a pest of himself, but he happens to be right in this particular case. It appears that there is an ongoing acceptance on non-free images in the Harold Pinter article which is contrary to best practice. As far as the copyright discussion which you cite: Unfortunately on wikipedia "literally everybody else in the discussion" can be a bunch of 12 year olds in the school library, and so is hardly a great argument. I find his arguments on the image you cite persuasive, but interpretation of copyright law is not democratically decided. AKAF (talk) 09:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

   "My position"? As noted here, I'm not even convinced that this image passes the WP:NFCC. This is not a debate over whether/when non-free images should be used. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

   Actually there have been exhaustive attempts to find free images of Pinter on the web, both by NYScholar and others. I have five requests oustsanding using the boiler-plate image request emails, and have had three poltiely turned down. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

4. A site-wide ban on discussing copyright issues is just overkill, in my humble opinion. –blurpeace ^(talk) 07:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
5. He's wrong on many accounts, but that doesn't mean he needs a topic ban. Most actions seem to stem from the past week about a single image. While I admire his zeal, it certainly is misplaced. Other actions should be taken before a topic ban. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

   It’s not just a recent problem: I first encountered NYScholar's strange copyright theories in 2007 at here where he/she insists that the (1903) design of Nobel Prize medal is not public domain in the US. —teb728 t c 06:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

6. I understand that tensions are rising due to the "Someone is WRONG on the Internet" effect, but I don't think a topic ban is an appropriate response. Though I believe NYScholar is wrong about fair use, the more relevant problem is NYScholar's attempted "ownership" of the article and its discussion, and so the article is the more appropriate scope for a ban. rspεεr (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

   Given more background information about NYScholar's history of wiki-lawyering, I am moving to support. rspεεr (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment

I find these actions on the part of these editors outrageous. --NYScholar (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban on Harold Pinter

User:Ssilvers should be along shortly to provide more detail on this proposed ban, on which I have no opinion. I'm just putting this here as a placeholder and to make people aware that it is also proposed (though I'm not aware of the proposed duration or scope). Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 23:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

NYScholar has presented a very serious WP:OWNership problem at Harold Pinter. For many months, and even years, he/she has blocked all attempts of other editors to revise the article. In its current form, Harold Pinter is so difficult to wade through, and the citation format is so Baroque, that numerous editors have been discouraged from even trying. See, for example: [2] A peer review was recently opened, but the main suggestions about simplifying the referencing style were not accepted by this editor. NYScholar is so prolific, that he/she buries any objections under a flurry of talk page discussion so voluminous that it is nearly impossible to read (note the talk page's voluminous archives). A quick look at the footnotes in Harold Pinter will, I think, show the seriousness of the problem. As Steve Smith wrote with respect to the copyright issue above, Scholar edits with zeal, persistence, and an absolute conviction of her/his own correctness, even in the face of unanimous disagreement from other editors. His/her former mentor wrote: [3]. Another editor wrote: [4]. S/he also removes other editors comments from the talk page if he does not deem them relevant. See, e.g., [5]. Since NYScholar's last ban [6], s/he has continued to bar other editors from working on the article] [Updated evidence. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)].

In light of this continued pattern of behaviour, I do not believe that NYScholar is able to contribute usefully to the Harold Pinter article, and I believe that his/her involvement in the article is disruptive. Since the article requires so much repair, I suggest a ban of some number of months to permit other editors a chance to try improve the article without his/her interference. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Endorse proposed ban

1. Ssilvers (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Tim riley (talk) 06:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Jack1956 (talk)
4. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Dreamspy (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2009
7. Orderinchaos 19:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Blurpeace (talk) 07:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
9. Will Beback: This user has made 2765 edits to the article, while the second busiest editor has made just 60 edits. This editor has also made 2/3 of all talk page contributions, and a review of the recent ones shows ownership problems which the editor has failed to correct despite having them pointed out to him repeatedly. The editor is passionate about the topic and dedicated to improving the article. However this is a collaborative project and the editor does not seem comfortable with that reality.   Will Beback  talk  10:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC) PS: I do not think the user should be allowed to edit the talk page nor other articles closely related to Pinter.   Will Beback  talk  21:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
10. Abd (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC) However, I'm uncomfortable with the total exclusion of NYScholar, who should be able to suggest changes. Page ban to the article may be more appropriate, with self-reverted edits to the article allowed; in that way, NYScholar may be able to efficiently suggest article changes, but they must be "seconded" by another editor and accepted directly or with modification. I have seen this result in improved cooperation, it forces the "expert," who may, indeed, know more about the subject than other editors (which explains at least part of the voluminous discussion), to engage and convince them instead of merely overpowering them. Tl;dr editing to the Talk page is also a problem, but there are ways of effectively addressing the legitimate part of objections to this. Overall, NYScholar should find and keep a mentor, who should have the ability to suggest to the administrator who closes this ban, and who should be responsible for maintaining and interpreting it, that NYScholar be further restricted, or that the restrictions be lifted, without further ado. If he cannot find such a mentor, acceptable to the closing administrator, that should be a sign to him that he's the problem, or that the world isn't ready for him. --Abd (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
11. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 18:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
12. teb728 t c 22:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC) I hesitated to endorse this ban, but having read NYScholar’s comments below, I see that NYS *does* think (s)he owns that article.
13. I am disappointed to see that the mentoring has failed and that we are back here with the same problems once again. I endorse the proposals here, but I must note that in reference to Abd's comments above about "self-reverting edits" for page banned users, I would caution any such editor from doing this as it does not have the support of the community and is likely to wind up with such an editor being blocked (and it's worth noting that Abd ended up blocked for doing exactly that). When a user's disruption gets to the level of requiring the community to step in and issue bans, there are serious problems and flouting a page ban with self-reverting edits is likely to end up with that editor blocked and users who make any edits to pages they've been banned from - self-reverting or not - do so at their own risk. If NYScholar ends up page or topic banned, I expect that to mean that he will not edit those pages, period, or risk being blocked, and that is what I am endorsing, not some sort of get out of jail free card wherein he continues making edits but self-reverts them so a friend can come along and restore his edits for him, thus continuing his problematic behaviour via proxy. Even if this kind of thing had broad community support (it doesn't) in NYScholar's case it would be extremely problematic due to the sheer volume of edits he makes flooding pages - 2765 to this article alone and 2/3 of the talk page's total edits. No, banned means banned. And perhaps if his flood of edits can be controlled other editors will be able to go in and make progress and reach some consensus for resolving some of the problems on that page. Sarah 02:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
14. Not for "being wrong", but for "ownership" and repeated inability to discuss the article constructively. rspεεr (talk) 07:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
15. Serious ownership issues, failure to discuss agreements with other editors (I just took a look to Harold Pinter's peer review). Myself, I saw problems with refusing to accept the fair use policy on images, and readding wikilinks multiple times after multiple editors removed them and explained why they shouldn't be there. Also, in the talk page, I see him making tl;dr replies that don't address the issues at hand. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
16. Verbal chat 14:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
17. Endorse for the time being, until he has demonstrated history of good editing practices elsewhere. (Also think the block should explicitly cover any Pinter-related article and not just the main one). DreamGuy (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose proposed ban

1. NYScholar
2. But let's not confuse this with support for his actions. A short term block for disruptive behavior is in order before we go all the way to a ban. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment

As stated above, I find these actions on the part of these editors outrageous. --NYScholar (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I spent several weeks working collaboratively throughout the late summer/fall of 2007 with a good article reviewer named Willow [need to find user link later (did so now)] (she is possibly still inactive as she has been for the past few months) to bring Harold Pinter through its "good article" review, which was successful in October 2007.User talk:WillowW/Archive11#Harold Pinter (cont.)

After Pinter's death was announced (25 Dec. 2008) User:Jezhotwells, who at that time had recently returned to Wikipedia, entered the article (which had been stable for a very long time) and began to complain vociferously and continually about its prevailing citation style and other things; whenever I and other editors did not support Jezhotwell's views, the editor would file RfCs, abritration requests, project page complaints about me and the article, getting very little to no support. The RfC ended with two editors finding the citation style "reasonable" and agreeing with what I said about it, respectively; then Jezhotwells took the matter to "peer review", where some editors found the article of very high "quality", while Ssilvers jumped on Jezhotwell's bandwagon about citation style. The comments Ssilvers makes are all taken out of context, and highly partial. The article stands on its own two feet. One can simply read it and work to "improve" it, and then see if those edits stand up to further editors' consensus. I've contributed most of the work on the article (between approx. June 2005 and now), including providing the source citations; the material is there. Other editors are free to work on it further. It's been a great deal of work, unappreciated by Jezhotwells and Ssilvers, and some others, but appreciated by Willow and several other editors, including those commenting in the current "peer review". To ban the main contributor with the most expert knowledge of the subject from working on the article is, in my understanding of "improvement" and how Wikipedia works, wholly outrageous and even highly offensive. It shows a total lack of respect for hard work. There is no way that I am preventing anyone from working on the article. They seem to choose to want to talk about it in talk pages and review pages rather than actually to contribute work to editing it. They are of course free to work on it. I will be engagead in doing other work outside of Wikipedia, as my talk page notice states. --NYScholar (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC) [Added link to WillowW's user name and to her talk page w/ good article rev. disc. for convenience of others here. These links are provided already in Talk:Harold Pinter. --NYScholar (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)]

Please see the 2 secs. on Talk:Harold Pinter/archive7#RfC: Article style secs. re: its current citation (MLA) style. [One sec. was inadvertently archived prematurely and restored right afterward (contrary to Ssilver's insinuations above.]: only 2 editors responded to Jezhotwell's RfC:

(1) IceCreamExpress said that it was "reasonable" but that s/he could "imagine other choices that would also be reasonable": (added the dir. quotations for convenience here:)

Use of MLA citation format seems like a reasonable choice to me. Did you have a different template in mind? I can imagine other choices that would also be reasonable. IceCreamEmpress (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

IceCream's request of Jezhotwells for suggestion of an alternative ("different template") got no reply.

(2)In response to my explanation of the style (see the link to the RfC if wish to read it), Levalley wrote:

"I just want to say that I agree with pretty much everything NYScholar says (which is a rare moment in time, that I agree with anyone and don't feel like adding a lot). Consistently is the main standard. If you start holding we who actually want to fix and add substance to articles to arcane disputes about style and citations, well, Wikipedia is the same as dead. As long as it is consistent, any reader of English can figure out what is meant, even the marginally competent. I am not at all being uncivil, I mean this in the most sincere way possible.Levalley (talk) 04:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)--LeValley" (Q added from RfC sec. 1 link above).

--NYScholar (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have stated that I have no intention of participating in any "featured article" review. What happens to the article as it goes through that process will have no input from me. I do not see how my views of citation style have anything to do with that process. I have supplied a consistent MLA style sheet format for the article. What happens to it after it might be "stable" enough to be nominated for a FAC, has nothing to do with me. I stated that in the peer review. (cont.)

How I am preventing anything I do not know. I provided enough consistency in the style citations so that anyone can read them and understand them. But one has to be willing to do so. What I see is obstinant unwillingness to accept the views of the editors responding in the RfC. I can't do anything about other people's attitudes. They are responsible for them. I can only say that I worked hard to provide content and a consistent format for the article. If others do not appreciate that, it is not my responsibility to try to change their minds. They themselves have to be flexible enough to adapt to changing disciplinary documentation styles, which are continually evolving in writing and scholarly and critical research. --NYScholar (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Without wading into any of the other issues raised here, it looks to me as though the citation format used in the article is largely unlike that used at any other article I have seen on Wikipedia. It is unnecessarily complicated for the layman to follow; the preferred format (by extensive usage across Wikipedia) is for statements to be cited to specific portions of specific works. This has the double advantage of being extremely simple for readers (who outnumber editors by many orders of magnitude, so we must always remember to write for them first); click the convenient superscripted number^[1], and get taken directly to the relevant entry in the references list, with either handy links to the reference itself or sufficient publisher data to enable the reader to find the reference online or in a library system. The second advantage is that style also makes it much simpler for editors to both verify and edit/update content in the article. The citation style as it stands, while it does conform to MLA standards, is much better suited to academic essays that will be read by experts who in many cases will have at least a passing familiarity with the sources than to articles on Wikipedia which in the majority of cases will be read by laymen. As it stands now, readers must read the article, then go to a reference and read an exegesis on the references which support/disprove the statement in question, and then go through a very long list of references to find the relevant work(s). This does a disservice to our readership, which is the overriding concern, as well as making it functionally impossible for other editors to add or edit references and content. Again, I don't wish to weigh in on anything else, but this problem alone calls for a large restructuring of the article to be more reader friendly, while still retaining the extensive sources used. //roux   03:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly so. Unfortunately, NYScholar has been resisting all efforts by editors for over a year to change to a simpler and more WP conventional reference style. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an outright false statement. It's patently untrue. Jezhotwells didn't even come along to this article until Dec. 25, 2008. Up until then the article had passed a "good article review" in Oct. 2007, with MLA style in it.

