Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Current issues

The tendentiousness of Blackworm

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

A look at Wannabe Kate's summary reveals a 4 to 1 ratio of talk page to mainspace edits which seem unusually high to me, particularly for so few articles. After I had a few moderately productive exchanges with him on the Talk:Reproductive rights page ([1] [2] [3] [4]) clarifying points, I let the matter rest. User:Phyesalis, who had asked me to look in on the Reproductive rights talk page because of the conflicts there, decided to disengage from the discussion. I left her a note supporting this break and saying "Blackworm has a point as well as an obvious POV in relation to this article. However I believe his time would be better spent conceptualizing a structured counterpoint section with relevant and valid sources/cites than haggling over wording in the first few sentences. Such a section would make it much easier to incorporate the view into the lede of the article." Now, saying I believe he has a strong POV (about abortion in this particular case) is not the same as saying he is deliberately inserting POV into the article text. Yet Blackworm extracted only that bit to post on my talk page, ignoring what were good suggestions for him to productively add to the article. So there were these posts to me, also taking me to task for my sexist characterizations of the vandals of my user page as "boys". (Perhaps it wasn't clear to him that I actually meant boys, as in under 13 years of age, because of the level of immaturity of their comments. And no offense meant to our younger editors, many of whom are quite mature and responsible on Wikipedia.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At this point I must mention that I am involved with Blackworm's dispute at WP:GS. I have also responded to his content dispute at Father's rights movementTalk:Fathers'_rights_movement#Removed_Bias and his comments at Talk:Women's rights[5] (which I called soapboxing, Blackworm says he was not, so I take his word for it) - basically it would be fair to say I have a history with this user.

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

A summary of recent tendentiousness from Blackworm

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

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

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

1. I added the wikiproject gender studies (WP:GS) template to the talk page along with Wikiproject Human Rights (I am a member of both projects and both were pertinent to the discussion). On January 2nd Phyesalis joins WP:GS. A day later, Blackworm makes this post[6] to its talk page (WT:GS). This post is flame bait, in saying "is this truly a project for "neutral documentarians" as stated on its page, or is it more of a collective of pro-feminist editors?" he basically describes the project as a povpushing cabal. I responded with this[7] - which Blackworm called a personal attack[8]. I had my behaviour overviewed by User:Jehochman[9], an uninvolved, User:EdJohnston[10] also endorsed my remarks. As did 2 other editors (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gender_Studies#Neutral_Wikiproject.3F).

He, then raised some concerns with the project's overview I stated I wouldn't have a problem changing them if there was consensus to do so. Consensus has not yet been sought, but he went ahead and changed the project's overview to his preferred state[11] today. Wikiprojects are defined and organized by their members. Blackworm is welcome to join, but at present he is not a member and even then he would need consensus for such a change. For the record I prefer his version - but due to the stress of dealing with him I am on a break, another member of the Project will have to moot it for a !vote.

History of similar behaviour

His comments to WT:GS are not the first time that Blackworm has engaged in drama to make a point[12][13]. A discussion on his talk page about his objections on Talk:Circumcision illustrates this further[14].

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

Conclusion

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

Last night Blackworm left this comment at my talkpage[15] I will not be responding to it. And I am formally asking that Blackworm not edit my talk page again. If he has any issue with me take it here or to RFC--Cailil ^talk 14:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I do apologise if you found my tone or attitude aggressive - it was not intended to be. However I'm calling it as I see it. You have stated above that you have not accused me of bad faith. I would point you to your claim that I personally attacked you[16] - which you still I hold I guess - with this post[17] and your thoroughly inaccurate description of my editing practice and philosophy at Father's rights movement[18]. I submitted my behaviour to sysop review immediately[19] and have done so again in order to address your concern that I have wrongly stated that you have failed to assume good faith. I await the views of outside editors on this matter and will abide by consensus. If the community feels I wrongly accused you of anything I will withdraw the remarks--Cailil ^talk 23:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blackworm this needs to cleared up - I am not saying, and have not said that you "are acting in bad faith" - there would be no discussion in that situation. Comments made in bad faith are reverted and reported as trolling. I have said that you failed to assume good faith. This is the same as saying you have not assumed good faith. It's not about your edits, it's about your attitude to other editors and comments to them. I recognize that you have made good contributions to the encyclopedia. However your comments about Pigman[20], about me (above and otherwise detailed here) & about WikiProject Gender studies (above and in the User talk:Pigman diff), which is in effect a comment on all of its members, show you not assuming that any of the rest of us are working in good faith.

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

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

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

Response from Phyesalis

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

Comment from Coppertwig

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fair use war being lost

Administrators,

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

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

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

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

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

I am begging for your help.

Please.

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

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

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

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

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

edit conflict

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MediaWiki talk:Sysop.js/Admin opinion

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

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

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

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

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

Tor nodes

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

Can someone knowledge add this gadget to the gadgets menu?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Someone delete Chocolate Thai, please.

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

However:

The AfD tag has been up for over six days now ([24]) and if you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chocolate Thai (2nd nomination), you'll find there's a strong (if not universal) consensus to get rid of the article. Furthermore, for anyone worried about preserving information, the issue has been addressed, because the content has been merged into the main article on Cannabis. See Cannabis#Various strains of cannabis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for rollback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbcom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indeed; I meant to clarify. The developers and sysadmins by necessity when to change the settings of Wikimedia wikis, and they know what they're doing. The talk of a "coup" above is hyperbole of the greatest magnitude. Reference: [25]. — madman bum and angel 03:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have four words for you

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Rollback policy

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

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

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

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

An interesting fact

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

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

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

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

Who should create the policy?

