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

*If you cannot edit this page, it may be protected. Please leave a message here instead.

Review of topic ban on User:DemolitionMan

Resolved

 – There is no consensus to lift DemolitionMan's topic ban on British Raj related articles at this time. EdJohnston (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Following a WP:AN thread a couple of months ago, DemolitionMan (talk · contribs) was placed on a topic ban on British Raj related articles. This followed a RFC and a a previous editing restriction confirmed here. On the last thread it was stated that the restriction would be reviewed in two months time, now. I'm looking for a consensus of opinion on whether the topic ban can be lifted, or should remain. Thanks. Leithp 21:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

A quick review of the editors contribution history shows very little editing since the topic ban anyway, so lifting the topic ban shouldn't be troublesome - unless they return to the previous editing problems (in which case it is re-imposed longer/pernanently). I would point out that I was involved in some previous discussions - and may be included in some of the links, but haven't bothered clicking them - as a fairly neutral party. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the topic ban could be lifted if DemolitionMan is willing to express willingness to follow policies and abide by any community restrictions. One of the links above suggests he never recognized the 1RR as actually applying to him. In the thread about the topic ban he does not seem to recognize any problems with his editing or any desire to cooperate in the future. For a recent nationalist POV edit on Kashmir see [1], for which his edit summary was 'rv vandalism.' EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And on the talkpage: I don't think that he's quite ready to acknowledge that changes in his editing are required. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

His response to the review is here. Leithp 21:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't care if my ban is continued or lifted as I don't see myself editing articles on wikipedia except for correcting grammatical errors. I take "facts" expressed here with a pinch of salt and usually double check them in another resource now. The views expressed here are more subjective than objective and I think that is a humongous shame. To elaborate further on what I said to Leithp - I personally think that this board is a sham - despite there not being a consensus last time, the ban was upheld on basis of comments by POV pushers. And I think Leithp was the plaintiff, judge and jury last time around - he will be one this time too. The ingrained racism masquerading as political correctness is painfully obvious to me and I am not going to bother civilizing him or his cronies. Honestly, they are not worth my time and effort. DemolitionMan (talk) 04:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, leaving my "ingrained racism" to the side for the moment, DemolitionMan hasn't expressed any indication that he realises why his editing was/is problematic. I'm unsure whether we should continue with the topic ban, and review future contribitions of DemolitionMan closely, or keep it, since he apparently has expressed no desire to change his style of editing. Would someone else care to close this out? Leithp 06:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

HAHAHA - There was no consensus last time to uphold a ban, but I was banned - this time time there was no consensus to withdraw the ban - so I remain banned. Thanks for proving my point. DemolitionMan (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

For advice: Putative anti-wikipedia-"porn" campaign probable

Admins may wish to be advised that the one Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues of the Concerned Women for America, a Biblically principled organization, is currently fulminating in the press at sexually explicit images on Wikipedia, and his press release has turned up on the Christian Newswire as "Wikipedia Peddles Porn to Kids".

You may want to anticipate some incoming flack from this - we've had a first inquiry on the reference desk this evening. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

So, somebody nobody has ever heard of is attempting to use Wikipedia to generate free press for themselves then? Resolute 23:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the statement "Children will be exposed to this destructive material if you fail to protect them." sums it up pretty well. Of course, so does Raul's comment here. - auburnpilot talk 23:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

zOMG think of the children if we don't BAN THIS EVIL FILTH it's a VICTORY FOR THE TERRORISTS</sarcasm>. We survived Daniel B & his chums, I assume we'll survive this. — iridescent 23:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally find it odd a man is in charge of making policy for a religious woman's group. Hypocrisy much? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 23:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hypocrisy and religion? Those have never crossed paths before, have they? Regardless, if mommy and daddy are going to use religion as an excuse to hide natural functions of humanity from their kids, better Wikipedia teaches them than most anything a google search would turn up, imo. Resolute 23:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A women's organisation founded by Christians as part of the opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment. Quite. — iridescent 23:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certian wikipedia articles stick to natural functions.Geni 23:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither does google, heh. Resolute 23:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmp wikipedia.com again.Geni 23:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Scary, dont these people have jobs? Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 23:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's minds of their own they lack, not jobs. DuncanHill (talk) 09:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggest we prepare a statement with our site's disclaimer, a selection of family-friendly mirror sites, and some suggestions about parental control software. Durova^Charge! 23:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there any open source parental control software?Geni 23:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, when even WR thinks they're a pack of crackpots, I think we're probably safe (note to the badsites police - that link is permitted as it it's directly relevant to the topic and not to ED) — iridescent 23:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's the Foundation's job, not the community's. As for wikipedia.com..._sigh. Keegan^talk 05:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Could someone show me where the "hundreds, if not thousands, of hardcore pornographic images and online sex videos" are available here or on Wikicommons for, ur, my research into this terrible obsenity? Seriously, haven't responses centred around WP:NOT#CENSORED been the standard response to these kind of campaigners in the past? Nick Dowling (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

zee only video would be Image:Blonde_stag_film.ogg. Only hardcore photos (we have a lot of softcore tends to pick a lot of copyvios mind) would be commons:Category:Pornographic film.Geni 00:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There are some fairly dubious photos here - anyone want to explain exactly how NudeSamStripper.jpg, Model in bondage.jpg or my all-time favourite ridiculous image (and Jimbo lookalike) Suspension-bb-lorelei-9016-jonwoods.jpg are encyclopaedic? (Warning; all three are NSFW!) — iridescent 00:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No idea about the first image, but the second & third are used to illustrate the article Hogtie bondage as any fule kno. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Commons isn't concerned with 'encyclopaedic value', it is a repository of free media. -- Naerii 04:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Not specifically "encyclopedic value", per se, but images on Commons do have to be potentially useful to current or future Wikimedia projects. Powers ^T 13:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yikes!!, i mean , its all in artistic taste obviously. --Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 00:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought I was really conservative. Not that much, apparently. I don't think this will turn out to be anything big. I still think, however, that a parental control option would be good. bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 23:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i think it falls under the usual CENSORED argument, ive fallen victim to that thing a number of times, yet i respect it. Wikipedia is not censored, we shouldnt give in to the political/religious ideology of ANY group. It will be bad for the community, a lot of people are already tired of this sort of pushing.Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 00:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

But not one wikipedia will support. Of course if some third party were to develop one we could hardly object.Geni 00:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

They also say "With great power comes great responsibility." Good thing to keep in mind in case you get bitten by a radioactive spider. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think a boilerplate message as outlined by Durova would be quite handy, both in this instance, and in the future, and to me personally. I know I, for one, would be interested in the location of family-friendly mirrors (if any exist) that I could feel comfortable sending my kids to. I seem to recall hearing about a CD version for school, I wonder if there's also an online version. No need to make fun of people who want to take advantage of the best online encyclopedia in the world, but don't want to expose themselves, or their kids, to images or subject matter they find objectionable. Delicately pointing out that they are responsible for what their kids see on line, not us, but giving them other options would be quite magnanimous of us, I think. --barneca (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Online version of the Wikipedia for Schools CD at [2]]. DuncanHill (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Barneca, I think you have a valid question - but I wonder why parental controls for pages aren't being used? After all, most of our images that are objectionable are on the body part and pornography articles. Setting parental controls to filter for certain key words would take care of many of these articles. --David Shankbone 00:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

So a teenage boy couldn't read about testicles, but could read about testicular cancer? A teenage girl couldn't read about breasts, but would be able to read about breast cancer? Dan Beale-Cocks 09:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Could we also have something for article that link to hate sites aswell then? There are a number of articles that provide URL's to some very hateful places. Do we need something for that aswell? I find thinks like that more worrying than a few naked bodies. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 00:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

& if no family-friendly mirror sites exist, we should certainly encourage CWA or anyone else interested to create one. If someone wanted to create a 99% mirror that specifically left out the 1% or so sexual content, they could presumably filterg mainly on the basis of removing all articles that are in certain categories, then do some blacklisting and whitelisting to deal with the outliers. I think that would be a great project. I'm actually surprised that no large city school system (for example) has done this. Of course, knowing CWA, they have a lot of other objections Wikipedia & are just using this as a convenient stick to beat us with. But objecting to us containing reasonably neutral articles on socialism and the like wouldn't make as big a splash in the press. - Jmabel | Talk 00:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• In case no one's linked to this here yet: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Porn for prudes. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• *Ahem* *Cough* seicer | talk | contribs 01:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Following up on the above, I'm planning a blog post about family-friendly options. Some outreach and communication could help here. Really, a lot of the public doesn't fully understand how wikis operate and North American social conservatives are accustomed to asking for child-appropriate content at the provider level on a local or regional basis. We can't fulfill this type of request in the way they expect. Any unprotected page could get vandalized at any time, so it's possible that someone's eight-year-old could download an article about a Disney movie two seconds after someone replaced the content with obscenities. If we tried to prevent that from ever happening we'd stop being a wiki. What we can do is educate them about their other options. I welcome input from other Wikipedians about preparing this post and making it useful. Durova^Charge! 07:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to