Moreover, I've had made continual changes to accommodate Jezhotwell's various requests since late December 2008. In January 2009, as a result of all those efforts by me, Jezhotwells declared the article "vastly improved"; I suggest you look at the "mediation" s/he filed then.

There is abuse in it directed at me which should not be there, but it is by someone who has not returned, and who has a history of engaging in such abuse of other editors.

Jezhotwells never even responded to the question addressed to him/her in the RfC as to what alternative style s/he wanted. Just read the talk pages and editing history. Apparently, Ssilvers has not takent the time to do that. Every time J. made a comment, I tried to respond by adjusting to the request.

My mentor Shell did not really take the time to follow all that was going on and just accepted Jezhotwells' version of the story. She was too preoccupied with personal things and lost her patience with the whole thing.

I have no interest in participating in any featured article review process with this article or any other article. How Ssilvers sees that as standing in the way of allowing other editors to edit this article I cannot fathom. I leave that to others when the time comes. --NYScholar (talk) 06:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you please address my concerns with the citation format, as outlined above, particularly with regards to the difficulty faced by editors wishing to edit content? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that was your goal; it's an unintended consequence. //roux   06:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No, of course that was not my intention. I supplied content from a great number of print sources in my own personal library (I've a large collection). I have over 40 years of accumulated books, articles, and other sources, all of which are carefully documented in publications of my own and others. I cannot help the fact that print sources are the most reliable sources on Pinter (as on most literary subjects), but that is a fact. Online sources can be notoriously unreliable, repetitive, and cliched. Newspaper articles are hardly as reliable as carefully-researched peer-reviewed articles and books. They are simply easier for amateur writers to cite because they are online sources and more accessible, but they are not necessarily correct or accurate. Indeed one of the Guardian's reporters reporting on Pinter's Nobel has a significant error of fact in her article, and I won't link to it for that reason or cite it as a reliable source.

My goal was to provide content and documentation of source citations to verify it in a thorough account of Pinter's life and work (via the related articles too). If they are print sources, they have to be verified in articles and books from libraries or personal collections. I don't know how to address your concerns about what other editors, who do not have access to these cited souces are to do if they are adamant about changing the prevailing MLA style of citations in the endnotes and Works cited. I think that they need to be more respectful of the work already done, in my view, as it is being done by one of the principal authorities in this field (me). Instead of trusting my judgment, they have been maligning me in the most offensive manner. That is unfortunate. It is really not my inflexibility that is going to create future errors in this article; it is the inflexibility of other editors who know relatively little about the subject and their commensurate unwillingness to accept that an academic scholar knows enough to write a "good article" in Wikipedia. (Remember that the article already passed a "good article review" in the course of which it was already revised considerably. Then Pinter died, and the article needed considerable updating.

The other editors, by virtue of this kind of "ban" request filing and earlier incivilities toward me, have just made it so unpleasant for me to continue working with them, that they have forced me into a position of no longer wanting to take part in working on the article beyond its current stage prior to its possible submissin (later) as a featured article candidate.

Editing here is a voluntary act. I have not got the time to become further upset by this process, and I have decided not to take part in any feature article review that might go on in the future.

I have no advice other than to consult the sources cited. They are accurately and correctly cited. If they are print sources, one needs to use libraries and/or bookstores to obtain them. Otherwise, one will simply be mimicking (possibly plagiarizing from) already published online articles in other encyclopedia and websites, as often occurs in Wikipedia when reliable third-party sources are not consulted firsthand. The farther one gets from examining sources firsthand, the more likely to be mistakes that will mislead readers. I have already streamlined many of the notes. No one seems even to have noticed that; I did a lot of that work over the past few days. There are editorial interpolations visible in editing mode. If you go into editing mode, you will see them. I'm not sure I really understand the above editor's questions addressed to me. I am just guessing at what you may be getting at. If I missed it, please restate. In general, one cannot expect a general Wikipedia editor who is not a specialist in a field to have as much knowledge about the subject and the sources as an academic specialist in the field. This is the case with "Pinter studies": it is a field in which advanced level graduate students write Ph.D. dissertations citing sources written by people like me and my colleagues. This article is not written in "advanced academic idiom"; it is written for the general reader. But the sources are the quality of advanced Pinter studies. Some of them are the best available sources in this field. --NYScholar (talk) 06:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You didn't really address anything I said. At no point did I criticise the content of the references; the article seems excellently sourced. For an academic essay, the format is, as I said, reasonable when one is presumably putting the work in front of experts who are already familiar with the subject. That is not the case with the vast majority of our readership, and the current citation format in the article is not only significantly more difficult for the layman, but is also incredibly difficult for editors to navigate around, as opposed to the Wikipedia-wide standard of using e.g. {{cite book}} to format references for statements in articles. I am the last person on Wikipedia to complain about experts writing articles; frankly, we should be encouraging it. Our antipathy towards experts is stupid and self-defeating. But my concern is that with your obvious familiarity with writing for your contemporaries you have somewhat missed the fact that we are writing for laypeople--as well as making editing easier for each other whenever possible. It has been alleged that you are stonewalling attempts to move all the citations to the general sitewide norms; without commenting on whether or not that's accurate (and for the purposes of this question I simply don't care), would you be willing to work with other editors to bring the referencing for that article in line with what is practiced across the majority of the project? //roux   07:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of patently untrue, a summary of the mentorship might be helpful at this point. NYScholar agreed to mentorship last September after a discussion on AN/I about the possibility of a community ban.[7] Some of the issues were resolved, for instance, NYScholar no longer makes an issue of gender pronouns during discussion. Others we were unable to resolve, for instance the immediate accusations of abuse and personal attacks when someone disagrees with xem or the extreme persistence when NYScholar believes xemself to be correct. When the same problematic behavior occurred on the Harold Pinter article, I attempted to address the issue. I was a bit shocked when NYScholar's reply included a lengthy justification for the behavior mixed with a bit of martyrdom and finally even an attempt to shift blame to me.[8] I concluded that while NYScholar had said all the right things during the mentorship, in reality, no behavioral changes had occurred. Since I believed further work would simply break down again when a dispute arose, the mentorship ended on March 21.

NYScholar is capable of excellent, well-researched and well-written contributions. Unfortunately xe seems to be incapable of productively handling disputes over content and xir understanding of copyright misses the big picture; in fact, many of xir blocks for disruption have been over a misunderstanding of copyright issues as they related to Wikipedia and an unwillingness to concede to consensus. Shell ^babelfish 06:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Shell: you misinterpreted my comments at the time and have not reread them, or accepted my pointing that out. I thanked you over and over at the time. But if you don't want to mentor me any longer, that does not mean that I didn't appreciate your earlier efforts. I did not blame you and don't for anything. But I know from my own knowledge of what I wrote where and when, that you were not able to read it and were not able to take the time (at that time) to deal with all this. The fact that I have taken my time to respond to the previous person's question has nothing to do w/ Shell, other than for me to say that the ban request initiator's references to her comments taken out of context do not take account of the entire situation at the time. I am not used to this kind of treatment, as I am a highly respected academic scholar in this field (Pinter studies) and it is painful to deal with the kinds of petty issues that I have been forced to respond to in these talk pages. I'm tired, and I'm hungry, and I'd rather log out for now. I took time to respond to the earlier comment, but I don't have time or energy to read Shell's in detail now. I'll read it another time. --NYScholar (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Needless to say, I'm not surprised that, once again, NYScholar thinks that they are the only one who comprehend the situation; the rest of us simply don't have the capacity understand such things. The assertion that I was short on time or didn't properly deal with the situation is a blatant falsehood designed to cast aspersions on my comments. I was initially drawn to mentoring NYScholar because I believed the facade of poor misunderstood expert just trying to get along on Wikipedia. Six months of mentorship was enough to thoroughly destroy my illusions in that area.

As you can see from comments here and on NYScholar's talk, when the proverbial shit hits the fan, NYScholar will make noises in all directions of taking a wikibreak, no time for Wikipedia, real life is more important, no further interest in working on the subject area etc. This statement is usually accompanied by a tldr explanation of how only NYScholar really understands the situation, everyone else is mistaken or mislead etc. Despite this you'll note that NYScholar never actually stops editing Wikipedia; these tactics are only used to avoid dealing with the disputed issues and make communication difficult. If history serves, NYScholar will next stop using talk pages and repeatedly blank their talk except to say that they are not available to deal with these issues.

I apologize for my unusual candor here, but this combination of smug self-righteousness and perfidious self-pity simply turns my stomach. Shell ^babelfish 04:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

NYScholar's apparent attitude is common among experts, who somehow imagine that they know more about the topic than the average Wikipedia editor, or even than all other Wikipedia editors. And they might be right. Definitely, it's a problem, but Wikipedia too often resolves the problem by tossing the expert, and the accuracy and neutrality of our content suffers. We should explore intermediate options which preserve and even value the expertise, but which place the expert where experts belong: as advisors. We should value advisors who are voluminous in their advice, but we should constrain and filter that. I appreciate it when my doctor takes the time to explain in detail to me why my opinions about my condition, based on my own research, are bogus, but I fire the doctor if the doctor tries to control my decisions. It is an error to expect NYScholar to filter himself, except as to civility, but it would not be an error to set up, for him, what might be called a "supervising editor," someone with rapport with him and the patience to read his discussions, but who also has the communication skills to mediate or advise him as to how to effectively persuade the community to accept what is valuable about his contributions. Experts are often poor communicators, it's part of the problem. Others specialize in communication and are good at it. Pending the discovery of such a supervising editor, NYScholar should be restricted to avoid disruption. Perhaps one of the editors who has supported NYScholar in the past will volunteer. --Abd (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned, that's exactly what I thought when I first saw the issue and trust me, if you'd ever like to commiserate over the tangible loss to Wikipedia when experts decide its not worth the effort, I could probably chew your ear off. The reason I took this mentorship (btw, NYScholar sought me out) has to do with my experience working with experts, translating for them with others and even helping them develop skills to edit successfully here; many a night has been spent on the phone calming someone who's irate when their knowledge is met with rudeness or incomprehensible wiki-jargon. We may not like it, but Wikipedia, as is, isn't well suited for experts.

Anyways, long story short, two editors have tried exactly what you describe with NYScholar. Please look above and see how even now, NYScholar claims that all of this occurred because I just couldn't understand. You've interacted with me in many places before Abd - do you really think the case is that I was simply unable to understand any of the issues that occurred? That final incident which caused me to release NYScholar from mentorship was one in a long string of repeated issues that all followed exactly the same pattern: NYScholar and I would discuss strategies for working on Wikipedia and handling issues; xe would agree on how to handle things right up until an actual issue occurred at which time everything would go up in flames. I will help experts learn to operate here and be at their beck and call for issues that occur - I will not be their midden boy left to clean up messes they refuse to address or even accept an ounce of responsibility for. Shell ^babelfish 15:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of NYScholar

I may have been hasty in proposing the topic ban above, in that I did not fully research NYScholar's history here. I have since done so, and I would like to propose an indefinite community ban of NYScholar for exhausting the community's patience. NYScholar's prior block history is here, so one can see that the problem goes back at least to 2006: NYScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The following is a brief history of NYScholar's major appearances on this board and ANI since May 2007:

May 2007: NYScholar blocked for legal threats. He/she is unblocked after the threats are retracted, but User:Swatjester objects to the unblock on the basis of this edit, in which NYScholar acknowledges having read WP:LEGAL but refuses to retract the threat.

February 2008: Block against NYScholar overturned. User:Hesperian blocks NYScholar for 24 hours for repeatedly and disruptively archiving threads on her/his user talk page while they're still in progress. User:Sandstein unblocks without discussion, which is the proximate cause of the ANI thread. However, it turns into a general thread about NYScholar's conduct and editing habits. During that discussion, the following editors participate:

• Editors supporting Hesperian's block/agreeing that NYScholar's behaviour is disruptive: User:Crotalus horridus ("I think NYScholar should stay blocked, preferably indefinitely."), User:Hesperian ("[NYScholar's talk page archive] shows reams and reams of discussion from angry, frustrated people, who want a redress that NYScholar is denying them through what amounts to a low down dirty trick. If this is not disruptive, I'll eat my hat."), User:Pairadox ("it becomes almost impossible to work collaboratively with NYScholar."), User:B ("If NYScholar is going to abuse the privilege of archiving talkpage comments, then he needs to be placed on some kind of probation in that regards."), User:Orderinchaos ("a probation of some form should be the minimum expectation here."), User:Moondyne ("NYS is possibly the most frustrating editor I've come across here."), User:Sarah ("His talk page practices are massively disruptive."), User:Will Beback ("Inappropriate material should be deleted from either but appropriate material should not be removed whether by deletion or by overly-rapid archiving. If folks can't or won't deal with other users they should find a non-collaborative project."), User:SlimVirgin ("I'm afraid I agree with Crotalus that an indefblock might have been the best thing some time ago.")
• Editors supporting Sandstein's unblock/disputing that NYScholar's behaviour is disruptive: User:Jossi ("Encourage the user to follow WP:DR, or, if the behavior iwarrants it, start a user WP:RFC, so that the community can give him feedback."), User:Ned Scott ("Another bad block."), User:Sandstein ("I fail to understand how someone can be blocked merely for the act of deleting or archiving content on their talk page."), User:Philippe ("But archive it "early", when we have no guidelines about how long message should stay there? I can't see that as a disruption.")