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

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

This is silly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, any chance we can do something other than trying to form a consensus on how to form a consensus on what a consensus is? Stifle (talk) 09:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

On administrators

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bureaucrats should judge consensus

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

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

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

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

Arbitration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vote

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

Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Vote

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

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

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

Foundation, decision and tea cup

Hello,

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

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

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

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

And wikilove, as always....

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

Odd block problem

Resolved

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

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

Thanks Duncan and to all those who helped out. Nick mallory (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

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

Resolved

It's back under control now; recommend tagging it with {{adminbacklog}} in the future. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Consensus discussion ignored

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

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

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

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

Rollbackery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarification - Twinkle

Requesting community clarification on the following Twinkle issue:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I haven't went over all the twinkle edits, but i'm somewhat/fairly sure i've not used it for the purpouse of edit warring... i've been explained on a problematic revert on Operation Rainbow where a reversion of a misuse of the article page [26] partially included a content dispute and therefore I should not have used the tool.

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

btw, what is the point of having the "good faith" [27] if the tool is only meant for vandalism?

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

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

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

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

This is the source of my confusion as there's no clear indication on the twinkle page. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Girard, Kansas

I could use some more opinions on this page, which i came across during a recent changes patrol. The page has got some pretty massive copyright violations going on. The entire history section, which is huge, seems to have been copy and pasted, and not just from one source, going through and googleing random paragraphs came up with several exact matches to different places, i think much of the page is copied from [28] [29], [30], and[31] [32] to name a few. I'm not quite sure what to do about it, my first thought was to speedy tag it, but that didn't seem appropriate, then i considered blanking the sections, except there is such much copyvio, its difficult to tell which bits to removed. Any thoughts?--Jac16888 (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Boggle

See this [33]. Where's my money? Guy (Help!) 16:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

User:John Reaves' comments on my talk page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ΚέκρωΨ Need to be Banned!

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

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

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

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

Admins willing to grant rollback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• On the other hand, we supposedly trust our admins; if one admin is prepared to be bail for a non-admin with rollback, then that's good enough for me. Mackensen (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Any trademark experts?

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

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

(ec)Ah ha! Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive346#Copyright problems with toy photos ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 21:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Indeed. It's here.--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Artisol2345

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

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

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

User:Dethzone

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

AfD open 20 minutes, closed by nonadmin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slander Question

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

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

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

Edit war between several users and Rothchild

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rothchild blocked

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

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

Image on Adolf Eichmann

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of auto-generated deletion summaries

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

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

A question about bibliographical data

Resolved

I am sorry to disturb you with my question, but, after a mini edit-war, as a last solution I decided to ask your experienced opinion. In the New World Translation article it is stated:

Frederick Franz’s credentials of record show very little if any formal training in biblical languages.[ref]University of Cincinnati transcript of Frederick W. Franz. Franz failed to earn either a postgraduate or graduate degree. He took 15 hours of Latin, 21 hours of classical Greek, and a single 2-hour credit class in a course titled “The New Testament—A course in grammar and translation.” The Greek studied by Franz is a different system of grammar than biblical Greek.[ref]

I repeatedly asked bibliographical data for this file, and I was answered that the reference itself (as you see it above) is adequate bibliographical data. Is it really? Can this reference stand alone as bibliographical data?

Thank you in advance for your time.

Best regards,

--Vassilis78 (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please take this to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I just did. Thank you.--Vassilis78 (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback/Vote

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

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

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

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

David Howe (claimant to King of Mann)

Resolved

How do I send this protected article to afd please? Grounds: nn, v, rs, blp. Also listed at Requests for arbitration - CarbonLifeForm (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added the AfD template to David Howe (claimant to King of Mann). You can go ahead and complete the AfD nomination now as it's only the main article that's protected. For future reference, Wikipedia:Protected edit requests explains the normal process to use. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Have I completed it correctly? CarbonLifeForm (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

W00t

Resolved

I have previously made a request for administrator attention at ANI about this article, which is almost entirely original research and has failed an AfD in this form. I had originally placed a wiktionary redirect template per the results of that AfD, but those edits were reverted to the original article without explanation. I then tried to remove the original research from this article, but those edits were reverted for "near blanking" of the page. I would request that an administrator reinstate the wiktionary redirect and permenantly protect this page to prevent the reinsertion of this material. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have redirected to the original location agreed at the AFD and recorded the fact that a redirect was agreed ar DRV. I have invited combatants who wish to restore the article to create a draft with sources in user space and submit this to DRV for approval. I also protected the redirect. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I get you to restore it to the appropriate Wiktionary soft redirect instead? The redirect currently points to a Wiktionary soft redirect, and all the multitude of internet slang pages that were redirected to that list have since been converted to soft redirects. As it currently stands, it is effectively a double redirect. An example of the soft redirect page can be found at this edit from back in November of the same article. (I could do it myself, but don't want to step on your toes) - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Mentor needed for resocialising problem user

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

Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage

There are requests to be added to the list of users that are more than 24 hours old on Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage, and the page stated that in these circumstances, a polite message here would be a good thing, resulting in a cheery admin's arrival to sort it all out. So, dear friends, here is such a message!  DDStretch  (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)