• • • After communication with Bastique, I have a list of images that one of the emails to OTRS has got. I, along with him and others, are going to sort thru the images and see what should stay and what should go. As for their location, many of the ones pointed out to OTRS exist on the Commons. Plus, porn to them is probably a lot broader definition than what we think. I found many pieces of historical art in the list of images to look at. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
      • You're aware that I'm an admin on Commons? Durova^Charge! 07:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
        • No, but I do now. I am also a Commons admin, so I can help you. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Won't fly to well. We need something like a firefox plugin that can blacklist certian pages. I'm sure there would be wikipedians who would help in provideing blacklists.Geni 16:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As an interesting aside, I'd like to point out that when I checked earlier today, we were getting anywhere between 1 and 5 emails per hour to OTRS about this. That's a significant amount (though not nearly what the height of the muhammad controversies were). ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually in favor of such a campaign. I find it disgusting that there are Wikipedia users who will do things like crap on plates and then insist such images be used in articles. We don't need explicit stuff when a scholarly diagram or something similar can do the job just as well. Jtrainor (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not all images in such articles can be done up in such a manner without confusing the picture. Any diagram of smegma, for example, is going to end up looking "moldy" and thus be confusing. And, indeed, there's been some concern about the image on the page currently (as well as some glacier-mo edit-warring over it), but unless we have a useful diagram (read: one that doesn't make the subject look like mildew, cum (pardons), or bread mold) then we can't remove the picture quite yet. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 08:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

While I do not see how poop on a plate would be worthwhile (I do not see any value in the stripper picture linked to above, either), I think that images that some people find objectionable have a place on Wikipedia. Most of the potentially objectionable images I have seen relate to medical topics, and you find graphic images all of the time in certain high-quality medical publications. Dermatology books and journals have some particularly delightful ones. ;-) In regards to diagrams/drawings, unfortunately, it can be hard to find one that can be used on Wikipedia legally. Also, as Jéské Couriano mentioned, it can be difficult for Wikipedians to create their own.

It's not poop on a plate, it's in a toilet, for pete's sake. Powers ^T 13:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have a drawing request page for articles for which a photo or drawing cannot be found. We already have photo requests, and this would allow those with the skill to create drawings know what topics need them. -- Kjkolb (talk) 10:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• If anyone complains just redirect their user page to Category:Bad images Jackaranga (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• The way to deal with issues like this is to make absolutely sure that when we include content that is of an explicit nature, it is clearly evident to the impartial observer that it has self-evident merit in illustrating the subject. The image at fluffer seems to me to fail that, as do many other images originating in the world of "teh pr0n". We should aspire to a quality of image that would not be out of place in an anatomical textbook. Such images tend not to be particularly titillating. Guy (Help!) 07:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of Kiddie Porn?

At least one of the OTRS messages concerns children in pornographic images (full frontal, prepubescent, sexually provocative)which are posted here. Maybe we should reconsider our demand that anything goes. After all, if a child posts personal information on his talk page we delete and oversight it - but if they are nude it's acceptable? Doesn't make sense. -JodyB _talk 11:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"Kiddie Porn" images is a favourite meme of pro-censorship interests. Are the pictures intended as sexually provocative? If a picture of a naked child in a "natural pose" excites sexual desire in someone then it is the problem of that viewer, not the host of the picture, and the potential of the reaction of a small minority should not disallow the use of an image in an appropriate context. So, are examples of images of naked children acceptable? Within context, yes, as this is an encyclopedia that uses various media to illustrate subjects. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I can only think of two images of naked children - one is a child (and her father) in the naked bike ride article and the other is an album cover. Neither is porn. Viridae^Talk 12:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"Sexually provocative" is the key word (well, words). If we have any sexually provocative photos of nude children, that's undoubtedly against our policies and they should be deleted, rather than defended with the usual "no censorship here" rhetoric. But I doubt such images actually exist here currently -- people tend to just see nudity and recoil in terror. I know beans and all, but specific links to the photos people consider to be "sexually provocative" are in order in this case, if we are to discuss this productively. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it refers to the Scorpion's album cover, which the "World Net Daily" (whatever that is) is currently trying to publicise as much as it possibly can, see [3] DuncanHill (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Virgin Killer - That's an interesting problem. It's provocative, but at the same time it's not merely a photo taken for that purpose, but a historical (artistic?) album cover from the '70s. This could really go either way. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Its also not the only one. Srsly, and I speak this as a born-again Christian myself, these people are only out for self-aggrandizement and aren't really making these statements to "make the world better". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There's also the famous re-imagining of Dejeuner sur l'herbe in the Bow wow wow article. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, those news sources have questionable intentions, but that doesn't mean we can't re-examine the issue for our own purposes. That first article does feature a provocative photo of a naked 10 year-old, whether or not some tabloid-esque news magazine is who's responsible for informing us of it. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Do we have to use the girl Virgin Killer picture? Since there is an alternate and the girl album cover is not the subject of the article or of any critical analysis...I'll be bold. Seraphim♥Whipp 13:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Btw, when I said critical analysis, I meant that what was there already wasn't really enough to make a strong argument to keep the image. Seraphim♥Whipp 13:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Why give in to a few hate-mongers on a fringe website? DuncanHill (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have done it anyway if I had known before. It was brought to my attention from this discussion. Seraphim♥Whipp 13:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I oppose what you did. The album cover was controversial and having it in the article does help greatly with illustrating the controversy.-Wafulz (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a wiki. Feel free to revert. Seraphim♥Whipp 13:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Wafulz that the image does help the article. The only thing I'm not sure about is if the image is in line with our policies -- but if it is, then it should probably stay, as the replacement image isn't just as good. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

OMG CHILD PORN. WND is horribly sensationalist and they’ll put a spin on anything to rid the world of "liberal" values. I suggest we carry on with business as usual.-Wafulz (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

An earlier removal of the image was reverted as vandalism, I think content issues such as this should be discussed on the article talk-page. DuncanHill (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have already left a message on the talk page. Seraphim♥Whipp 13:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes, that is the image I was referring to. It was simply a gratuitous image that was even dropped by the record company. I appreciate Seraphim's boldness. As one who has professionally with victims of child pornography I will not give space to those who seek to excuse it. As a parent of three young boys the image was horribly offensive. This is not merely a naked picture, but a deliberately provocative pic of a child. We should at least have some small standard of decency here. -JodyB _talk 14:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's... a mass-market heavy metal album cover, of which no doubt tens of thousands (if not more) were produced. Everyone who owns this Scorpions album is a child pornographer now? Come on. World Net Daily is a right-wing Christian fundamentalist "news" (used very loosely) outlet pushing an extremist, anti-American censorship agenda. We should not be gratuitously publishing porn, because we're an encyclopedia, not a porn shop. But if the worst that WND can throw at us is "omg noes an ALBUM COVER," I'd say there's really not much to be concerned about. FCYTravis (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This might be the appropriate point to mention that Balance was one of the biggest selling albums of the 1990s - is every record store on the planet distributing kiddy porn, too? — iridescent 17:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed these emails are fun to deal with. But we are not censored, and in this case in particular the image does help the article (IMO; note, it's been removed). The album isn't porn, and I'd be more worried about people who think it is than the image itself. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 15:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

perhaps the positions should be reversed, and the revised cover put at the top, changing the labels appropriately. DGG (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both Mike.lifeguard and DGG on this. DuncanHill (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As was suggested, this is being discussed at the article's talk page. Come take part in the discussion there :). Seraphim♥Whipp 15:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I do recall a situation a couple of months ago where a minor was taking photos of his bits and uploading them here to articles such as "Puberty" and "Penis", and we dealt with it by speedying the photos and warning him. I'm not sure what came of it, but it seemed a thoroughly sensible approach. Orderinchaos 16:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a pretty obvious "delete, no questions asked" issue. FCYTravis (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, World Net Daily is certainly right-wing, but it's not particularly Christian, unless "Christian" is just taken as code for "Moslems not welcome." This bit of moral panic is sheer opportunism. - Jmabel | Talk 19:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. It's interesting that they hired Matt Sanchez, former gay porn star as one of their correspondents, isn't it? --David Shankbone 20:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The image is up for ifd in today's log anyway. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That IfD should be closed extremely quickly as it starting to garner unwanted attention. Rgoodermote  18:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, have these people taken a good, long look at the genre of medieval paintings? An awful lot of them show the Virgin Mary with the naked infant of Christ. So when will they get around to nominating for deletion all of that smut on Commons under Category:Circumcision of Christ? -- llywrch (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

On a related topic...