July 2008: Conflict between NYScholar and Stuthomas4. User:NYScholar brings a complaint about personal attacks by User:Stuthomas4 to ANI, though editors examining the dispute conclude that NYScholar is the problem. As a result of the discussion, he/she is blocked until she/he finds a mentor. The following editors participated in the discussion:

• Editors supporting sanctions against NYScholar/Agreeing that his/her behaviour is disruptive: User:Stuthomas4 ("I believe that there are several users that will attest to the fact that NYScholar has driven many long-time and collaborative editors from this article through brow beating and the sheer mass of the number of edits."), User:Sarah ("I just looked at that talk page and it looks like NYScholar is once again being an obstructionist and driving people away"), User:ThuranX ("In addition to being a rampant obstructionist, NYScholar deflects all discussion by invoking various rules and policies."), User:Shell Kinney ("I would also have to agree with he above assessments of your behavior; you are very combative and skilled at winning by simply wearing down anyone who disagrees with you."), User:Hesperian ("NYScholar's management of his talk page is disruptive."), User:Seicer ("judging from the overwhelming consensus against NYScholar, that criticizes the editor for gross incivility/disruption, edit warring and refusal to discuss any changes, I would support an extended block."), User:Wikidemo (" The issue isn't bad faith versus good faith. Whether sincere or not (and there's no reason to doubt the editor's sincerity) their presence on Wikipedia has been disruptive, causing lots of grief and wasted time."), User:John Carter ("Neutral administrator supports block of above editor, based on previous discussion and discussion above."), User:Aunt Entropy ("Neutral editor seconds that emotion."), User:Moondyne ("NYScholar is incapable of getting on with the rest of the community."), User:Sandstein (" NYScholar does not appear to be able to work productively in a collaborative environment. I would support any sanctions imposed by an uninvolved administrator that would remedy this issue (including an indefinite block) until NYScholar shows clearly that he understands what the problem is and will act accordingly."), User:Orderinchaos ("I'd support [a community ban]]."), User:Viriditas ("Support longer block without an agreement to engage in mandatory mentorship.")
• Editors opposing sanctions against NYScholar/Disagreeing that her/his behaviour is disruptive: User:Erik ("I think that much of NYScholar's edits have been excellent, but he/she seems unable to cordially discuss challenged edits, so the focus has moved from his/her contributions to his/her conduct with other editors... I do not believe that this...warrants a call for administrative action and possible blocks."), User:Steve ("...in response to comments from NYScholar that some have interpreted as not in the best spirit of collaboration. I happen to agree with that assessment of NYScholar's attitude, but I would urge that no action is taken at this time against either editor.")

September 2008: NYScholar issues revisited. NYScholar was eventually unblocked when she/he was adopted by User:Ecoleetage. That arrangement lasted until August 2008, when Ecoleetage released NYScholar into the wild. In light of continued problems with NYScholar's editing, several users questioned this action. After discussion, NYScholar was remanded to the mentorship of User:Shell Kinney. The following editors participated in that discussion:

• Editors opposing NYScholar's release/agreeing that his/her editing remained problematic/supporting sanctions: User:Wikidemon ("As you can tell I've suffered some bizarre and unpleasant encounters with this editor before. As judged through the filter of reading the text he types out on the pages here his behavior is simply not normal."), User:ThuranX ("I therefore support a community ban. All other avenues of recourse having been tried, and the clear demonstration of a lack of desire to comply being evident, there's no choice left but to 'ask' NYScholar to leave this project for greener pastures."), User:Sarah ("I'm really rather astounded that anyone could look at NYScholar's posts to this page and conclude that the problem is everyone else."), User:Gnangarra ("IMHO there is reason to re-instate the block."), User:Orderinchaos ("the immediate reversion of NYScholar to his/her/its/their/NYScholar's old behavior shows that NYScholar continues to be unable to work with others"), User:Aunt Entropy ("I would ask you to do three things: quit assuming bad faith while demanding others show you good faith, quit attacking others while demanding civility from others, and quit saying you are signing off when you don't.")
• Editors supporting NYScholar's release/disagreeing that her/his editing remained problematic/opposing sanctions: User:Keeper76 ("I have personally had nothing but positive experiences with NYScholar."), User:JeremyMcCracken (" These issues aren't major problems in need of administrator attention."), User:Ecoleetage ("If there is any shred of decency out there, drop this matter immediately."), User:Erik the Red 2 ("NY is a good contributor, who has done many good things for this projects.")

Anybody wondering how Shell's mentorship of NYScholar went, need only examine the above comments from both.

I initially proposed a topic ban because I believe in using the narrowest possible sanctions that will address problematic behaviour. In this case, the narrowest sanction that will accomplish that is an indefinite community ban. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Disclosure: I have contacted everybody whose comments I quoted above with a neutrally worded message. The only exceptions are User:Jossi and User:Ecoleetage, both of whom are indefinitely blocked, and User:Shell Kinney, who is already an active participant in this thread. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Endorse proposed community ban

• Endorse I'm sad to say that this user doesn't appear to be a good fit for Wikipedia - even though they are trying to operate in good faith and I am absolutely convinced that their disruption does not arise from an *intent* to disrupt, more an incapacity to comprehend how their actions are viewed by others. I'm not surprised to see them here again behaving in a similar fashion to previously over yet another editing topic, and there comes a time when one has to say "the level of drama and the amount of other user's time being consumed here is hindering development of the encyclopaedia and we should do something about it". Orderinchaos 11:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. In July 2008 I said we'd be back here again within 6 months. NYScholar was again the subject of discussion just three months later in September 2008. Since then a mentor with the patience of a Saint has declared NYS is "unable to understand or accept your responsibilities in intra-personal communications with respect to Wikipedia and that further intervention is unlikely to produce a change in the problematic behaviors."[9] I endorse that sentiment and this proposal. –Moondyne 12:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. My interactions with NYScholar have led me to conclude that, although NYScholar *wants* to make content contributions to WP, his/her actions amount to WP:OWNership; and s/he eventually reverts or overwrites the contributions of all other editors on the articles on which s/he works. Furthermore, even if his/her intention is to make good faith contributions, I must conclude that his/her tactics are *not* in good faith. S/he has been editing here since 2005 and has learned how to time his/her edits, wikilawyer and game the system, especially by burying everyone else's concerns in a torrent of repetitive and argumentative talk page comments and through extraordinary persistence. I also must sadly conclude that s/he is a liability to the Wikipedia project. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse This user has contributed to many Wikipedia article and has much to bring to the project, BUT she/he has consistently refused to work collaboratively with editors and has resorted to bludgeoning and browbeating, deliberately not answering points raised by others, accusing others of bad faith, exhibiting extreme ownership of articles and generally frightening away editors, e.g. here [10] and here [11]. Sadly I feel that the only course is a community ban which may hopefully bring home the point that this is a community project and relies on co-operation, rather than confrontation. I must confess that on one occasion, under what I felt was severer provocation, I resorted to abuse and was gently reminded by Shell that that was not the way and I apologised for that abuse. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse As noted above by other editors, the question is one of collaboration and capacity for working collaboratively. The WP:OWNership point, made above, is, I fear, inescapable. (Later: Apologies: was inadvertently not logged on: correct signature: Tim riley (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC))
• Endorse. NYScholar has repeatedly demonstrated a vast gulf between the knowledge NYScholar possesses, and any responsible means to work with anyone else to get it into an article. The obstructionism via bureaucracy continues, the gender thing may have been 'resolved', but I doubt that its' anything but teeth-gnashing behind the screen now, because I doubt that NYScholar truly understands that issue. We may lose a smart editor, but we also lose one who doesn't even try to use talk apges to compromise, learn, or discuss. ThuranX (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse with regrets. Shell seems to believe the situation is one which will not improve, and Shell is probably more patient and generous than I am. John Carter (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. I came across the issues with NYScholar and the Pinter article some months ago, and am saddened to see that no progress has been able to be made. This is a last resort. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 18:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, he doesn't fit in with the Wikimedia atmosphere. I feel bad, and I have regrets doing this, but it seems like he has left us with only this choice. –blurpeace ^(talk) 20:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - with reservations. I asked NYScholar a pointed yes/no question above about working with editors to address the citation issues and bring them into line with Wikipedia norms. He has not yet responded, though he has made around 50 or so edits since the question was asked. I can only presume, from perusing the voluminous diffs above, that he has no intent of doing so... which is really a crystal-clear answer of its own. Looking through his talkpage history (interesting to note how often he archives), I have to concur with Shell Kinney above; he is simply uninterested in actually discussing issues and prefers to bury people in walls of text, while pretending to 'retire' or 'bee too busy' every time the heat gets turned up too high. This is without even getting into the intense wikilawyering--on his talkpage he implies that topic bans can't be implemented here because the header of this page doesn't mention them. While I deplore the loss of yet another expert, his expertise is not the issue here; the complete lack of interest in acting in a collaborative manner is. //roux   20:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - last time was last and final chance paired up with an able mentor. Sorry to say, we are at an impasse...at this point it seems there's nothing more that can be done to enable this editor to work within a collaborative and collegiate atmosphere. 21:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC) er...that was me Auntie E (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse with regret. I hesitated to endorse even the ban on Harold Pinter, but having read NYScholar’s comments under that proposed ban, I see that NYS *does* think (s)he owns that article. It is a shame to lose NYS’s expertise. Perhaps (somewhat as Abd proposed above) NYS could accept an advisory role, allowing others to control presentation (without filibustering). But I doubt NYS would accept such a role. Based on the reported experience of NYS’s former mentors, I am confident that another mentoring arrangement would not work. —teb728 t c 22:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse: Someone who's been indefinitely blocked on two separate occasions should get the point by now.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. I've seen him add three tags (unreferenced, unbalanced, NPOV) to the top of an article, plus a bunch of citation tags within it, simply because he didn't get his own way over something trivial, usually to do with citation style, even when he's arriving at a stable article he's never edited before. If someone complains about it on talk, he has a tendency to archive. If they unarchive, he'll post a complaint about them elsewhere. If that person is an admin, he'll complain about admin abuse, and on and on. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse per apparent inability to learn to play nice with others. Jclemens (talk) 23:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Most of NYScholar's content contributions have been very good and are very valued, but ultimately Wikipedia is a collaborative project and if one cannot collaborate with others in a constructive manner and can't or won't find a way to get along with other contributors the community inevitably reaches the point of having to step in and make difficult decisions. In NYScholar's case we'd be losing a good content contributor, but what else can be done? I don't see any point in trying a third mentorship and it seems as we've exhausted all other options, NYScholar has exhausted the community's patience. We've spent huge amounts of time on this and the situation doesn't seem to have improved at all, despite the best and commendably patient efforts of Shell. Reading this latest dispute, I get a sense of "same story, different faces" as we're back here again with a new cast of names complaining about the exact same issues with NYScholar that numerous other editors have complained about in previous disputes. NYScholar continues to refuse to accept responsibility and continues to dismiss complaints, accusing other editors of being at fault, of holding vendettas, of being intolerant and unaccepting of experts and academics, etc and of course, NYScholar is always in the right and the other editors simply lack NYScholar's insight and understanding of issues. Unfortunately he seems unable to collaborate and get along with anyone who disagrees with him and doesn't yield to him, from disputes ranging from pure content disputes through to something of a merely personal preferential nature such as the choice of reference formating style. It is disappointing to read the discussions about the reference formating which have a sense of ego and a persistent refusal to compromise or to accept problems here lie with anyone but the "mostly amateur editors". Wikipedia isn't the right place for everyone. The fact that we continue to have the exact same problems with whole new sets of people, despite very lengthy discussions and two attempts at mentoring, leads me to believe that Wikipedia and NYScholar are simply not a good fit for each other. While I strongly agree Wikipedia could do better in working with and embracing academics, I reject NYScholar's attempt to pass his ongoing problems off as Wikipedia's inability to work with academics and frankly some of the comments he's been making on talk pages give the impression he expects Wikipedia to give him greater standing as a self-identifying academic (albeit one who refuses to prove it and as we all know, in this post-Essjay world all contributors must be judged on the merits of their edits not who or what they claim to be in real life) and resents being treated in the same way as everyone else, expert or not, whose edits are judged purely on their merits. I suspect this expectation of greater standing may actually be the basis of much of these problems and if so it is unresolvable as Wikipedia is not equipped to give self-claiming experts and academics greater standing and is built around putting everyone at the same level. I would prefer to be able to find a resolution without banning but given the extensive background and the fact that these issues have been recurring for years now just with different names on the other side, I don't see any other realistic alternatives and if past experience is any indicator, a topic/page ban would just result in the problems migrating to a new page with new people (as it did when NYScholar turned his attention from Heath Ledger to Harold Pinter). And so it is with regret that I endorse this community ban proposal. (apologies for the long statement.) Sarah 04:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse as proposed, obviously. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 08:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse I see two choices here - one is to waste other editors just as valuable time coming here every time things get out of hand and pulling NYScholar clawing and screaming off whatever she's latched onto this time; this approach would also require editors ready to clean up after NYScholar since we see repeated issues with citations and other obscure things. The other is to stop wasting time on the notion that NYScholar's contributions are more important than everyone else's somehow and politely explaining that their particular talents, no matter how formidable, aren't suited for Wikipedia. I'd also like to note that Harold Pinter is only the most recent thing NYScholar has declared themselves an "expert" on; either we have a genius with multiple degrees and an indefinite amount of time on their hands or, as I've come to believe, we have a layperson or college student, incredibly skilled at bullshitting and manipulating others to get their way. And in case you didn't get it out of the discussion above, NYScholar has absolutely no interest in changing their behavior so long as they keep getting away with this. Shell ^babelfish 13:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Sadly this editor doesn't seem to understand the way that Wiki works as a community and how editors support each other in making this great enterprise work. Jack1956 (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse per failure to communicate and no improvement with mentorship. My comment about opposing sanctions, as cited by Steve Smith, was based on a single incident, and I had not been familiar with NYScholar's conduct outside of that. Since then, though, I have noticed similar incidents with the editor even before this week's AN discussion. Since the behavior has apparently not improved since, and it is critical to Wikipedia's success for constructive dialogue to take place among editors, I cannot see a place for NYScholar here. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose proposed community ban

• Abd (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Narrower options should be tried, in particular, NYScholar should be encouraged to find a mentor who is more available and with better rapport. A closing admin here, if there is a close with a site ban, should allow NYScholar to voluntarily restrict editing to the seeking of such a mentor, with the equivalent of a ban elsewhere, and only actually block if NYScholar violates the restrictions placed by the closing admin. This would allow a door to remain open toward useful and effective contributions by NYScholar. The closing admin can always convert the ban to a block if needed. Even without a mentor, the use of self-reversion should be allowed, a topic which should be before ArbComm shortly; whether or not this would be permitted should be up to the closing admin. --Abd (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• I am not adamantly opposed to finding more creative solutions than a ban, though I'm concerned that history shows that NYScholar is incapable of admitting fault, which I believe makes an eventual ban inevitable (though I'd welcome being proven wrong on this, obviously). But I do take issue with your suggestion that NYScholar find a mentor with a "better rapport"; if you examine the history of the relationship between Shell Kinney and NYScholar, I believe that you'll find that Shell was communicative and open minded and NYScholar was incapable of taking advice. I don't believe that there is such thing as a mentor who will succeed where Shell failed. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 15:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you are not opposed to such, and I hope the closing admin notices this. What I see from the prior mentorships is allegedly (1) a mentor who released NYScholar from mentorship, and (2) one who did not have the time to devote; dealing with someone like NYScholar, a verbose communicator, takes particular skills, and even the skills may not be enough, there must be the time and inclination. What's needed most urgently is a neutral supervising administrator who can state specific bans as needed, and release them when not needed. It's clear to me that there is disruption around NYScholar, but a site ban is quite a blunt instrument and neglects the value of NYScholar's positive contributions. The neutral admin can then approve or change a mentor as needed, without this kind of massive discussion. NYScholar has many complaints about Wikipedia and Wikipedia process that are valid, if coming from a restricted point of view. He expresses himself in detail because he believes that when he's brief, he's misunderstood. Common problem, actually. What he doesn't understand is that when he's voluminous, people dismiss it as obsessive. He needs some clear supervision and assistance. He's a writer who needs a good editor. Good editors, actually, are hard to find; they must have the ability to develop rapport with writers, in addition to other skills. Do we have any of those around here? --Abd (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Blurpeace (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC) I personally agree with Abd, in that we can try mentoring before we jump to a community ban on editing. He has made many useful contributions to Wikipedia, and I feel that he project's interests at heart, though he has some flaws (as all humans do). This should be a drastic measure, in my humble opinion.
  • Question: Given that there already was a mentor--one of the best we have, in my opinion--what do you think will be different this time? We have a long, long track record of saying "this time it'll be different," and it never is. Betacommand, Guido den Broeder, etc etc etc. The list of names we give endless second (third, fourth, seven thousandth) chances to is as long as my arm, and every single time there is no substantive change. AGF is not a suicide pact. //roux   19:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Already been tried twice - once with Ecoleetage, then with Shell. It is no slight on Shell's abilities that this failed - mentorship is a two-way street. Orderinchaos 19:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I withdraw the statement. I was unaware that mentoring had already been tried, and failed twice. I am still partially against banning NYScholar, due to his great contributions to Wikipedia and his obvious support of the project, so I am abstaining from supporting the ban, but I am not opposing it. –blurpeace ^(talk) 20:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm switching to support, regretfully. –blurpeace ^(talk) 20:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• This user is completely incorrect with regards to copyright law, but a single block in nearly a year is not enough for me to enact a ban across the board. Given his history, a block (a long one? A week or so?) for disruptive editing is appropriate in this case, but not a ban. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd agree, but the absolutely consistent record of refusing to acknowledge any kind of fault whatsoever (seriously: the two common characteristics of the previous discussions to which I linked are i. NYScholar posts far, far more than everyone else, and ii. NYScholar does not acknowledge that his/her behaviour was in any way anything short of optimal) suggests that any kind of partial or temporary measure is likely to be ineffective. If the community wants to use a series of escalating blocks and then execute the community ban in six months or so, I'm okay with that as a secondary option, though it seems much more time consuming. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 02:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, I've offered to adopt him, so we'll see how that turns out, but I'm willing to give him any/every chance to work his way out of this. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
      • That's admirable. Unfortunately, NYScholar has had enough any/every chances for my tastes, though I recognize that others' tastes may differ. I'd suggest that you have a look at this, though; even at this point, while allegedly seeking a mentor, NYScholar is not interested in self-reflection; he/she is interested in justifying herself/himself. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Agreeing with Steve. The community has tried to avoid banning NYS, far more so than we usually do, putting up with more ongoing disruption that we generally have in the past from other users. I would not support a third go at mentorship as an alternative to community remedies unless there was some real sign of hope that things would be different this time. While NYScholar continues at pains to explain why everyone else is responsible for his inability to edit collaboratively with other users, refusing to accept any responsibility himself, as he is doing in an alarming way on Jayron's talk page, it seems highly unlikely further mentoring would be successful and would just delay the inevitable. Unless NYScholar genuinely wants to change and find a way to work collaboratively with others (as opposed to continually justifying why he's right and the amateur editors are all wrong) there's really no hope for a third go at mentoring getting a different result. Furthermore, if we go the route of more mentoring, due to the issues involved and the history, the mentor needs to be an experienced mentor (not saying BQZip01 isn't as I don't know him, but just a general comment), otherwise I fear it's just more time-wasting as we lurch towards the inevitability of community sanctions of some description. Sarah 06:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Agreed also with Steve. If previous mentorships hadn't failed, I would be more sympathetic. It should be remembered there are many, many users who interact peaceably here and contribute good content without ever needing mentorship. Orderinchaos 06:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Though I do not agree with NYScholar's positions, I find it an overreaction to ban him for what amounts to "disagreeing with everyone and not backing down". Close down the battles he's losing with focused remedies, and he may not have to lose the whole war. rspεεr (talk) 07:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Your last sentence accurately reflects my initial thought, which is why I first proposed the topic ban. The problem is that I have not found even a single area that NYScholar has extensively edited without problem, which is how I got to a community ban. As an exercise, would you mind developing a topic ban/series of topic bans that you think would do the trick? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 08:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I had not encountered NYScholar until coming across this discussion yesterday. Given the additional background described here, I have changed my mind and I do believe he should be banned from discussing copyright issues, as well as from archiving his talk page. But with how quickly this went from "we should ban him from one article and maybe from the topic of copyright" to "we should ban him completely", it looks more like a lynch mob than a remedy. rspεεr (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
      • As I acknowledged above, I was premature in proposing the topic ban. I should have done the research before proposing any remedy at all, in which case I would have started with a community ban. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 20:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Rspeer, I'd suggest that you more carefully review this case, proposal, and the long-term behaviors of NYScholar before so loudly assuming no one's tried before to fix this. Dozens of editors have spoken to her, he's been almost banned twice before, twice failed at being mentored. They continually works actively to be as intractable as possible, going so far as to immediately disregard any reply, no matter the detail or general civility, if a pronoun is used for him. NYScholar set up gender alone as an insurpassable obstacle to conversation. If anyone referred to NYScholar as a 'he', the reply would be that anyone who assumes an editor has to be male isn't worth listening to. If the editor corrected the pronouns or offered an apology, an equally dismissive 'apology not meant' or 'I never said I was a woman' response would be issued. By so doing, NYScholar would then establish that they would not have to pay attention to that editor anymore, then he'd go back to editing as she pleases. The insistence on full-proper noun only use isn't there either. If you only use proper pronouns, you're dismissed as incivil and patronizing. It became a no-win situation. Likewise, if you somehow surmount that, there would be a barrage of demands for chapter, verse, line and word for policies which would stop his edit from staying. Consensus alone was not enough. Well argued consensus was not enough. Well argued consensus which explained failures of the edit according to policy and guideline was not enough. You had to provide a word by word breakdown of his edit, in which each word of the edit was refuted explicitly by policy. And each editor who opposed him was expected to do that level of work, over and over and over. If you can't be bothered to familiarize yourself with the case, and instead say it's horrible to use that last resort so fast, that becomes insulting to those of us who speak from familiarity with the issues in this case. This is not a rush to judgment. This is a case in which every option truly has been exhausted, because all of the above are symptoms of the editor, not of his conduct with regard to one or two topics within the project. This is him/her/them/it all the time, everywhere. Please review this case and the earlier threads linked above carefully. Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• (oppose, for dullard vote counters) - hows about limiting NYS to a set no. of posts / words per day / week? or a set no. of articles? or just to his talk page for a month? or just to any talk pages for a month? or anything not quite so ill-defined as one of these 'always confuse, condufddle and end up causing more trouble than ever they solve' 'community' bans? (I think it's always interesting to divide the no. of editors voting at a 'community ban discussion' by the first no. that jumps into your head as roughly the size of 'the community' - the answers are always telling for me! Now Sarc. is a smart chap (and devilishly good looking to boot) - so I respect the fact that further formal action is likely to be necessary here, but hopefully we can stop short of the ban stick :-) Privatemusings (talk) 09:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose blocks and bans are last resorts. Rspeer words this perfectly. We should not ban editors simply because they disagree and don't let something go. Restrict him from being able to actually stop article progress when consensus is against him (no need for traditional mentor stuff, just find a formal way of doing it), sure, but banning him from all of Wikipedia is overkill. I'd rather see this go to arbcom or something, where the community can be given time to formulate something more formal than the topical mentor approaches, if he is stopping actual article progress. -- Ned Scott 12:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think the topic bans are fine, but a total ban based upon polling seems like nothing more than an impassioned mob action and not a well thought out response. He's not gone through the normal dispute process, other options are available, and the mere fact that more people support a total ban than support the other two bans shows that the people voting don't seem to get that the "nuke it from orbit" plan is not the only option. DreamGuy (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Your points are well-taken. With respect to WP:DR, I did consider a WP:RFC/U (the only step in there, other than Arb Comm, that seems applicable here), but NYScholar's absolute and consistent insistence that all problems are attributable entirely to others convinced me that that would be a waste of time. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• I certainly sympathize with your position, but I think community bans are a bit dangerous in general and would like to see a bit more thought into it as far as solutions. Blocking for refusal to admit to being wrong seems more like thoughtcrime than anything else. DreamGuy (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it's the obstructive behaviour (jamming the airwaves, edit warring, ownership, lack of civility or good faith) rather than whatever thoughts are at issue that led to this particular proposal. Orderinchaos 04:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Abstain