Might I point some admins besides me to Talk:Smegma? I've practically been the only one to rebut the calls of IPs for censorship on that page, and other IPs are being emboldened by this and deliberately removing or redlinking the image on the article, seeing it as consensus. I need to walk away from it at this point; if I continue there I might blow a gasket. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 08:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Fully protected for 1 week. Rudget (Help?) 11:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The article, yes, but not the talk page, which is where I'm asking for assistance. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 18:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

A solution

I knew this would come up someday. In fact I'm surprised it took this long. I can sit here editing from behind an educational filter, look at Vagina, and see some of the sort of images such software was intended to block. All because it only reads the domain name.

And only Geni, in the above discussion, seems to have hit on what is to me the obvious way to solve it, that could make everybody happy. We (wisely) rejected TOBY a long time ago. But that doesn't mean the problem went away.

MediaWiki is open-source. I'm not a programmer, but it seems to me that would make it very easy to write a similarly client-side open-source free filtering program that could block images some people and institutions do not want displaying on their computers. Not that we have to develop and make it available ourselves, but certainly someone could. I'm sure there are enough programmers out there, and enough money in the constituencies CWA claims to speak for, that it could be created independently of any effort on our part.

We don't censor ourselves, but we can't stop other people from doing it as our experience with China demonstrates. And I wouldn't want to, even if I find the example I gave a regrettable one. For our right to run this project the way we want to and not censor it for the protection of minors is someone else's right to censor what goes on a computer they own and administer.

Such software might also help us ... a cooperative LAN administrator could issue client-side blocks to the local accounts of vandals, sparing us the auto and unblock requests from users at large shared IPs and overall reducing the amount of blocks we have to administer. Or, a school could perhaps protect its own article from its own vandalizing students, so we don't have to.

Any thoughts on this? I've thought about this for a while and mentioned it at a few meetups, but this is the first time I've posted anything about it. Daniel Case (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with what you're proposing, I sincerely doubt that it will work to alleve the fears of people like CWA. You're offering a solution that would handle the pictures, but their principal problem is not about the pictures, but that they'll read the articles & might start thinking for themselves. -- llywrch (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Redundant User Groups

Is there any reason why any of us administrators would need to have our accounts added to usergroups that gives us redundant permissions? (e.g. +sysop and (+ACC/RBK/IPBE)? — xaosflux ^Talk 04:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No. MBisanz ^talk 04:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

My feeling is no as well, unless it's right before you give up your +sysop under non controversial circumstances, but wanted to get a wider view among others here before doing any cleanups. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Or it's just toying with the permissions in a way that won't effect an any other account. UserRights management is a new thing for admins, and two more permissions in a day seems like a county fair. Keegan^talk 05:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That is the other issue, messing with user-rights to test things creates ugly, hard to monitor logs. MBisanz ^talk 05:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Note:I'm playing devil's advocate. I haven't messed with my own rights. Well, how am I supposed to practice an learn how to use the function in a safe and secure manner unless it's on an account I own? I'm not going to download MediaWiki and try to figure out how to install it because I know nothing about computers. I can sympathize with the mushy logs, but as I said it is new and I don't anticipate this lasting forever. Even practicing with test WP:NAS accounts will cause log entries. I'm just going to put down a "Wet Floor!" sign. Keegan^talk 05:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I dont mind Rollbackery nonsense or even Account Creation, but IP block exempt is a powerful tool and tracking log entry adds and removals is tedious. MBisanz ^talk 06:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wots IPBE? With regards to rollback, I prefer having that installed, so that should I ever temp desysop I have that straight away without the fuss of requesting it. That was used when I last went on a short no-tool break. Viridae^Talk 06:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

IP block exempt, a tag long ago written by Werdna IIRC and is part of the admin package, is now available to be doled out by admins to unflagged editors with UserRights managment. Check your new shiny Special:UserRights options. Keegan^talk 06:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

While I know first had the struggles of all these new userrights management options and can understand one or two test, like MBisanz it screws up the logs and confuses users. I say that admins should not add themselves to "rollback" or "accountcreator" as there is really no need. I am all for going through and clearly out the large amount of new admins that still have "rollback". Tiptoety ^talk 18:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If clogged logs are really an issue, going back and removing rollback from admin accounts will clog them even more. --barneca (talk) (see note @ top of my talk if I don't reply) 11:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I went ahead (with the help of giggy and SQL) created Wikipedia:New admin school/Accountcreator granting and revoking just in case anyone was curious. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 18:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, all of the Mediawiki:Grouppage-* links have been filled in, so Special:ListGroupRights and any related links at least fill in properly now :-P ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Out of interest, could an admin upload a screenshot of the Special:UserRights panel? Thanks. —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Here you go; that's what it looks like to an admin, it's more interesting for a 'crat and even more functional for a steward. --ais523 15:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that; of course, we don't have local Stewards, do we? —TreasuryTag—t—c 15:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No, but Jimbo has a permission that lets him do the same thing. --ais523 08:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"Well technically the Founder flag is the same as the Steward flag minus the Central-auth facility used for SUL renames and merges. MBisanz ^talk 08:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed research test for better editing

I would like to propose a research experiment that may help better Wikipedia.

Hypothesis: Anonymous editing leads to less responsible editing, more edit warring, worse encyclopedia.

Practical considerations: Naturally, changing the requirement that prohibits editors from hiding behind a user name is such a large change that it will not happen.

How about asking people to do so, instead, so it is purely voluntary?

Research design: I propose to edit by my real name and will verify it with a trusted person, such as an Administrator who edits by their real name. Then I will ask up to 50 new editors if they wish to participate. After 30 days (can be extended), I will look at the behavior of these editors versus up to 50 randomly selected new editors and see if disclosure of real names promotes better writing compared to the other group.

Opinions? Are you opposed to this research or will you allow it to start? JerryVanF (talk) 06:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I just thought of how some cynics might think. So we'll use a random number chart to select the users whom we will ask to participate. The details are not yet important. The first step is to get opinions about this research project. JerryVanF (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a structural "issue" with your proposal: there are 2 variables. The first is use of a "real" name. The second is the message from you asking them to participate in a study and to use their real name. To make this a randomized controlled trial, you'd have to be able to assign editors to the "anon" and "realname" groups. Self-selection, which is what would happen here, is a powerful contaminant.

You could create a cohort study, wherein you ask the next X hundred editors if they are editing with a false or a real name, then aggregate their activities into "anon" and "realname" groups for purposes of analysis. This would still be subject to self-selection, but then at least you're asking both groups the same question. It wouldn't really answer the question you're trying to ask, but it'd be interesting, anyway. Antelan^talk 06:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I was afraid the first reply would be "shut up Jerry".

Self selection is a factor. However, it may be a practical first step. I think it is too big a change if the research project shows better editing with real names so that effective Jan. 1, 20--, all editors must edit this way. A more practical change would be that Wikipedia encourages people to edit by their real names and this would be based on our study. If the new policy is voluntary then it's ok that we allow people to choose real names or not when then start participation.

The trouble with asking if people are editing with real names is that few usernames even sound like real names so I would think that <1% of editors do that. JerryVanF (talk) 06:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, my name is my name, for what it's worth, and that's an interesting idea for a sociological experiment. From my practical experience, I've found that continuous edit warring usually comes from registered accounts and the fact that registering an account hides IPs, thus anonymizing the edit warring with sock puppets. IPs usually just prove that Friends of gays should not edit Wikipedia. So I think that your hypothesis would prove what we all have observed to be social practice. Is it practical? Give it a try. Keegan^talk 07:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Using your real name online is rarely safe, and it is officially advised against by at least the British government. Why would you encourage people to perform dangerous activities when government (expert?!) advice is to the contrary? —TreasuryTag—t—c 07:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not encouragement, but asking for willing participation.

Now, to get philosophical, Wikipedia was started to flesh out articles for Nupedia, whose articles were authored with real names. From what I understand (I wasn't there), Wikipedia started out with everyone knowing everyone's name, an signing with initials. Now as the project grew in size, membership, and web ranking, obviously anonymity became important and still is. Off wiki harrassment is a very real thing.

The point of the GFDL and free distribution is the selflessness of authorship- some are proud to put their name on the work and then release it, others do it under a pseudonym. It's not an exercise in vanity, but an exercise in awareness of freedom from intellectual property.

I think that however one chooses to participate online in a community of such internet standing should be fully aware of the consequences of either anonymizing or openness. Such a study could be greatly interesting in that regard. Keegan^talk 07:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is this on WP:AN? MickMacNee (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC). And the proposed 'experiment' is clearly set up to prove a point. The Kansas schoolboard would be so proud. MickMacNee (talk) 11:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

We have done some number crunching already. Over half of unregistered edits are useful, that's why the wiki tends towards order over time. --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC) There's this company this one economist(?) ran (he down-shifted from his previous job to an office confectionery delivery company ;-) ), where he relied on the observation that ~80-90% of his customers were honest. I'm sure the story is on wikipedia somewhere in an article. Now where was that again?