• I wouldn't write here other than I was notified on my talkpage. I still hold that I've only had positive experiences with NYScholar. But those are aging quickly, and as I've mostly fallen to the side as far as actively "adminning", I won't support or oppose this, basically because I have no recent experience with this editor, but also because I don't care to look or have the time to look at more recent editing patterns and habits. The community will decide this, hopefully it doesn't devolve into a pitchfork and torch fest. So far, it's been a really civil way of saying "we don't want you here", if that is possible. I don't oppose, I don't endorse. An aside, I think that banning in general is an overly bureaucratic and hurtful process, and even when presented "well" and as thorough as this case has been made, it still smacks of legalism and lack of patience with someone that, in my experience, seems to want to do the right thing and simply has the problem of coming across in "personality" as like water trying to go up a duck's back. Abstain. Keeper | 76 01:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'll confirm that my comments pasted above are correct, though I'll point out that I was looking at the issue being discussed that day, not of any previous discussions of NYScholar. I looked at the previous discussions linked above, but I can't sort through the previous disputes well enough to try to give an opinion on it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 08:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Plastikspork user rights

Resolved

 – Rights changed. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The user rights of recently promoted administrator Plastikspork (talk · contribs) state that they have both rollback and administrator rights. Apparently, the user who promoted them forgot to remove the rollback button from the their user rights. Since rollback is available with all adminships, having the non-administrator rollback on their account would be moot. I am asking an administrator to fix their user rights. Thanks. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for mentioning this. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of removing the redundant rights? Triplestop x3 03:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It prevents Special:UserRights and similar pages that indicate a user's rights from getting clogged up with redundancies... if every admin was also listed as a rollbacker, the rollbacker list would be 50% admins, for example. It doesn't hurt to have it or remove it, but it just seems more organized to have it removed. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Why didn't you just ask them to remove it themself? –xeno^talk 13:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Why didn't ask him to go ask him to remove it themself? Heh. Just pickin on you Xeno.  :-) Keeper | 76 02:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Mediator needed at Talk:Grief porn

Could someone (admin or otherwise) head on over to Talk:Grief porn and try to mediate between 99.135.175.107 (talk · contribs) and Arcayne (talk · contribs) ? I can't really fill this role since anything with the word "porn" is firewalled here (don't worry though, it's SFW) and due to past history with participant(s) I'm recusing. The situation has been spilling out into numerous other forums and there's even an RFC tag up there (which I think should be removed, it needs a mediator, not an RFC). Thanks in advance, –xeno^talk 13:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It's humorous, in a sad way, when two editors continually revert each other with edit summaries that are variations on the phrase "Stop edit warring!". I've commented on the RFC, but I'm not sure a mediator is what's needed, so much as a knocker of heads together. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

A rose by any other name... –xeno^talk 14:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I don't review enough edit wars, but this is the first time I've seen one side so passionate about The Truth(TM) that they revised the DYK template. Isn't that going a little too far? -- llywrch (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've offered to step in. Hipocrite (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As one of the participants, i would appreciate the assistance. Only one other editor, Padillah, has beenworking in the article discussion, trying to mediate. He is to be commended for his efforts. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed on a number of other locations thanks to some forum shopping going on, so claiming that only one other editor is involved with the discussion is severely misleading. DreamGuy (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Admins please note that User:Arcayne has already been strongly cautioned about WP:OWN issues and incivility with this article at WP:WQA and that the discussion has also continued to the RS Noticeboard and, oddly, WP:FRINGE (the pseudoscience of misery lit?), where it looked like the conflict was pretty well resolved except for WP:IDONTHEARYOU problems. DreamGuy (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grief porn. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"Recommendation" infobox at WP:Userboxes/Politics

Hello. I'm not sure if RfC might be more appropriate for this, but User:Ezhiki has requested I post here.

Ezhiki has created an infobox at the top of WP:Userboxes/Politics which carries a recommendation against the use of userboxes indicating "support for a pro-fascist, far-left or far-right ideology".

Ezhiki cites this discussion with User:Dc76 on his (Ezhiki's) talkpage as evidence of a consensus in favour of the box, but it the idea doesn't seem to have been raised in that discussion, and there doesn't seem to have been any (open) opportunity for other input before the box was put in place.

The box has now been there for at least six months. Three editors have objected, and I have asked Ezhiki to remove the infobox, but he refuses, claiming that he was properly discharging his duties as an admin by putting it there and that it is up to me to post here if I object. You can see the discussion here.

My view is that for a big yellow notice like that to be stuck on a page, there should be a prior process of presenting a draft and gaining a consensus (per WP:DISCUSS) and that the MoS for infoboxes should be followed. Ezhiki should remove the box and instead set that process in motion. WP:BOLD does not apply, because this is not about mainspace.

I don't think it matters, BTW, whether the basic idea of the box is a good thing or a bad thing. My point is that it isn't appropriate for one editor to create an infobox which gives a misleading impression that it reflects policy and the views of the community when no process has been gone through.

If I am right, I would be grateful if someone could explain this to Ezhiki.

Many thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I just want to clarify that I do not cite this discussion as the evidence of consensus. I cite it as the base on which an (administrative) decision to create and post the big yellow box was made (in order to remind editors of a standing guideline). Other than that, FormerIP's assessment of the essence of the conflict is correct (although I obviously disagree with the arguments he set forth), and I would wholeheartedly welcome further comments regarding the situation.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:45, June 26, 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Since this inquiry mentions User:Dc76, I have notified him of this thread.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:51, June 26, 2009 (UTC)

I might perhaps approve of some of the sentiment, but not so dramatically prominent. No one ed. ought to in this way assert ownership over a policy. DGG (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Administrators are supposed to serve as the first line of defense when enforcing/promoting/educating about existing policies and guidelines. How are these actions "ownership"? If, when doing the said enforcement, I stepped over a line, I would appreciate being explained where the line is and what I did wrong—that's precisely the intent of this inquiry.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:23, June 26, 2009 (UTC)

The intent of the rules on WP:USERPAGE is to keep people from having offensive or disruptive material on their userpage, not to prohibit people from stating their political affiliations in itself. In other words, if you can find a way to state that you support, say, ethnic cleansing in an inoffensive manner, then you can have that statement on your userpage; likewise, if state your support for a moderate, mainstream cause in a way that causes people to have reasonable concerns, then you have to remove it. IMHO, I don't see why anyone feels the need to announce their political, social or sports loyalties on their userpage: doing so always risks the charge of a conflict of interest & keeping people from assuming good will. -- llywrch (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, that much is obvious—I myself wouldn't go as far as to pronounce every single box on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics to be "offensive or disruptive" (every one of them is, however, completely and utterly useless, in my opinion). The crux of the dispute is whether the big yellow banner at the top of WP:Userboxes/Politics should stay there (as a reminder of WP:USERPAGE and overall collaborative philosophy of the project), or if it should be taken down, toned down, or completely re-designed. From those in favor of taking/toning it down, the only thing I want to hear is a good, coherent explanation of why having a collection of userboxes in question does not fly in the face of WP:USERPAGE and the spirit of constructive collaboration. From those who think I myself am "possessive" of this banner I would like to hear a suggestion of other ways in which WP:USERPAGE can be enforced in regards to this particular collection. That's all there is to it, really.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:39, June 26, 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment of the big yellow box, it is however, very yellow. On a related matter I believe that these and ideally all non-wiki related userboxes should go. Ideally we are here as wikipedians, identify ourselves through our actions and leave partisanship for sports and blogs. Unomi (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I take the view that this is not primarily about userboxes and whether they are a good or a bad thing. Even if Ezhiki's userbox is deeemed to be the greatest thing ever, it should still go pending a chance for people to discuss it. No innovation without consultation.

Ezhiki: You ask for alternative ideas for enforcement, but this presupposes that enforcement is appropriate, and it also presupposes a particular interpretation of what exactly is to be enforced. Neither of these things seems clear cut, even looking at the few comments above. These are just two of the reasons why wider discussion should have been solicited before creating the box. Having to gain people's consent might take time, but I think it is essential to good policing. --FormerIP (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ezhiki, the userbox war was fought three years ago. It ended in a cease-fire when those opposed to userboxes learned that ridding Wikipedia of them would take too much time & effort to accomplish -- time most of them would rather spend on other things. Moreover, it's fair to say that a userbox collection can reveal one useful thing about the user: there appears to be a strong inverse correlation between the size of a Wikipedian's userbox collection & the number & quality of edits that Wikipedian has contributed. In short, if you want to do something that will truly improve Wikipedia, it won't be anything connected to userboxes. -- llywrch (talk) 06:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Any more views on this? What is the best way forward? --FormerIP (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The box looks like policy rather than an opinion. I'd say first of all, a less glaring yellow, and second, a slight rewording reflecting its actual status. I personally think there is no problem with a user saying they are associated with a fringe party so long as the userbox does not exhibit sentiments. i.e. a neutral "This user supports/sympathises with the Bulamakankan National Defence League", not a POV "This user thinks that Yoobalubian migrants are impure and should be exterminated on sight by any man with a gun." Orderinchaos 05:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC) P.S. The names are deliberately nonsensical as I wanted to get the point across without distraction.

If anyone could propose the new wording for the whole box, so that could be discussed, that'd be appreciated. As for the yellow, I have no problem with changing the color (I have the problem with not displaying a message :)).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:24, June 29, 2009 (UTC)

The warning box - if it is to remain at all (and I am not strictly convinced it should be) - needs to be toned down a lot so as to remain neutral. There is a somewhat dangerous precedent in our telling users which political views may or may not be "acceptable". For example, telling someone that a pro-facist opinion might be problematic is, while probably true, not exactly neutral. We should not be in the habit of judging political viewpoints one way or another. Instead, any such "warning" at the top of this page should be a neutral statement to the effect of "Placing a user box espousing any political affiliation or ideology on your user page, while not prohibited by any Wikipedia policy, is not recommended. This recommendation aims to remove one instance of disputes about settling a precise line of division between allowed and non-allowed content in userspaces. Although you are not required to follow this recommendation, if you do follow, you will be part of a large group of people that renounced posting similar content on their userpages for the sake of building a better environment. By refusing to post such userboxes you in no way renounce your right to hold an opinion." Shereth 15:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to post here so late, I was busy in real life. Personally, I think there is nothing procedurally wrong in one editor (doesn't have to be admin!) crafting a common-sense recommendation box. In fact the only reason why Ezhiki and not I did that is that I was lazy. (I am not an admin, never applied to be one, because I am not a computer professional and I don't like having regular duties more than what I already have in real life.) Ezhiki has not drafted an official policy, but a common-sense recommendation, and to check his common sense he discussed it with me. Therefore I suggest we discuss here how to modify this box to be more useful. If all you are interested is following the "right procedure", then I respectfully ask to be shown when is the rule that forbids us doing good things without following "the procedure". Everything that is not explicitly forbidden (by WP or real life norms) is allowed.

On the other hand, the box can be improved, and why don't we all be bold and do changes. From the discussion above I don't see anyone contradicting anyone else content-wise. Why are you afraid to edit then? The bright yellow color can and should be changed. The wording can be changed also. I agree to take Shereth's edit as a basis for drafting a better text. I have two suggestions to improve Shreth's proposal:

• It doesn't have to be so long. The shorter the better. The more to the point the better.
• This box comes as an answer to a real problem, not out of the blue. Therefore, while I appreciate Shereth's very diplomatic formulation, I believe it is somewhat too diplomatic and not specific enough given the fact that this is not a US statement to Iran. If there is negative reaction to the box being too specific in mentioning pro-fascist, extreme left and extreme right, we can alter the text of the box, something noone can do to a diplomatic statement. "Extreme left" here is clearly a synonym to "hardcore communist", and "extreme right" is clearly a synonym to "hardcore fascist that do not like the term fascist". People that feel so strong about these ideas that they need to put them under their name or avatar, would not find a friendly environment when editing WP. (There is nothing wrong in that. WP is a mainstream encyclopedia, not a vehicle for promoting fringe or "alternative" theories. Unfortunately, in reality there is big pressure from that direction.) IMO, there is no point in lying to such people and telling them they are welcome to join but not welcome to edit. Dc76\^talk 18:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a place for promoting fringe theories (or fringe ideologies) - nor is it a place for promoting mainstream ideologies. Just because saying "I support Totalitarian Communism" is less popular than saying "I support the Republican Party" does not mean anything is wrong with it. If we are going to warn users against the pitfalls of endorsing political ideologies and platforms on their user page, the warning should apply to political ideologies equally across the board, and not just to those which we happen to find "extremist". Shereth 18:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• No, not warn users against the pitfalls of endorsing political ideologies, I would be totally against that. Please note the very last, underlined sentence of the box. It was only when Ezhiki agreed that it is essential that I started to support his suggestion to suggest removing political boxes. "We" want to somehow warn recommend users against the pitfalls of editing WP with a political ideology in mind. Political boxes would be absolutely ok if they would be on a forum's userpage. But WP userpages are userpages of editors. People write there what is relevant to them as editors. I do know that many people use their WP userpage as a sort of personal webpage (sometimes even uploading their CVs), and I would not support a drive to undo such things, because most such instances are totally innocent, like students that find it easier this way than to have to re-create the webpage at the start of every academic year. (They stop doing that when they grow a little older.) But let's be frank: such people almost never are promoting some ideology. My conclusion: it seems that I read the text of this box with one meaning, and you read it with another. Let's then edit it in such a way that there can be no confusion. Do not be hold back to edit this box.
• I disagree with you about promoting mainstream ideology. But that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It is the meaning one gives to these words. I believe that every time we talk about history, or social sciences in general, especially 20th century history, we do express a POV. IHMO it is impossible to talk about World War II without saying what was right and what was wrong. What we can do is make it very clear to the reader where the right/wrong assumption lies, so that the (intelligent) reader can trace the entire logical chain. Of course, I agree that we can write "World War II was a war faught by humans between 1939 and 1945 as a result of which 50 million people died." But that would be too dry, because we could not mention such obvious things as who and how started the war, who and where has committed war crimes, including holocaust. I am afraid that even the number of casualties and the start and end date could in some interpretations be regarded as non-neutral. Therefore I don't believe that neutrality is the key feature of WP, but information given in neutral tone, information that reflects the mainstream understanding of things, and that is presented clearly enough so that the reader knows what things exactly the mainstream interprets and how. However, I would like to repeat that this in my view has nothing to do with the box we are discussing. It is nothing more than my general regard at things. I am sincerely convinced I am right, but I am known to have committed errors of thought in the past (to put it diplomatically :-) ), so pls do not be held back to contradict me, I would think seriously about the meaning of everything you tell me, and do my best to understand what you mean.
• BTW, originally me and Ezhiki came at this issue because I had a userbox saying that I support independence of Chechnya, which is nothing ideological, nothing extreme. In our discussion I had to ponder about one thing: how important is this belief of mine to me as editor? did I ever made one edit based on that? I understood that it is illogical to put on the userpage anything political, even support for a mainstream party. Because it is one's human integrity, not political views that are important to being a good editor. Human integrity is important because we trust editors to copy correctly when they cite sources, when they summarize in good faith meanings of larger texts, even if one has a very specific opinion about the issue, when they create articles based on logical (as opposed to political) organization of the subject matter, etc. Dc76\^talk 20:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• I appreciate your well worded response. In order to keep things on track, I will point out that (unless we are trying to broaden the scope of this discussion) the original concern is about a recommendation with regards to the addition of certain politically-themed userboxes to one's user page. Without touching upon neutrality in general, user's editing habits, or any additional content that is allowed on user pages, it is my assertion that it is inappropriate for this "recommendation" box to single out certain types of politial viewpoints. At its root, the existing infobox is telling users to consider avoiding the use of userboxes that endorse certain political viewpoints. My point is to simply say that, in the interest of neutrality (which is, after all, one of the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia), any recommendation to avoid certain politically-themed userboxes should, in fact, be a recommendation to avoid all politically-themed userboxes. Even something as simple as "To promote harmonious editing among Wikipedia editors of differing backgrounds and opinions, please consider avoiding the use of the following politically themed user boxes" would be a vast improvement over what exists currently. Shereth 20:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Indef blocked editor asking other editors to create and edit articles for them

Top Gun (talk · contribs) was indefinitly blocked in August last year for sock puppetry, lying about their sources and edit warring. Since then they have created several sock puppet accounts to evade this block (listing at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Top Gun) and continue their behavior and have now moved to IP editing (I've been tracking IP accounts used at User:Top Gun). This has included asking other editors to insert material into articles admins are watching (eg, [12]) and now asking them to create entirely new articles (eg, [13]). User:Againme created an article - in good faith - which Top Gun asked for after I had warned them that the IP was an indef blocked editor with a history of block evasion: [14] (the IP had admitted being Top Gun sock BobaFett85 (talk · contribs) in the message to Againme where they asked that the article be created: [15]). What are the rules surrounding this? Nick-D (talk) 01:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, we shouldn't discourage creating a good page just because someone banned asked. I don't think there is a huge problem however meatpuppetry should be discouraged. Triplestop x3 02:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks extremely problematic, but I remain unconvinced that the article isn't one that Againme wouldn't have created eventually on his own. Worthy of a stern warning to Againme, and active monitoring to prevent re-occurrence.—Kww(talk) 03:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Triplestop, I was going to create the page anyway, it was like the natural outcome of my work, see how much I've been working in the Afghanistan related list. The article is useful and I do not see any problem... I'm not a "meatpuppet"... Plus: to prevent re-occurrence is impossible. I'm communicating now by other means (email) with the devil in the flesh, I mean, TopGun. How would you know if everything I do from now on is the fruit of his mind control???? Just kidding, I mean, if you say it's wrong, I won't do it, but... it sounds really silly to me... Regards. --Againme (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Insult-only account: User:UKisTheBest

The account User:UKisTheBest appears to exist only to insult North Americans. See this diff to Talk:Metrication in the United States. --Jc3s5h (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh! Because the UK has done such a good job of metrication. I'm off for a pint of milk, making sure I drive no faster than 70 miles per hour. Inappropriate username, too. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The user also does not support national constitutions. He doesn't seem to realise he's already got one, the fact it isn't written down doesn't make it any less real :D Orderinchaos 07:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Not forgetting the Human Rights Act 1998. – ukexpat (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

As they've only posted it twice I've reminded them instead that talk pages are for discussing changes to the article, not offering random opinions on the article topic. If they persist, you might post a vandalism report to WP:AIV. The username doesn't bother me that much, but WP:UAA is a good place to go if you would like this looked at. Euryalus (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

A look at his brand-new user page may also prove instructive. --Calton | Talk 17:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the offending portion of his userpage and left a comment on his talk. //roux   20:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Greg L

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

---

Resolved

 – edit was in good faith, editor has been made aware. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This user is banned from discussion regarding guidelines about date delinking and any related discussions. However, he has opted to participate in this discussion about a bot for date delinking. Accordingly, he should be blocked for up to one week per ArbCom's decision/ruling. He knows this and is aware of it. I recommend a 24-72 hour block as it would seem to be consistent with other blocks; it should also be annotated here. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You may get a quicker response at WP:AE. Nakon 17:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend not blocking him. I don't know what he did originally to get banned, but his support of this was very constructive and thought out and it's best to not punish some one for being constructive even if they have been told to stay away from a certain area. Call this a use of WP:IAR.Rgoodermote  17:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, you should have notified Greg of this topic. I've gone ahead and notified him. Rgoodermote  17:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Added after "archive". Sorry about a lack of notification; should've done that, but I forgot to actually send the post. Seeing as he's already been warned (and I somehow missed that earlier), this is a non-issue. I don't support blocking willy-nilly, but ArbCom did say that. Considering he's already had a discussion with an ArbCom member regarding the subject and clarification, I think that is more than enough. An honest mistake is an honest mistake (WP:IAR applies in spades here...). — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

He was already warned about this, the only edit he made to the page was 5 days ago, and the arbitration enforcement provision requires "repeated violations". Mr.Z-man 17:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware of the warning. Rgoodermote  17:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The "repeated violations" arbitration enforcement clause applies to the maximum amount, not to violations in general. He could have been blocked immediately and that would have been completely within bounds. --Calton | Talk 17:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a case where WP:IAR should be used, the editor was very constructive with their comments. We shouldn't punish an editor for that even if they have been "banned" from doing something in that area. It's sorta like if you were banned from say a Nascar article and you see something that can be fixed and you fix it and then you are automatically blocked for doing that even though it was good. This user didn't do really anything wrong. Whatever the reason for being banned from that area it certainly was for being constructive and said user should not be warned so harshly or blocked. Rgoodermote  17:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• As explained on my talk page after my warning, I thought “style guides and related discussions” meant I was supposed to stay away from WP:MOS and WP:MOSNUM (our style guides) and their talk pages. I did not think I was prohibited from adding my vote to an RfC regarding a bot. I was warned here on my talk page about it. It was explained to me that the restriction was intended to be applied broader than that. So I agreed to stay away from anything at all related to date linking or bot activity related to date linking anywhere on Wikipedia. This restriction was imposed by ArbCom and I’ve been getting clarification from one of the Arbitrators, John Vandenberg here on his talk page. Would someone like more pounds of flesh than this? Greg L (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Utterly no harm done by Greg L here. The edit was in good faith and only unknowingly strayed. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

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

WP:LTA/Grawp/WT:LTA/Grawp

Resolved

 – Actioned by LessHeard vanU. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Can an admin create the above two pages, redirecting them to Wikipedia:Long term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis and Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis, respectively, and protect them? Thanks. —MC10|Sign here! 23:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

User:92.0.49.21

Resolved

 – No admin needed; User was just reporting in Good Faith and IP has been apologized to and welcomed

Amendment: The IP DID have a previous case of vandalism. However given this is an IP and provided diffs and latest edits are too old, nothing can be done until/unless the IP continues at a later date. Reporting editor has been made aware of this. Rgoodermote  01:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

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

---

This account has a high rate of vandalism, has received a prior warning before one I issued but continues to vandalise. Aogouguo (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, I need to ask, how are the latest edits vandalism exactly? They look right to me..however I am not regular there..so some one else should take a look. But it does seem that this IP has traded hands. Rgoodermote  00:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh and in addition, you shouldn't issue a "Only one warning" warning on an IP if they haven't vandalized after a few days or hours. Rgoodermote  00:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

For real, the last few edits I spot checked are perfectly fine. I see no reason to block that IP based on the edits of whatever person used it last... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, I'm going to remove your warning on that IP and explain to them it was a mistake and I'll chalk this up to Good Faith. But please, be more careful. If anyone does not approve of my actions, this is a wiki. Rgoodermote  00:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the List of territorial disputes article history. Aogouguo (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent) You know upon surfing that history..it looks like you're the only one actually reverting edits and in addition the edits are too old anyways for a block to be even remotely reasonable. Rgoodermote  00:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Here are their edits [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] Aogouguo (talk) 01:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, those edits are too old, like I said on your talk page. The only thing you can do is revert, warn and repeat three more times then report to WP:AIV afterwords, also note that latest edits are too old as well. This is an IP and we must consider the possibility that a new person has taken over this IP..and if I read the whois right this IP is mobile. Rgoodermote  01:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, a note here, I'm closing this and I want to point that yes...only this editor has made any reversions on that topic, take a peak at the history and the userpage. Rgoodermote  01:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Dt128

This user has been making disruptive edits. After warning him to stop reverting a page over and over, his angry response is "DO NOT tell ME HOW TO EDIT. I HAVE PROMOTED A DISCOGRAPHY TO FEATURED LIST STATUS IN THE PAST. THE REFERENCES DO NOT GO WHERE YOU SAID. YOU ARE ACTUALLY MAKING THE PAGE WORSE. DO NOT TELL ME WHAT TO DO. Dt128, 16:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)"

I have tried to nicely warn to stop by telling him how to easily organize a discography page. I kindly told him ,

"Your recent edits were reverted back to my version. The reason is listed below,

• Album titles are not bold case
• References need to go beside Album information at the top of Albums
• References need to go beside Song at top of Singles
• Hot R&B Airplay is a component charts.[22] and does not need to be added back alongside the other charts.

So in retrospect, you might need to cut down on the Solange edits. You have edited the back on 20x in a row.[23] Also when editting a page, don't go back over again and again making minor edits to improve your contributions and preferences. When you edit, use the preview button below or go to the sandbox for testing. Lovejonesfly (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)"

After warning this user over and over, he responds with "YOU CANT JUST SAY, YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. YOU ARE NOT LISTENING TO ME. IT IS NOT "YOUR" DISCOGRAPHY! and "It's your edits that are being disruptive, not mine. I was not nicely warned. You still have not replied to any of my questions/queries. 14:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)".[24]

I have a list of his angry response here.[25] I propose that he is block for two weeks. Lovejonesfly (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure Dt128 could have handled things better, but I have to say that both seem to be at fault here. You have a dispute over the way content is laid out. You've been reverting each others edits without trying to discuss the situation. Lovejonesfly, your reverts, in addition to removing the formatting you dislike, also removed additional information and notes that were added by Dt128 - that's definitely an issue. I'd suggest you stop reverting, try talking to the other editor nicely and head over to the album wikiproject if there's a formatting concern. Shell ^babelfish 14:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have look at his edits, and I'm not editting what I want. I'm doing what needs to be done. When looking at the formating Ashanti, Mary J. Blige, etc vs Beyonce discographies, references have been put all over the place. However, over three sources were placed under the chart name, So I moved it to "Album information". I also removed a component chart "Hot R&B Airplay" which he also says is wrong. I'm keeping a leveled head and are open to any suggestions and advice to handle the dilemma. Shelly Kinney, I agree! But it seems you can't through to him without him getting mad.[26]Lovejonesfly (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Try looking at it this way - you're doing what you feel needs to be done - clearly, another editor disagrees that things need to be done that way. I'm not saying I disagree with any particular edits by either of you, but I am concerned that you've overlooked the fact that Dt128 added information to the charts that was missing and added a referenced note for a particular album while moving around references and bolding and that sort of the - surely that added information didn't need a simple revert? Let me try leaving a note - if I get the same kind of response, we can figure out where to go from there. Shell ^babelfish 15:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay Lovejonesfly (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: Possible hacking of my account

Resolved

 – No haxorz here. Icestorm815 • Talk 02:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that someone may have hacked into my account, by getting my password.