You probably mean Paul Feldman. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 18:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

HYPOTHESIS: Editors who tend to edit responsibly would be more willing to disclose their real name than editors who do not. How does this proposed experiment distinguish between this hypothesis and your original hypothesis? I don't believe it does, which means you can't distinguishe between cause and effect. Andrew Jameson (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC) (not my real name, BTW)

Nice idea, but selection bias would be too big a problem. Andrew Jameson (if that isn't his real name), says it best: There's no way to tell if people are editing well because they're using their real name or their using their real name because they intend to edit well. --Tango (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

There is the possibility that a person could be using another person's name and claiming to be them while potentially ruining that person's name by making really bad edits. We have seen that on AN/I before some one (no names will be mentioned) used some one else name and blanked AN/I. I my self use my real name to edit and as so I try to make non-controversial just in case. But that is me. There is the second part here. A user could use their real name to edit but not care what others think and just make whatever edits they feel regardless of it's potential post-effects. I myself am not opposed to this. But I do see it being a little flawed. Rgoodermote  20:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

We're not in Kansas analogy territory anymore; more like Durham Country Council, I think. Regardless of flaws, I can't see how this project could ever generate benefits that would outweigh the harm. How do we reconcile "use your real name" with "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" and with the longstanding policy that registration is not necessary? The majority of contributors would be put off registering, I think, and we have enough issues with death threats and harassment already. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You forget lawsuits. (added) I really thought this guy was studying the difference between those who use Pseudonames and those who use their Real Names to edit. I was kind of for that. Rgoodermote  20:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

HYPOTHESIS:The research proposer wants to prove anonymous editing is bad for the 'pedia, and therefore once proven we can launch the zomg bots on them and the world will be a better place, free of lies, bullshit and deceit. I ask only for US$3m to be able to research this. MickMacNee (talk) 01:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your replies. (unlike MickNacNee, I will work for free) I plan to begin a very small pilot study of maybe as few as 10 users. I plan to find an administrator who could work with me as either co-author, question answerman/woman, ethics review panel, etc. Since I will ask users if they are using their real names, I will ask the same question to myself and reveal my real name. I do listen to others. One said that there should be some sort of privacy. So I will change the research design so that only a first initial or a shortened family name will be requested (for example P. Hilton or Paris Hilt instead of Paris Hilton).JerryVanF (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments on mail below. JerryVanF (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Any administrator with a post office box?

REQUEST relating to above discussion: Is there an administrator who has a post office box and is willing to receive a letter from me. I wish to send a legal document for my study. You don't need a post office box but I would feel more comfortable not asking for your street address. You can e-mail it to me. JerryVanF (talk) 02:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You need to email the Foundation about that. Administrators are volunteers, and we have no affiliation with the legal matters of Wikipedia. The WikiMedia Foundation maintains in-house as well as outside counsel for document review. Keegan^talk 05:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not a legal document pertaining to WikiMedia. I wish to send me research plan and my real name to an administrator, who will act as sort of an ethical review board. This is the best way to run a research project. If I mail it to WikiMedia, they will have no idea what is going on. There are some administrators who say who they are and whose address can be easily googled but I want them to volunteer, not for me to force a letter on them. JerryVanF (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

In what sense is the document a "legal document", then? —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It may just simply be an agreement. Dunno. Does it have to be an administrator? NonvocalScream (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Jerry, I have a postal address and I use it for WMA and a number of people here have it already. If I knew you and if you had taken the time to establish a reputation here I would have been willing to accept mail from you, but you've been here for a week and have around 100 edits to your name and I think anyone willing to accept mail from you under these circumstances should seriously reconsider, especially given your very short wiki short career here (at least with this account). Frankly, saying you don't want to force snail mail on one of us by looking up our addresses is extremely alarming. If you have a legitimate reason for sending mail then you need to send it to the Foundation. There are administrators who work there and if your purposes are genuine and legitimate then I'm sure they'd consider helping you. Other than that I do not recommend any users give out their real world identities and postal addresses to a new user with one hundred edits to their name and some very strange and suspicious behaviour. If this is in relation to User_talk:JerryVanF#proposed_test then you don't need our mailing addresses to do that. You can simply email an administrator you trust (although that may be difficult for you to decide given your short wikicareer) and provide said information electronically, if you really want to. The rest of that proposal, selecting the fifth username after "troublemaker" usernames and making them part of your study whether they like it or not ("I will then ask every 5th name if they want to participate...If they don't, they will be assigned to the anonymous group.") sounds very peculiar and I might suggest that you would do better spending the time working on the actual encyclopedia, which is what we're here for, not mandated studies of other users. Sarah 00:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Edward G. Nilges edit warring on Herbert Schildt

An anonymous user with various IPs from Hong Kong, identifying himself as Edward G. Nilges – also known as Spinoza1111 (talk · contribs) – is edit warring on Herbert Schildt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He claims BLP issues because we are reporting public statements by experts saying that Schildt's books contain factual errors. Looks like a conspiracy theory to me. I am not familiar with the exact status of this user (banned or just blocked) and the fine points of our policies. Is it OK to edit war with him? How about temporary semiprotection of this BLP page? --Hans Adler (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

While I haven't decided on the third source in that section, "public statements by experts" are irrelevant as far as BLPs are concerned, when those statements are negative. In fact, no criticisms should be included that are sourcable only to self-published sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

From the BLP noticeboard discussion I was under the impression that this is not a BLP issue. If you think otherwise you should comment there. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please have a look at Talk:Herbert Schildt? Edward G. Nilges seems to claim that while the user account Spinoza1111 is banned, he, as the person behind it, is not affected. Does this make some sense because of BLP exemptions? Note that he doesn't claim to be the subject himself.

As a German mathematician I am also a bit sensitive to comments like the following:

I think what you are doing is creating a mathematical model of ethnic cleansing and genocide, since all you have to do is say I am "banned", to have people disrespect anything I might say.

This is in fact a cybernetic and virtual way of calling a person a "jew" in order not to have to deal with him. I say that subconsciously you may be repeating a nasty historical theme in a new way.

I don't think I have done anything that warrants such an extreme reaction. FCYTravis has protected the article on Nilges' version after these absurd accusations (probably without reading them). Since Nilges is currently the only person who argues for the "wrong version", do we have to seek a consensus with a banned user to get it changed? --Hans Adler (talk) 09:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Help requested on Wikipedia:Templates for Deletion

We have a couple of issues happening at TfD. First of all, we have a backlog that goes back a couple of weeks. Any help would be appreciated. Secondly, right now, the bot that has been updating the pages daily is malfunctioning. So the pages are not being updated promptly. What does updating the pages involve? At 00:00 UTC, the previous day needs to be put under Current discussions and the 8th day before today needs to be put under Old Discussions so they can be closed. This is a summary of what needs to be done. Also, the current day needs to have ===Current Date=== added to the top of it. For example, today is ===May 11===. Any help would be appreciated as right now I'm the only one doing it and I can't get to it until 6-7 hours after 00:00 has been hit. It's causing discussions being placed in the wrong spot and other formatting stuff. Thanks! --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind :) Bot is working again. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Blind reversion of edits, despite earlier warnings

User:TharkunColl has been reported previously for blindly reverting articles without reasons or discussion. See here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive414#Wikistalking here for details. He is also the subject of the thread above entitled "Edit-Warring/Repeatedly deleting text with deliberately misleading edit summaries". It is clear that this editor is behaving in a disruptive manner. Whether or not he agrees or disagrees with the other editors or content, he must accept that this behaviour is not acceptable, and is disruptive. --Bardcom (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop harrassing me with spurious and frivolous complaints all the time. Reverting an edit is not vandalism, as you have repeatedly called it. TharkunColl (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Tharky, as has been pointed out to you before on numberous occassions, reverting an edit without discussion or comment is vandalism. This is an incident requiring administrative attention and possible intervention. --Bardcom (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not vandalism - as has been pointed out to you, on your own talkpage, by others. In any case, in my last edits I provided a summary. Satisfied? TharkunColl (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Despite your protestations, it *is* vandalism. And should an admin take the time to check your behaviour, they'll find that your behaviour is very disruptive, and whether it is related to a concept of content-dispute or not, this behaviour should not be tolerated. --Bardcom (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

And as another case on ANI demonstrates, TharkunColl's edit summaries may not be based on truth or facts or the references. Wotapalaver (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No uninvolved editor agreed with Wotapalaver on AN/I that there was anything misleading about TharkunColl's edit summaries. This is forum shopping- the editors involved have already made 2 threads on ANI in the last few days- now they make a thread here instead because they're not happy with the responses they've got there IMHO. If they'd posted this on ANI it would have been merged in the previous one perhaps. Even if they believe this is a separate incident, there's no need to be posted on this board instead except in the hope of eliciting a response they prefer (i.e. forum shopping.) Even if they see Wot's issue as different from Bard's, bard already posted about it on AN/I a few days ago so why choose a different forum to raise his complaint I wonder.:) Merkin's mum 22:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

On the subject I'm involved in TharkunColl's edit summaries were 100% misleading, untrue, non-factual, inaccurate. The diffs prove it. That may or may not have been the case with Bardcom's case. The only reason it's worth mentioning is that TharkunColl is here claiming that the fact that he's making edit summaries means that there's no problem. That may or may not be true. As for a "they" making complaints, Bardcom and I are independent, unrelated, non-cooperating. Hints otherwise are nnot only speculation, but wrong. Wotapalaver (talk) 23:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

After reading on AN, I took a quick look.