• Today when I logged on, I apparently undid another editors contribution on Windows Live Messenger

(Which I can swear I did not do. My contributions show that I have no interest in vandalising stuff)

Second time I logged on someone complained on my talk page about "Removal of valid AIV report without blocking vandal -- why" (see here)

Which I again did not do.

I have also since changed my password, any help would be greatly appreciated. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] (talk · contribs)☺ 18:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Changing your password is the only thing you can do. Please ensure that you are using a mix of numbers and letters, and something that is not easy for someone who knows you to guess. You should also reset your email password, in case this person also has the pw for that and can reset your pw that way. You may also wish to reset any other passwords you use, depending on how much similarity there is between them. → ROUX ₪ 18:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

If you have an email account associated with your Wikipedia account then change the email password too. If someone has access to your email they can change your password anytime. Chillum 18:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you not trace the audit trail, sou you can define not only the user ID but also the destination IP that made changes in question? Obviously, I am cencerned because this person could change anything under my name, such as vandalise under my name, getting me blocked on Wiki. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] (talk · contribs)☺ 18:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That's something only a checkuser can do. Icestorm815 • Talk 19:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

How can I do this. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] (talk · contribs)☺ 19:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the edit to Windows Live Messenger, the most likely explanation is that you accidentally hit "rollback" when viewing your watchlist, page history, another user's contributions, or using an anti-vandal tool. It's very easy to do this and not realise. CIreland (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That was my first thought. But it has happened twice, and when I view my history I have not viewed these pages where the complaints are coming from. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] (talk · contribs)☺ 19:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Change your password using the Secure Server ([27]) so the action is encrypted. Get anti-virus or anti-spyware if you do not have it already. Malinaccier (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help everyone, it is appreciated. I have done what the above user has suggested.[[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] (talk · contribs)☺ 19:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Checkuser shows the edits are from your current IP address. You may have a little brother or roommate who took advantage of the fact that your account was logged in, or a poltergeist, or you hit the wrong buttons by accident. Thatcher 01:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  Erm, yes, I didn't notice Thatcher already did the check, and I was coming here to report the very same result. I'd ask around your household to see if you had someone else browse Wikipedia not noticing they were doing so under your identity. — Coren ^(talk) 02:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I am very surprised to learn of that. My first thought was of other people like you both have said, but the pages in question which *I* have reverted are not in my computer history. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] (talk · contribs)☺ 09:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If you had accidentally hit rollback they would not necessarily appear in your browser history (depends on where you accidentally hit rollback - when viewing a user contribs, for example, if you rollback an edit for there, you will never see the page you rolled back.)

User:Miesianiacal

Many of you will remember the contretemps I had with User:G2bambino now known as User:Miesianiacal. Unfortunately it seems to be slowly brewing again.

Over the past little while I've been looking at articles I have contributed significantly to, with the aim of getting them bumped up a level or two in their assessment rating. One of these is Arms of Canada, which per the history he has never edited, though he says he did in 2005-2008. He is now making edits (very, very poorly sourced edits in favour of his usual pro-monarchist POV, but that is relatively easily dealt with) to the article, and based on a discussion just starting there I can see his usual pattern starting again.

Without creating a whole lot of drama, it is worth noting that under his previous username, Miesianiacal was blocked for three weeks for harassing and wikistalking me. The stress he caused was severe enough that I left all articles relating to Canadian and British monarchy--the very reason I finally created a login in the first place--in order to avoid his behaviour. But I predicted that he would slowly start coming to the articles I was working on. A couple of days ago he showed up at the talkpage of an article he has edited twice[28][29], (under yet another previous username),whose tpage he had touched once in 2006, and once in September 2008 in order to leave a comment needling me further about a dispute we were having at the time.

Neither of these two articles have been anything like a focus of interest for Miesianiacal. For me, I got Arms of Canada back to GA status, and assisted User:Ecjmartin in getting Coronation to GA status; Ecjmartin, User:Surtsicna and I are currently working on improving the latter article even further, while Arms of Canada and another article are just beginning the peer review process.

I asked politely here if, given the amount of stress he has caused me in the past, he could stay away from the article. His response has been, minus a lot of verbiage, 'no', with an accusation of article ownership. I asked for clarification three hours ago so as to be crystal clear. He edited continuously for an hour afterwars, so I can only assume he has seen the message.

I would like to ask for an uninvolved admin to please request that he stay away from me rather more forcefully. I have poured a lot of hard work into these articles and do not want to have to leave them, whereas for him not to edit them is hardly an issue, given how little he has contributed. I have assiduously avoided him for months and wish to keep doing so without having to walk away from something I have worked on. → ROUX ₪ 22:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the difficulty but on this occasion he doesn't appear to have broken any policies or guidelines. Try to ignore his needling, and amend poorly sourced contributions appropriately and sensitively. DrKiernan (talk) 09:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is knowing his pattern of behaviour, particularly his pattern of behaviour towards me, and the amount of stress it causes me. I cannot work on this article knowing that he is going to show up again. Given his history of behaviour towards me I do not think it is inappropriate to request that he stay away from the articles in question. The bad-faith/unsubstantiated accusation of ownership is also concerning. → ROUX ₪ 17:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Without knowing anything of the history behind this (sorry), it appears indeed inappropriate to request that he stay away from the articles that you want to work on. Such a request does come close to an assertion of ownership, and our policy WP:OWN is rather clear in that regard. As long he does not violate any norms of conduct - and I can find no fault in his replies to you that you link to - I see no grounds to impose any restrictions here. On the other hand, if there were concrete evidence of wikistalking, that would be sanctionable, but with blocks rather than article bans.  Sandstein  19:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with the history then, as it will explain the problem. For the quick version, please see [his block log (three weeks by Fut.Perf for harassing me, RFC/U on his behaviour (and in the purposes of full disclosure the retaliatory one he filed on me here), and the last AN thread regarding him ane me here; note please that I had to leave all monarchy-related articles due to his behaviour; other users (note Franamax' comment at the last link, "My interactions with G2b on this wiki have been limited - in large degree, because one of my goals has been to avoid interactions with G2b [Miesianiacal now] on this wiki.") have had markedly similar experiences with him. I don't wish to turn this into another RFC/U on him; I just want him to leave me alone to edit in peace. He drove me away from an enormous swath of articles, and I am just asking him to leave me alone where I edit now. → ROUX ₪ 19:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

And indeed I did predict that he would start doing this (showing up at articles he has never or barely ever touched that I edit; relevant quote: "I can't edit the one article area I have left--heraldry, specifically Canadian--in peace, because I know sooner or later he's going to set his sights on it." That had been sent in a private email to Mayalld as noted, while I had briefly left the entire project due to a complete lack of interest in anyone dealing with his chronic tendentious editing. It has even been pointed out to me via email recently (~4 weeks or so) that he is doing on at least another page exactly what he pulled with me and countless other users; wikilawyering, refusing to provide sources when asked directly, arguing around the issue, misrepresenting sources, using biased sources to support his POV, etc etc. Given that so many months have passed since I started avoiding him and he is still behaving in exactly the same manner, I cannot face trying to get a couple of articles to FA status knowing that he is incredibly likely to come and do the same thing, as indeed he has already started doing at Talk:Arms of Canada#In Right of Canada. All of this is why I am asking for him to be explicitly required to stay away from me. In case there is any concern, I will happily continue staying the hell away from him, away from articles regarding the British and Canadian monarchies (apart from Coronation, which only tangentially touches on the subject and is mentioned in my initial complaint above), and will in short not touch any articles he regularly edits or could be presumed to edit on a regular basis (Canadian/British monarchy, Governors and Lieutenants-general, and so on) even if he has not yet edited them. → ROUX ₪ 20:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

copyright problem

Resolved

Excuse me for bringing this here; I'm not sure of the right place to take it. I marked Doctors of Deception as a "suspected copyvio" even though it was a blatant copyvio, because it was lifted from two web pages and the db-copyvio template only seems to work for material taken from a single site. The author of the article agreed that deletion is the correct thing to do, but nothing has happened. At this point I'm lost in the bureaucracy and don't know what the next step is. Looie496 (talk) 03:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Marking it as a speedy under G12 would have been fine, as would marking it as a G7 once the author agreed that it should be deleted. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that with {{copyvio}}, nothing is supposed to happen for 7+1 days. The delay is to permit time for verification of permission or rewriting of the article in temporary space. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Geekyboy87 interference with AfD

Normally I'd just drop a note to the editors talk page myself, but in theis case, I think an admin might be better. User:Geekyboy87 authored the article List of Parental Advisory albums. The article is being discussed in AfD. Geekyboy87 went into the discussion and blanked the entire discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/List of Parental Advisory albums. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the blanking and dropped a quick note on the user's talk page. Also, editors are just as welcome as admins to post notices and warnings on other user's talk pages. :) Icestorm815 • Talk 14:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

How do I search for someone in an indef blocked user list?

I remember that there is a list of blocked users. I think I am dealing with an IP address that acts suspiciously like someone we've seen before. I am checking first before filing the SPI. Some assistance, so I don't cock it up would be helpful. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Really the only thing I can think of is Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages as that cat is added to userpages of users with {{indef}} on them. Tiptoety ^talk 06:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This one? - Camw (talk) 07:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This one – lists all indefinite blocks. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 08:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Well, no, but both are pretty useful. Here's the thing: I've been dealing with an anon with some pretty familiar editing patterns. I did a IP lookup on the recent IP's used by the contributor, and they all appear to be contained within a fairly small geographic location. then I looked over the IP addresses used by an IP user who had stalked me some months ago. the results of an ANI report were that they stay away or be indef blocked. The edits from this older IP address list are - you guessed it - located in the same geographic area. Now, its entirely possible that two different users from the same geographic area would be pissed enough at me to follow my edits around, but the similar methods of posting and commentary are very similar.

The beginnings of the IP addresses aren't the same, which is what threw me, and as well, the location of the IP's aren't static. As I don't know a lot about the tech of IP addresses checking, my first supposition was that the person was posting from a mobile device, but frankly, i don't know. I still don't think I've got enough for an SPI or RfCU, as the former IP was just warned, not blocked. It seems something of a pickle. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

kgb_

It's come to my attention that kgb_, Cha Cha (search engine), and possibly other companies are directly copying Wikipedia's articles in their answers. Attribution is only given on their sites, and only if a user logs in to view their previous answers. No attribution is given in the answers themselves, and no links are given to the GFDL. Can a copyright aficionado comment on this? I can send off a letter to them if required. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it a live mirror? They go to m:live mirrors.

BTW, Wikipedia is a CC-BY-SA site now :) Stifle (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a live mirror. They take the relevant sentence from our article - for example "Baghdad is the largest city and capital of Iraq" - and copy and paste it into an answer. Then they hit send. Take, for example, this question - the source is given as www.serendipity.li/iraqwar.htm, when in reality the answer is a direct copy of part of the opening paragraph of Iraq War - "...Gulf War, the Occupation of Iraq, or Operation Iraqi Freedom, is an ongoing military campaign which began on March 20, 2003 with the invasion of Iraq ...". There are hundreds more examples of unsourced 'lifting'. This seems to me to be a problem - is it? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, unattributed mirroring of WP content is quite a big problem (see WP:MIRROR); people don't seem to realise that attribution is necessary. If you fancy sending them a not unfriendly reminder to link to the WP article when reusing the content, they may oblige. If they don't, there is the route of DMCA takedown notices if you are the one whose rights are being infringed, but the only route after that is for a contributor to take actual legal action. – Toon 16:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Letter sent:

“ Dear ChaCha Search:

I am pleased to see that your service uses content from Wikipedia (<http://en.wikipedia.org/>), the free encyclopedia. This is the sort of reuse that those who contribute to Wikipedia, as I do, wish to promote.