Bardcom was making large scale changes, changing Great Britain to British Isles wherever they went, and this is what TharkunColl was reverting. I was almost fooled though, because TharkunColl uses rather succinct edit summaries when reverting these, (to wit "Rv.".) It might have been better to provide a somewhat longer summary or even a link. :-)

Note that this was a quick look. There might still be other things going on that people "forgot" to mention. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Rv. means revert doesn't it, lots of people use that in edit summaries when they revert, so it just describes what he did. I don't think not mentioning what he was reverting specifically, if that's what TharkunColl did, is misleading. Anyway he seems to be explaining all his edits in the edit summary very thoroughly now, in a fair few of the last ones Special:Contributions/TharkunColl. Of course that he has to explain in an edit summary, hints that he fears he will be reverted by edit warriors other highly motivated contributors.:) Merkin's mum 11:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Spent convictions

Resolved

- _{My mistake creating this, per the deleted talk page consensus. --1qx (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)}

I'm just informing admins of this essay I wrote: feel free to tweak it as much as you want. Ta, --1qx (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

David L Cook

Resolved

Hello, sometime back I requested slanderous information be removed from the abovementioned article on David L Cook. The information was inflamnatory and was to be deleted. I got a response that the information was removed and not able to be seen in the history. However, when I went to look this morning at the article, I found this; [4] and this one, [5]. I cannot seem to get anyone to answer me at oversight. Can you please remove these from the edit history so that other people cannot find this stuff? It could prove to be very defaming for this subject. It was already removed by one admin at Oversight, but I guess somehow it did not get deleted from these two. Maybe it was because of the rollback? Canyouhearmenow 14:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue has been resolved. Thank you Canyouhearmenow 14:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:United Kingdom cities

Resolved

 – There's no admin action necessary here. Discussion is on talk page, or take to WP:DR —Alex.Muller 17:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to bring to your attention about users Jza84 (talk · contribs) and Joshii (talk · contribs) and how they may cause an edit war. These two users are insisting that their home town of Manchester have a picture on the census population template on the UK. According to the census, Manchester is the ninth largest city, and the two images on these templates should be first largest city then second largest city. I wrote on the talk about it, and they still continue to insist on this. Can I get an opinion on this. — NuclearVacuum 14:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This should be taken to WP:Dispute resolution, not the admin noticeboard. Neither me nor Jza84 are seeking to start a war, it is yourself who is not trying to reach a consensus and is instead deciding only your opinion counts. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 14:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for advice about I'd Do Anything (BBC TV series)

The above article covers a reality tv show which is currently airing in the UK. Each week there are two shows, one airs on Saturday and the Results show on Sunday. However, only the Saturday show is live. The Sunday Result show is recorded about an hour after the Saturday show finishes and then shown "as live" on Sunday without the results actually being released before the show airs. Each week on the Results show two contestants enter a "sing-off" and one of them is then eliminated from the show from that sing-off. There is a hidden message on the article on the "Finalists" section requesting that the details of the Sunday show are not added until after that show airs. Despite this for a number of the weeks details of the Results show have been added before the show airs. Yet again it has happened today with full details of who was in the sing-off, what song they sung in that sing-off and which one of them was eliminated. It usually seems to be IP users who enter this information. Should I be requesting semi-protection of the page at the relevant noticeboard so that IP users and new users can't edit? I have yet again removed the details from tonights show and added yet another hidden note asking for details not to be added until the show airs. Any advice would be great. Thank you.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 15:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You could try asking at WP:RFPP on the Saturday afternoon for 31 hours semi-protection - that'd expire after the Sunday show had been broadcast. _GB^T/C 16:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources that prove this is true, IMO it should stay in the article. D.M.N. (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The point being though that there are no reliable sources when it is added before the show airs. The content being added is not verifiable until the show airs, as the information is not being released prior to that. And with it being added in advance it is then ruining the show for those who watch it without knowing the result, which is the vast majority of viewers and readers of wikipedia. In addition at no time during the series when the details have been added in advance has it ever been added with a source - because there are no sources, the information is not released in advance. If you check the edit history you would see that none of these edits have included a source. And for all anyone else knows before the show airs, the edits could be completely false. Also the show is aired "as live" without the result being known beforehand.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to concentrate on the "lack of reliable sources" part to get anywhere. You'll find that no-one cares about spoilers, and it'll end up in some weird edit war. Dan Beale-Cocks 17:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is fair enough and is easily done as when the edits are added there are never any reliable sources and so aren't verifiable until the shows air. And none of the edits have ever included a source simply because there aren't any when they are added. Cheers for all the replies anyway.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Just as a FYI about the above. After the show aired tonight, the information added earlier today by an IP user about the eliminated contestant and the sing-off was all totally false. Wrong person, wrong song they sang and completely made up comments supposedly made about her by Andrew Lloyd Webber.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If the information is factual, there is no reason to omit it from the article. Kingturtle (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing could be further from the truth. Our bar is set at Verifiability, not truth; as Wikipedia:Verifiability clearly indicates. Unsourced factually correct material is utterly indistinguishable from factually incorrect material such as the "facts" that appear to have been added to this article recently. Consequently, no form of unsourced content may be added to a wikipedia article. If it is not reliably sourced, remove it on sight. Happy‑melon 21:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course there is reason to omit the edits before the show airs simply because they aren't verifiable and especially so given todays false edits. None of the edits over the various weeks have been sourced as before the show airs there are no reliable sources to confirm the content. The edits made today were completely made up and false for whatever reason including a whole "speech" supposedly made by Andrew Lloyd Webber which he didn't make at all, the wrong contestant listed as being eliminated and the the "sing-off" song also made up and incorrect. There is no way of verifying whether they are factual or not each week until the show actually airs and given todays false edits it is impossible to say whether any edit made next week for instance prior to the show airing is factual or not until after the show.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

User keeps removing sourced statistics and suspected sockpuppet

The user Muscovite99 is continually removing sourced statistics from the Putin article. First he said the material was OR, then after I explained it to him he attacked the sources (Associated press and MSNBC). He said "The hacks you quote have absolutely no idea what they're writing" and "the figure plucked from MSNBC wiretape was written by some one who (CIA or not) is an absolute ignoramus." (see discussion), even though I made it clear that he was violationg WP:V. He ended up getting blocked for 48 hours for violating 3RR. Now he's back from his block, and the first thing he does is revert back and remove the statistics. He now says the material is poorly sourced/original research, even though the material is clearly and perfectly sourced.

Also, during his block a suspected sockpuppet, Trysty, removed the same material here. The suspected sockpuppet is a one purpose account (looks like he made some very minor edits to other articles to try and make it less obvious, as well as making his name blue), and notice how he used the comment box citing wiki policy, and even uses the same rationalle for removing the statistics.

Muscovite99: "Put back the proper source - the article is about Putin and his word should be taken over AP claims or Krawn's original research about PPP and "nominal GDP"

Trysty: "Apparent WP:OR -- the cited source does not speak of PPP or "nominal GDP" -- per WP:V" Krawndawg (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

One of those articles Trysty edited, Gennady Timchenko, rather obscure, has been edited by Muscovite as well diff. Krawndawg (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Just a note: i removed Krawndawg's conjectural interpretation of a source (the AP article he bases his claims about GDP in terms of "PPP" and "nominal GDP", contains no such thing, and thus his frivolous insertions of the terms constitute original reaearch) in accordance with WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material, which inter alia states: "The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals". I mention the latter as I avail myself of this opportunity to state that my recent blocking was not per WP:POL.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Also I should like to draw the attention to the exceedingly rude and obscene language that is habitually employed by Krawndawg in his communication with other editors, such as these [6] [7].Muscovite99 (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Lets look at the differences here.