However, you must follow the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CC-BY-SA), which governs all Wikipedia text. Only the CC-BY-SA is legally binding. However, we do make certain recommendations about how to comply. First, I would like to point out that when you use content from Wikipedia you should include a link back to the source Wikipedia article as is suggested on Wikipedia’s copyrights page, which is located at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights>. Additionally, you should also include a CC-BY-SA notice. One way of doing this is to add the text "This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, which means that you can copy and modify it as long as the entire work (including additions) remains under this license", and provide a link to a copy of the CC-BY-SA. Text such as "This page contains text from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia" is a good way to acknowledge the general source of the text.

Specifically, your page <http://www.chacha.com/question/why-%26-what-was-the-war-in-iraq> uses content from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War>. Since it appears without linking the original article or specifically attributing the authors, or linking to the text of the CC-BY-SA under which the contributions are released, the existence of this page violates copyright.

Please add the required links and acknowledgments to all parts of your site that use Wikipedia content promptly, and be sure to correctly attribute resued content in future. Thank you.

Sincerely,

”

I also spellchecked it, so ignore the errors. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Easy image history merge help needed

Resolved

File:TransMarchlogo.png was replaced with File:Trans March logo.svg. I think it should have been replaced on that page then renamed but that ship has sailed. Can someone please do histmerge and delete the old version? -- Banjeboi 18:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Images cannot be moved at this time. Maybe in another 6 months. MBisanz ^talk 18:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha, can you help with the history merge or is that un-do-able as well? -- Banjeboi 19:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Also un-doable. Sorry. MBisanz ^talk 19:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! -- Banjeboi 20:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Who then was a gentleman?

Who then was a gentleman? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Chuck Marean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Who then was a gentleman? left two uncivil comment on my talk page (here). It was about this edit. He seems to be another trying to start an argument on my talk page. Doing so is edit waring in my opinion as well as uncivil. I am therefore requesting that he be banned. --Chuck Marean 20:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

While I wouldn't have characterized your POV pushing [30] as "vandalism", I don't see anything actionable ^{against Who then...?} here. –xeno^talk 20:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC) ^{superscript text added at 20:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)}

Ridiculous. --208.54.7.185 (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Chuck Marean parole(s)

The only thing actionable here is Chuck's editing. Vandalism is certainly an appropriate word for Chuck's edit there. And it's the latest in a (very, very) long line of such edits. I think some kind of parole is in order. Raul654 (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd characterise it as nonsense, certainly. It's rather blatant POV-pushing, even if it is unintentional. You need to be careful with your edits, ones like this don't help - I'd support some sort of supervised editing? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Chuck has a problem with the Current Events portal. May I suggest a topic ban? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be a good start, but I think the problem is deeper than that. He seems to go from one article to the next making disruptive edits. His editing on TANSTAAFL is a case-in-point. Raul654 (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the fourth? Fifth? I dunno, lost count, thread about Chuck Marean in the past couple of months. I suggest mentoring if anyone is willing to come forward. If not, I suggest Chuck be asked to explain why in the community's view his ongoing edits to Current Events (and elsewhere) is problematic and why he will stop doing such things. In the absence of both of the above, I think it is time to invite him to enjoy the world beyond Wikipedia unless/until either of the above happen. → ROUX ₪ 21:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

My edit was good. --Chuck Marean 21:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No it wasn't. Nothing about what Madoff did was good faith, as proved by a duly constituted court of law. It was part and parcel of your quixotic crusade to sanitise bad news from the Current Events portal.→ ROUX ₪ 21:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to pile on to Roux's comment - Madoff pled guilty and admitted he broke the law. Calling his actions "good faith" isn't inaccurate - it's completely, utterly divorced from reality, and anyone doing so is a vandal by any objective measure. Raul654 (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

He went bankrupt. Why would he plead guilty to something?--Chuck Marean 21:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Uhhh.. because his bankruptcy was directly caused by his monumental fraud? → ROUX ₪ 21:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh for the love of god. He wasn't charged with going bankrupt -- he was charged with securities fraud, and pled guilty to fraud. Why? Because when you tell someone you are running a hedge fund and, instead of buying stock, you use the proceeds to pay off previous investors, you are not actually running a hedge fund -- you are running a ponzi scheme. (1) Running a ponzi scheme is illegal; (2) lying to the investors about it is also illegal. Perhaps you shouldn't be editing articles when you don't have any idea of what you are talking about? This seems to be your signature with *every* article you edit. Raul654 (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia.--Chuck Marean 21:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Which means what exactly? → ROUX ₪ 21:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Read the f'in article --208.54.7.185 (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to a) login with your username, b) be slightly less rude? One would imagine that doing a) will cause b). → ROUX ₪ 21:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the anon's comment was a reply to Chuck's comment, not mine. Raul654 (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Either way... → ROUX ₪ 21:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Which sort of means I think saying he was found guilty of investment fraud sounds biased because he may not have known his bonds needed to be secured by property or thought it was just an opinion. He didn’t go underground with the money. From what I heard on the TV months ago, he simply went bankrupt and got bad press about it. -- Chuck Marean 21:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(reset indent) I am quite literally flabbergasted, and possibly entirely gobsmacked, that you could even pretend in good faith that the statement you just made is in any way accurate or supported by reality. → ROUX ₪ 22:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

And following on from Short Brigade's diff below ("He was selling bonds and paying them back with more bonds. There was nothing criminal about that. It may have been somewhat incompetant but it was not criminal."), you very clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. That isn't incompetence, it is the very definition of a Ponzi scheme. Which is, by the way, criminal. Good god man. → ROUX ₪ 22:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone willing to mentor Chuck? (I'll assume if I don't get any affirmative responses here that the answer is no) Raul654 (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the relevant questions to this discussion are:

• (1) Does Chuck do any useful editing at all?
• (2A) In light of his long history and many failed attempts to "fix" his editing can Chuck be coached to improve? (2B) Is it worth the effort?

I'm interested to hear some opinions from other people who have previously dealt with him. Raul654 (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Just based on what I've seen here... let anyone mentor him if they want, but he should be blocked while this is going on. Then later, if the mentor wants to assert that he can edit usefully, an unblock could be discussed. I see no reason to continue exposing the project to this kind of nonsense in the meantime. Friday (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Good call. He can propose edits on his tpage, $Mentor can approve or not. When he's shown a pattern (say, a month and 100 edits?) of improvement and understanding how Wikipedia works, unblock. → ROUX ₪ 21:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. I can't believe some of those diffs! This one is almost surreal. Whether he is deliberately distorting the facts, or is somehow incapable of understanding simple declarative sentences in news reports, the result is the same. Until he can show that he is capable of editing to produce constructive results he needs to be reined in. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

My edit was not nonsense. I thought saying he was found guilty sounded biased. If it had said he was appealing that would have been better. As it was, it ignored that he had a business that went bankrupt, and his investors were simply mad and charging him with fraud. I was also pointing out that his business did not recieve a bailout, which also is not nonsense. Maybe I could have mentioned my wording of the blurb on the talk page before doing the edit, but there is no rule that says to that I know of. I think the rule is to boldly do the edit you think with improve the article. --Chuck Marean 22:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

How is reporting a widely-available proven fact biased? The man is a criminal. He engaged, knowingly, in a criminal enterprise. He confessed to knowingly engaging in a criminal enterprise. He was convicted of same. This has nothing to do with the investors being 'simply mad and charging him with fraud'. As for his business not receiving a bailout, bailouts were reserved for businesses, and not criminal enterprises, not to put too fine a point on it, so saying that is like saying I haven't received a child tax credit because I don't have children. → ROUX ₪ 22:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Can I join this pile-on? There no evidence that Madoff's problems are due to bad business decisions; he engaged in criminal activity. He confessed to it. Forensic accountants have verified that he did it. A legal court has found him guilty & threw the book at him for it. I'd also like to point out that Chuck Marean has been twice blocked for a month for disruptive behavior. Unless he can produce a verifiable expert opinion to support this bizarre thesis, I move for another ban. -- llywrch (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not getting angry now. --Chuck Marean 22:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm tentatively joining in to say that, Chuck, you sound like you're just making excuses, man. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

My Madoff edit was reverted. I left it that way. I think calling my edit nonsense was uncivil because obviously, 150 years for going out of business seems a bid much, and my edit pointed out maybe his business or investors could receive a bailout. I did not put my edit back, you will notice. I complained about it being called nonsense.-- Chuck Marean 22:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It was nonsense because it had no basis in reality. He was not given 150 years for 'going out of business'. He was given 150 years for knowingly committing fraud. What part of that, precisely, is unclear? → ROUX ₪ 22:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Revising my above opinion to just block permanently now until Chuck can demonstrate he is conversant with reality as the rest of us see it. → ROUX ₪ 22:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Very funny.--Chuck Marean 23:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Block 95.96.94.126 please

To avoid any appearence of involvement, can someone block 95.96.94.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for repeatedly adding unsourced information in List of Heroes episodes? The IP has been duely warned, but that seems to fall on deaf ears, as he continues after a level 4 warning. — Edokter • Talk • 20:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Bot with no emergency shutdown button

Unresolved

Chrisbot does not have an emergency shutdown button. This bot is not functioning correctly, and is mucking up lots of railway diagrams. Mjroots (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The emergency shut down is just a cute way of accessing the block form. Can you give me an example of the wrongdoing? Also, it doesn't appear to be running. AWB bots can be stopped just by writing to their talk page. –xeno^talk 21:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

See this sandbox for a number of diagrams with incorrect continuation arrows. Mjroots (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Damnit Jim, I'm an administrator, not a trainspotter! –xeno^talk 21:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Lol, but you did ask for examples of what is going on. The bot is leaving these incorrect arrows showing for hours yet claiming to be doing so "temporarily". If the edit was completed in, say 5-10 minutes it could be lived with. But IMHO leaving diagrams with incorrect arrows for hours on end is not acceptable. Mjroots (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I left a note on the bots page pointing here... am also hoping a trainspotting admin will come along. –xeno^talk 21:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Though, the problem seems to be that the bot creates inaccuracies for a brief period of time in order to swap some things that necessarily need to be swapped? A necessary detriment perhaps? –xeno^talk 21:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I've raised this at WP:UKRAIL. The problem is that this bot is that it is neither "necessary" nor helpful. The icons in question worked perfectly well before and this bot seems to have been agreed with minimal discussion despite its wide-ranging effects for templates. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) See my comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#malfunctioning bot. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) (a train-spotting admin!) 21:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

small change in protected page

please change in Template:pp-meta below text:

{{mbox

to:

{{<noinclude>a</noinclude>mbox

after change this template will similar to other protect template--Amir (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Stuff like this should be proposed on the talk page using the {{editprotected}} template. –xeno^talk 21:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It's also a good idea to test code like this in a sandbox, esp. for highly-used templates. <noinclude/> isn't valid code. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

And there's the fact that the template is functioning perfectly correctly in displaying the ombox style in template space, and that no good reason to change it seems to have been presented. Happy‑melon 21:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Changed,this is a very minor edit--Amir (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In conclusion:  Not done. — Edokter • Talk • 21:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

All of template in Template:Protection_templates shows with article demospace--Amir (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't actually work out quickly why that is; I don't think it's expected behaviour. Certainly I'm not convinced that it is desirable. Happy‑melon 22:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Kürfurst reported by User:Dapi89

- Edit warring and violation of 3RR. He's an edit war vet' and he's deleting sourced material and edit warring on a number of pages. He's been blocked 8 or 9 times for it, bu he continues. - - 1 [31] - 2 [32] - 3 [33] - 4 [34] - - Dapi89 (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Editors.

Hello,

There appears to be a disruption between editors. A discussion can be found here. I am not involved with the dispute, and am not sure of all the details. It appears to be a possible COI and series of Personal attacks. Editors have turned to me for help and I have none to offer. Is there any suggestions that can be given to them to help them out? Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 21:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Assistance requested on Glass transition and Talk:Glass transition

On June 27, following a request from an uninvolved editor to intervene in an edit war, I edit protected Glass transition and blocked one editor for 24 hours over edit warring on that article. I have no knowledge of the subject at all, but the problem appears to be a fairly typical disagreement between two editors over article content and structure. The editor who I blocked has said she'll be away for a short time. Meanwhile, I'm getting nowhere at all with trying to determine the rationale for the other editor's preference for his version and with trying to create some kind of consensus. I have posted requests at RFC, 2 relevant project talk pages, and 2 related article talk pages as well as at the Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts page section related to the dispute, but so far no other editors have provided any input. A third, apparently otherwise uninvolved editor is urging me to revert to the preferred version of one of the involved editors; meanwhile, other editors have said that his editing has caused problems on other science-related articles. My repeated requests for discussion and consensus building have been met most recently with a bewildering technical mini-essay that, to my mind, accomplishes nothing. My concern is that the protection will expire and the edit warring will simply resume. Assistance most welcomed. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)