• The version you just reverted said: "the economy bounced back from crisis seeing GDP increase six-fold"

• The article says: "Average wages rose eightfold during Putin's eight years as president, from roughly $80 a month to $640, and GDP sixfold."

What's original research? What's contentious? (do you even know what that word means?)

And even though I've already explained it to you, Putin was talking about the PPP GDP, which did indeed grow 72% over the past 8 years. There is no conflicting information here, the only problem is your ignorance on the subject and your inability to differentiate between nominal (normal) and PPP GDP.Krawndawg (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• I am not going to discuss any thing related to the subject of the article as it is pointless to debate with a person who had already opened the debate with the assertion addressed to me «you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and I don't feel it's my job to educate you»[8]. I shall only repeat your correct words (apply them to your very fascinating inquisitions about "PPP" et al): "That's a very interesting opinion, but wikipedia is not a soap box or blog, nor is it the place for original research."[9].Muscovite99 (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[Also all this economics numbers have no place in a biographical article per WP:BLP].Muscovite99 (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Please look at this. That's the economic growth of Russia, in both nominal and PPP figures, according to the IMF. Those figures are identical to the sourced figures that I inserted into the article and that you continually remove.

Please revert yourself and in the future do your research the next time you decide to bring up such a silly debate about verifiable facts. Krawndawg (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• This appears to be a content dispute, although one that appears to also include possible socking, allegations of incivility, the questioning of sources that have been held as reliable in many other contexts, and the interpretation of sources. In all, this is not a sysop matter (as yet). I suggest that a form of dispute resolution is attempted, possibly a request for comment. That said, my reading of the above suggests that Muscovite99 is arguing from fairly shaky grounds - the statement of a politician (especially regarding their own constituency) being more reliable than a reliable source? I think not. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious that nominal GDP is irrelevant. Most serious studies analyze real GDP (i.e. inflation adjusted GDP). --Doopdoop (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

My main complaint here isn't about the content. It's the fact that he's violating WP:V by removing correct and well sourced information (regardless of what it is), and is suspected to have used a sockpuppet during a block. Krawndawg (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a consensus you can point to that indicates that the sources are agreed as being reliable, rather than quoting the policy? While I have sympathy with your argument that reliable sources are being removed it is not considered vandalism where there is good faith belief that it isn't a reliable source - or can you provided evidence that it is not a good faith belief no matter how inappropriate it might seem. Until there is evidence that the editor is acting either against consensus or in bad faith there is nothing an admin can do except suggest taking it to dispute resolution. Once there is a clear line then an admin can act to ensure there are no violations of policy/consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well isn't the fact that he keeps changing his story enough evidence? He stopped calling them unreliable sources, then started using the "PPP" argument to justify removing it. To me it's pretty clear that he just doesn't want the information that GDP grew 6fold on the article no matter what, this is evident if you look at his posts in the articles discussion page. Krawndawg (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

"Is there a consensus you can point to that indicates that the sources are agreed as being reliable, rather than quoting the policy?" - Does that mean if I gain consensus on the reliable sources notice board it will change anything? Krawndawg (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the opportunity to fully review the complaint, and while I feel that it is still in the basis of a content dispute I acknowledge that Muscovite99 was incorrect in insisting that the sources mentioned should be removed, and for edit warring over their removal; the guideline being Bold, Revert, Discuss. The content should remain unless Muscovite99 can change the consensus to that they are inappropriate by use of debate on the article talkpage. I shall advise Muscovite accordingly, commenting that any further removal of content without consensus is vandalism and can therefore be reported to WP:AIV as such. I suggest, although with little expectation of agreement, that you continue to engage this person in discussion regarding the validity of sources and their interpretation. I hope this suffices. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Krawndawg (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Question...

What's the current position regarding a WP:BADSITE's campaign to add a slogan to your wikipedia page, which they then google to contact you? More specifically, should this be reverted? Blocked? Ignored? Could someone who understands our current policy (there must be someone) have a look? — iridescent 21:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

My past interactions with this user suggests he seems to have serious issues understanding what Wikipedia actually is, and now he appears to simply be trolling. I support the removal of the comment and another reminder of what Wikipedia is about, and that his right to free speech is not what he thinks it is. J Milburn (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with removal of that...it really has no place here, badsites or not. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I should point out BADSITES is, thankfully, a wholly failed proposal. My reaction would have been to ignore it. There's no policy against a user writing "tell the wikitruth". (just don't say it three times in a row!!) Neıl ☎ 09:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing what you guys are discussing here (If I got this right) is that I posted TELL THE WIKITRUTH in my page and it caused a problem? It seems the other problem is my debate on the Freedom of Speech and my site? If so what do you want me to do?

Just to make it clear my intentions are not to bring down the Wikipedia or to make it look bad. The only goal we have if you read our Freedom of Speech page is to ensure the protection of certain inalienable rights to the people. PediaOpeness.org is all about keeping options open for people and making sure that their freedoms are in tact. If we wanted to make the Wikipedia look bad we would write up bad things about the Wikipedia but the Wikipedia Administrators and other Wikipedia users already did that for us. All I'm stating at my Wikipedia link is that others agree that there is an attitude or belief at the Wikipedia that the Freedom of Speech needs to be much more limited than it is on our site. I don't understand this. Neutral777 (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions regarding interpretation of WP:RS and WP:SPS

We have an ongoing discussion on WP:RSN regarding the RS-ness of the boxofficeindia.com site. I am of the view that it is not RS but some defenders of the site as a RS point to the less than a handful of citings of that site in RSes and are arguing that a source automatically becomes RS once it gets cited (even if only once) in a RS source. Atleast one editor has also opined that it is OK to use the "best sources we have" at hand even if they are not demonstrably RS. I neither see any merit in these arguments nor do I see any evidence of WP:RS and WP:SPS lending credence to these arguments. In fact, imo these arguments go against the very grain of WP:RS. I will be grateful if some eyes from here can take a look at the discussion and weigh in. Thanks. Sarvagnya 21:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Bsrboy

Resolved

 – Removed by J Milburn. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The protection on User talk:Bsrboy has expired, and Bsrboy is once again asking to be unblocked. Since the protection has expired, could an admin please remove the protected tag on the page? Corvus cornix_talk 22:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If the protection has expired, anyone may remove an outdated maintenance tag. Nakon 22:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't want to overstep.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 16:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sock block request

Kindly request that this sock be blocked. RFCU came up as "obvious". One of the socks as been blocked already, so the user was appropriately warned. Bstone (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-deletion proposal at MfD needs to be closed

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sharkface217/Award Center 2 isn't a page deletion proposal - it's a proposal to delete certain types of entries from a page, and therefore doesn't belong at MfD. It also involves setting policy about how barnstars can and cannot be used, and policy proposals don't belong at MfD. Someone please close the discussion. Thank you. The Transhumanist    04:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As an outside observer who closes XfD's I agree. This acts like a content issue. Whether parts are removed is negotiable yet its in userspace and for the good of the pedia. I'd close it myself but I'd be reverted as its semi-controversial now. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion policy states: Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page. Likewise, disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it. Similarly, issues with an inappropriate user page can often be resolved through discussion with the user. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an administrator, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum. The Transhumanist    05:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have closed the MfD's discussion. The closure was not an endorsement of Keep, Delete, or No Consensus, but rather that The Transhumanist is correct about the policy. XfDs are not forums to force community discussion when there is not a true belief on the part of the nominator that the content is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Keegan^talk 06:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• I can't find the appropriate Request for Comment template, so I'll initiate a discussion on the talk page, most likely where it will be ignored. But, meh. I just see an issue with certain tasks. If they're ignored, then so be it. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 06:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Hm, I can't find a proper template either. This should probably go to RfC, any ideas of how to process it? Keegan^talk 06:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd like one, there is no doubt that a Request for Comment is required. I'd also like to note that The Transhumanist never commented on my talk page, unlike how Sharkface did. There are issues that need to be addressed here, and ignoring them isn't going to help anyone, especially our new editors. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 06:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't responded yet, because the discussion hasn't been posted in the proper forum. If restrictions are going to be made on barnstars (on what they can and cannot be offered for), the discussion should take place at Wikipedia talk:Barnstars. The Transhumanist    16:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

DRV backlog

Looks like there are quite a few DRVs that need to be closed. Is there some way we can add old DRVs to a queue of some kind, like WP:AFDO? GlassCobra 07:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, the AfD backlog is meagre, for a change. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it'd help if someone would just to close a few. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 26 has one outstanding, after that the next with any open is Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 4. I don't think we need anything special done to them, except a few closes would be nice. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Backlog

Just an FYI that we have a backlog at Wikipedia:Editor review that could use some eyes on reducing. MBisanz ^talk 09:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Doritites bosniackii

Resolved

 – stub created

For some reason I get a blacklisted noice when I try to add this page, one of many Parnassius previously submitted pages on Parnassius which wre without problems.My text with a taxobox links etc reads '''''''Doritites bosniackii''''''' is a fossil [[Papilionidae|swallowtail]] [[butterflies|butterfly]] in the subfamily [[Parnassiinae]]. The genus and it sole species was described from the [[Miocene]] of [[Tuscany]], Italy {{butterfly-stub}} Can you help please Robert (Nash) FRES aka Notafly (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Some sort of glitch, obviously. --Rodhullandemu 10:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Schlafly

Since Doc glasgow, who closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Schlafly (2nd nomination) as delete, has apparently retired, I'd like to forward this question to other admins. It seems that there is sufficient reliable news coverage to have an article on Schlafly, beyond that which should (and mostly is already) included in Conservapedia. One examples of a source is here (NY Times), more can be found via Google News Archives here. Is it ok to create that article from scratch? Not asking for undeletion, just for your estimate of whether or not it would endure. dorftrottel (talk) 11:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Since most of the information would be pieced together from coverage of larger topics, I'd say it's pretty borderline-notable at best. Because he's involved in controversial topics, we should err on the side of our living persons policy and keep the information on him within parent articles like Conservapedia, Phyllis Schlafly, and others.-Wafulz (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• To paraphrase the above, who needs the hassle? Schlafly is a minor, minor figure. Guy (Help!) 11:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Evidence presented did not disclose a history of problematic editing, in terms of basic content policy, by Jossi, and the Committee commended Jossi's self-imposed restriction to edit only talk pages for Prem Rawat related articles. Due to a history of incivility and personal attacks surrounding articles related to the Prem Rawat movement, the preexisting community enforced one-revert rule on Prem Rawat and related articles that commenced March 4, 2008, has been superceeded by Arbitration Committee enforced article probation. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Users talk page

Would someone please have a look at this users talk page - User talk:Irishman66 which claims to list the full name and address of a boy who they claim is vandalising an article on wikipedia. Surely that is not acceptable on wikipedia? Thank you.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

And just to point out that despite the above being removed, the user has recreated it here Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive59. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Both should be gone —Alex.Muller 16:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Deleted from talk page and will notify Oversight assuming nobody else has done so. --Rodhullandemu 16:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Aye, thanks for the quick responses, both are gone now.I presume they were made in good faith to report a vandal, just not the way to do it, so maybe someone could point the user in the right direction how to report the vandal? Thanks again.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Last.fm TFD

An admin needs to close the Template:Last.fm TFD which has been going on for almost 3 weeks as there's a backlog. -Halo (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Neıl ☎ 18:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikistalking

What are rules for Wiki stalking ? Is it allowed ? I being wikistalked by Ragib. I will be making a formal complain to Wikipedia. Misaq Rabab (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Diffs? EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous accusation. The user Misaq Rabab has recently made a lot of disruption in various articles, some of which are on my watchlist. Some examples are below:

• Modifying a direct quotation to change the word "Pakstan" to "Pakistan" [10] (see the article for the scan of the pamphlet which includes the spelling "Pakstan")
• Repeating the above in other articles as well [11], [12]

• Unilaterally removing many articles from Category:Bangladesh Liberation War to Category:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 (which are two separate, but related wars), ([13], [14] (this one also includes blanking references and reference list sections) etc.

• Incorrectly replacing any reference/wikilink for Bangladesh Liberation War (March 26-Dec 16, 1971) to Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 (Dec 3 - Dec 16, 1971). (e.g. [15] and several more).

Note that, this is not an isolated behavior pattern by the user ... he has recently also removed categories from many other articles in the same manner .. see User_talk:Misaq_Rabab#Vandal_edits_:Massive_deletion_of_categories_from_articles for details.

This user has also been involved with creating many non-notable or copyvio articles, such as Karakoram Motors, Ahmad Ali Jinnah, Category:Name, Kiani (cartoon).

Since this user displays such disruptive behavior, I have looked into some of his edits which violate wikipedia policies. In each case, I notified the user about his disruptive behavior and requested to stop. Under no circumstances did I edit or undo any of his other non-disruptive edits. So, I find his accusation of "stalking" quite objectionable. --Ragib (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review Part of the Porn Smear Campaign

My guess is that it's WR's resident high school music teacher, TheFieryAngel, but somebody has been engaged in trying to whip up conservative frenzy over pornography, tarring me in the process and bringing in Wikia boy scout stuff that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Here are two posts on "The Lonely Conservative" website (the second clearly placed by a WR member - perhaps the one who suggested they bring it into the mix: TheFieryAngel):

• Wikipedia porn feedback - boy scout spanking art on Wikia
• Parent alert Wikipedia contains porn

So, for all you Wikipedia people who go on WR, if the defamation of the Deputy Director of the WMF wasn't enough, and their extortion negotiations of Newyorkbrad wasn't enough, now we have a porn smear campaign that doesn't even involve our website. --David Shankbone 20:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ignore. Wikipedia Review are a bunch of silly fools with little influence. Also, they are highly prone to changing their minds. Six months ago they were painting me as the biggest villain in the West since Al Capone. Now I'm actually reasonably popular over there. Doubtless six months from now they'll be so pleased with you they'll be trying to get jobs for you, and I'll be done in the tar pit again. Life goes on much as it did before either way. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, considering the Valleywag stuff may very well cost someone their job and working status in the U.S., this is quite serious. They have attributed statements to Erik that he never made - complete defamation. They have repeated my psychopathic troll's allegations that I live with Michael Lucas - which is why I came down so hard on User:SqueakBox, for listening to them and then coming here as if I live with Lucas and have a COI. They only have influence because some of us are foolish enough to hang out over there, and then bring their words over here. --David Shankbone 20:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

David, not only have I never said or thought you live with Michael Lucas or encouraged others to do so but I also shifted that thread away from its focus such mindless gossip and onto talking about your actions and interactions at wikipedia, which IMO was a helpful thing to do as your actions here are anyway public and also what WR should be about, ie reviewing wikipedia instead of trying to out wikipedians rela life activities, which I have not ever engaged in and which i oppose always in principle and practice. Indeed I retuirend to posting at WR after several months of not doing sdo in order to get my pic removed from the old Hive Mind site that got reposted, and successfuilly got that page reduced 40% in content. Now that is really helping real live wikipedians. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, SqueakBox, that is why I was so pissed off with you - you had replied in that thread and quoted the allegations, and the thread was over my COI, and then you came here talking about my COI with the photos - that's why I thought you were repeating those allegations. For three months I had some psychopath vandalizing my work and threatening to come after me at Wiki events, and TheFieryAngel had to go searching not only on the Polish Wikipedia to find my troll's "I live with Michael Lucas" ridiculousness, but she had to find it in a cache since I removed the comments back in April (also on the Italian, French, Dutch, German...). The fact is, this pretty typical for WR - and their behavior has gotten more outrageous in the last few months. --David Shankbone 20:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

David does have a point. We would all be better off ignoring Wikipedia Review as much as possible, though very occasionally the site can be useful. If people think something unethical is going on as regards Wikipedia's internal processes, I hear The Register is always eager is listen :) Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I certainly do not want to fight with you, David. I think WR makes for a good read but Moreschi may be right that posting there can create issues, David is nott he only person to have commented on my return there to me. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Moreschi. I think we need to stop paying attention and taking up their issues. I made the point over there that they only have themselves and Wikipedians as their audience. Good faith editors (like User:B, User:SqueakBox, User:Lar, User:Alison, User:LessHeard vanU and User:David Shankbone (me), amongst others) go there, listen to them, but in the end they are only trying to hurt Wikipedia - not improve it. Sometimes they have valid issues, and I used to think they were not so bad, but now they have gone crazy. Newyorkbrad was the last straw, and their defamation of Erik is OTT, actually attributing false statements in quotes to him that he never wrote or said. Repeating my troll's sociopathic comments is just par for the course. --David Shankbone 21:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• • David, with the greatest of respect you are a bit wide of the mark regarding Newyorkbrad because 1) Daniel Brandt is not Wikipedia Review. He is a member, just as you are and isn't even a mod, etc and 2) Brad quit due to a thread on Don Murphy's forum, not WR. Let's not try and criticise them for things they haven't done. If one person on Wikipedia uploads pictures of someone molesting a dead body, does that make me and you necrophiliacs? George The Dragon (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• In cases like these, I think we should just ignore them. I've been lurking around on their forums for the past few days. For the most part, it's filled with just crap. Every now and again, though, they bring up a few points about BLP subjects that no one else noticed, though, so I don't think we should shut them out entirely. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• We need to be exceptionally careful that no one does anything irresponsible like try to remove references to this brewing controversy from article space, if it's properly sourced--even if that sourcing "names" Wikipedia users or WMF employees. Many, many eyes are on this, and even if those are eyes we don't like, that doesn't matter. If we play games with this in any way it will burn a hole in us with the media. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 22:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Erik Moller protection

Can I ask under what authority the Arbitration Committee has enacted a content decision, as seen at Erik Moller? Yes, I'm aware of the current hoo-ha, but this person is the 2nd in command of a major world-wide organization, and is so notable that there is no way they wouldn't pass AFD today without flying colors. That begs the question of where did the Arbcom authorize a content decision, which they have neither the power nor authority to do?

• Please clarify when the AC gained this new power, and where did the community authorize that?
• Please address the edit protected request at Talk:Erik Moller to redirect it to Erik Möller.

The protection is thus improper, as the AC has no guidance or endorsement from the community to make editorial decisions on content, and if User:David Gerard misspoke in the protection log, it needs to be at a minimum redirected if not unprotected, as protection is not used for content/editorial decisions. We need to be utterly transparent in the handling of this case and treat it like any other article, or the media will roast us alive. Thanks! Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee granted itself the right to do whatever it wants on paedophilia-related issues a long time ago, purportedly to protect the reputation of Wikipedia. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User behavior, yes, but content, negative. They simply can't do that, and they can't empower themselves to do so. As a body the AC has no editorial power over actual article content (obviously including redirects and images, and text), and no individual user, admin, arbiter, or otherwise, has binding editorial power over any content matter at any time--that is 101% community derived exclusively. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User:^demon has redirected it. Thank you. My major concern is that given the very visibility of the current "situation", that we do anything article-related that is tied into the matter absolutely above-board and by our own accepted community-derived rules. Or, simply put, "by the book", so that the media has nothing to latch onto here from our end. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Fairly obviously, I'm not a sitting arbitrator and any such message is a suggestion to other admins of good sense and clue. As for your assertion that they have no power over content, that's actually not the case - David Gerard (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Where and when did the community grant the arbitration committee as a body, with their nominal authority, power over editorial matters? They are empowered wholly by us, and I don't recall seeing this detailed on their official page. They can only do what the community proscribes. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 00:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The community didn't prescribe the Arbitration Committee the right to carry out a nineteen minute star chamber trial and then issue an indefinite block (not of one-year, as usual) to a user with over 7500 contributions for creating a userbox declaring a fondness for "young women" (and not even using it himself, or warring over it). But there was little objection to that. We've just slipped down the slope to content censorship, now. It's only a matter of time before we're invading ru.wikipedia to claim the server space that is rightfully ours. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool! Sounds like a fun game. All their server are belong to us. You don't happen to know an open-proxy sockpuppet army that could help us out with the invasion, do you? :-) -PetraSchelm (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the Arbitration Committee doing behavioral sanctions, and the like, but I'm in general opposed to things not being transparent. What I am opposed to however is anything that attempts to usurp control of article content from the community. If the Foundation themselves can't step in to do what except in rare cases when legal issues are at play, to not risk their Safe Harbor/Section 230 protections, the Arbitration Committee or individual admins certainly have no authority to do so for deeply embarressing problems. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 03:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not making any assertions one way or the other, but I think we all have the right to know what the Arbitration Committee's powers are, where they are outlined, and how they are proscribed. It simply is not our way, otherwise. --David Shankbone 00:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Fight the powah! There's some history to read up on, as I'm sure you'd be insulted if people assumed you needed to be spoonfed - David Gerard (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not averse to spoonfeeding, can you help a brother out and say what you are trying to say? Arkon (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The words "content" or "article" don't show up in the Arbitration page at all. The page in fact just details who was picked, why, where, how, and how Jimmy yielded all his authority over time to the AC, that leaves them... still with no editorial power over content. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 00:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note I did the move on a solely technical reason, and have no opinion on the article (or potential Arbitration) involving it. See my comments on the talk for clarification if need be. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As an update, Erik Moeller also now has an edit protected request; it was similarly protected by David Gerard. The Erik Möller article has now also been expanded, and is very heavily sourced--his notability is very clear and obvious. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 05:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This comment is slightly tangential but I don't think we can say something as clear cut as "the Arbitration Committee cannot determine matters of content". It is certainly true that they have traditionally refused to determine such matters, but to say they are prohibited from doing so needs some explanation. If we look at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Scope, "4. The Committee will primarily investigate interpersonal disputes" the use of the word "primarily" suggests they can hear other matters. That said, "5. The Committee will hear or not hear disputes according to the wishes of the community, where there is a consensus" suggests that if there is a community consensus that the Arbitration Committee may not hear matters of content, they cannot do so. I'm not sure there has ever been such a discussion. These wiki-constitutional issues are not though I think what this discussion turns on. Whether ArbCom can or cannot determine this issue, it would I feel be unwise for them to do so here given Erik's status within the Foundation. WjBscribe 12:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be unwise, but also they can still only do what the community deems to let them do at the end of the day. We let them do a lot, but if the community ever totally rejected something by the AC, the AC can't really do much about it, since they rely on the trust and faith of the community to empower them. They were once empowered by Jimbo, but now that Jimbo no longer owns Wikimedia and is just one board member, the AC derives all it's authority from us. They are not autonomous to do whatever they want. As you mention, though, it would be very unwise for them to try to start without asking the community's permission first. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that as editors themselves, the members of the Arbcom should have as much power to determine content as any other user, but no more than that. Saying "because Arbcom says" isn't an automatic pass on a content issue. As the collective-entity-known-as-Arbcom have always refrained from making any judgement on content issues, they cannot suddenly start to do so because it suits them to do so. Neıl ☎ 13:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders

Would it be possible for an uninvolved and impartial admin(s) to close this centralized discussion?

I set up the discussion on 11 April, following a proposal (to suspend use of the image placeholder graphic on article pages) here. The debate was widely notified through WP (as a centralized discussion, RFC, on the Signpost and various projects). More than 50 editors participated in exchanges about this controversial issue. The discussion closed by agreement on 23 April. Conclusions were debated between 23 April and 11 May.

AFAIK none of us had prior experience of managing a centralized discussion and it's been difficult for to keep the process moving forward to secure a satisfactory outcome, given the lack of general guidelines and the inevitable difficulty of applying consensus policy to such a large and polarized group of people.

Please note I have no intention of criticizing any of my fellow editors here (or indeed of replying to any personal attacks). I just think it is time to hand over the discussion to neutral and disinterested parties for closure. Is this the right place to make that request? Thank you and regards. --Kleinzach (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I've moved this from ANI (where there was no response). Maybe this is a better place for it? --Kleinzach (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed policy change

There is a proposal at WT:PROT#Proposed change to policy to ensure that it is the "right" version (rather than the "current" version) that gets protected when protection is applied to stop edit wars.--Kotniski (talk) 08:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

need help unblocking

I am trying to unblock User:Ronmccaffer, a user I had blocked yesterday, but have come to an understanding with via email. Unfortunately, the network I am using right now has an Internet filter that is preventing me from performing the unblock. My guess is because it involves a URL that contains the word IPBlockList.

Can someone please unblock User:Ronmccaffer for me?

Thank you. Kingturtle (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Viridae^Talk 12:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Is NPW dead?

Posting here to attract a few more eyeballs to the issue as posting to the relevant talk pages has gone unanswered. For over a month now, New Page Watcher has been unable to populate it's list of new articles. A user can log in, but that's as far as one can go. Early reports were that it was a server-side problem, but it's been several weeks since any replies have come in. Martin is apparently still on a wikibreak, and Snowolf quit completely. Is there anyone left to fix the problem, or is it time to declare NPW a dead project? DarkAudit (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Reedy Boy and Martijn Hoekstra may be able to help out, but they, as far as I am aware, were not as active as Martinp23/Snowolf in keeping the program running. Have you tried contacting them? It'd be a shame to lose it- I used it for ages before it died, and it's a great program. J Milburn (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

My only contact with them had been through their talk pages. Martinp23 hasn't responded, and Snowolf quit before I could leave a message. DarkAudit (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've pinged everyone on the NPW IRC channel (me, Martinp23, Snowolf, Reedy and a bot who I didn't realise was a bot) and alerted them to this thread. J Milburn (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Martinp23/NPWatcher#NPW_dead.3F - I've just been busy lately. And Martinp23 has been away since a wiki-drama... As per the NPW Page, when im past exams (about a week from now), i'll have time to look into sorting out the bugs and such. Martijn is semi-active on the launchpad, and sometimes on IRC. It wont die, just inactive for a bit... I need to start pumping more time into AWB too, but that will come post exams too =) —Reedy 16:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just been busy with exams recently, and remain as such. The bug was reported some time last week I think. Hopefully we can get a fix out within the next week or so, exams and our time pending. Martinp23 16:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)