Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 40 lashes (talk | contribs) at 10:06, 4 March 2009 (→Stopping a vicious circle of blocking and account creation: accounts have been indefblocked). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    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)


    Hidden page game

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

    Arbitration has opened. Please pursue the matter at that venue. DurovaCharge! 03:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I recently came across the silly shadow world of Wikipedians creating so-called "hidden pages" in their user space, for other game players to find and sign in, whereupon they are awarded (or claim for themselves) a hidden page barnstar. Has this ever been discussed? I would feel like such a fussbudget for denying Wikipedians any harmless fun and games... but I can see where it would invite account abuse (e.g. sockpuppet accounts to avoid detection by other game players) if people really get into it.Wikidemon (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's pointless Myspacery that is more-or-less impossible to stamp out without expending an enormous amount of energy. //roux   22:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) But what exactly is the problem? Even creating accounts for such a game would be acceptable under our policies because socks are bad because they are used to circumvent and manipulate. If the second account is only used for something like that, where is the harm? SoWhy 22:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ecx2)I'm pretty sure this has been discussed somewhere (or was that some other silly/harmless/even-sillier-than-that pastime of the junior 'pedians?) It's a wee bit MySpacey, but--like those annoying fake "new message" bars, and increasingly goofy userboxen, and all the rest of the kerfuffles--since it hasn't broken the 'pedia yet, most people smile indulgently and hope the participants get bored with it quickly. (And then there are those who rant and holler and yell "THIS IS WIKIPEDIA! It's not supposed to be FUN!!", but again--most people just smile indulgently at THEM, and hope they get bored with their sanctimony.)
    So--short form: it's probably all right, though (IMHO) quite silly and pointless. I'm happy to be disagreed with, however.GJC 22:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this even a "game"? Surely such pages show up in trivial special:allpages queries (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AllPages&namespace=2&from=Wikidemon), and so aren't "hidden" at all? 87.112.17.229 (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the below using certain tools is considered cheating, like opening your eyes while counting in hide and go seek (another silly but endearing game that can be dangerous if taken to extremes)[1]Wikidemon (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please don't tell me we should care about this. so long as the people doing it are also building the encyclopedia, we should stay the heck away from whatever keeps them happy (bound by common sense, of course). We don't need to send another set of contributors packing because of some unpleasantly parsimonious interpretation of NOT#MYSPACE. Protonk (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) Apparently using Prefixindex, et al, is considered "cheating"; also, as Wikidemon pointed out, a lot of users will create alternate accounts and hide the secret pages in their userspace. This page outlines some of the more general "rules" for the games, as well as some of the arguments cited for and against these. As for how to handle them, you're welcome to start up an MfD for any you find; this discussion held that these should be considered on a case-by-case basis, although there was a clear consensus that hiding secret pages in the userspace of a sock account was unacceptable.
    Personally I think these are a waste of time, but unless I happen to notice one that's really ridiculously over the top, or notice that someone's not doing anything but this (as Protonk just alluded to), I'm not going to go hunting them down. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen several thread like this about "guestbook" pages. So long as there's no violation of NPA, I don't understand what the big deal is. Wikipedia has grown to be one of the top sites on the web, so we're going to attract a lot of young users. That's not a bad thing. They are the future of this site. I understand that guestbooks and game pages aren't encyclopedic, but do we really want to chase off the editors of the future - and get a reputation for being so stuffy. I'd say welcome the new generation, and gently guide them into productivity. After all, we are supposed to not WP:Bite — Ched (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Send their user pages packing. Why not? Is the Wikipedia foundation buying server space for them? What if it becomes real popular and takes up 10s of thousands of user pages? Just nip it in the bud. Wikipedia user pages aren't for game playing. They should be tagged for speedy deletion whenever seen. That's all. --KP Botany (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    We really should be cracking down on people using Wikipedia for purposes other than building an encyclopedia. Games are great, but if they aren't somehow related to our goal(like playing Whack-A-Mole at WP:AIV) then it does not belong here. There are lots of wikis out there for that kind of thing. Chillum 00:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I know you're an admin and all Chillum, but I just don't agree with you on this one. If we "hook-em" to use the site, and then we guide them into being productive - it just seems to be a win win situation to me. In a couple years - these "kids" will be admins., I think it's better that they have positive memories of their first edits. A couple K of disk space isn't that big a deal. — Ched (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    @KP Botany - one $200 1Tb HD can handle all the text they can throw at us. And I'm sure Brion can handle the bandwidth. — Ched (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't need to be the fun police. The editor is what is related to our goal. If we piss off someone and send them packing we forgo their future contributions and any positive word of mouth they may offer. This is why we don't have a 90/10 rule like conservapedia. It is why we should apply some common sense when talking about this sort of thing. If someone's only edits (or the bulk of their edits) are to their myspacey user page, sure, nuke it. But if we have people making a reasonable amount of contributions to the encyclopedia, I don't see the benefit of getting our knickers in a twist because someone just isn't "following the rules." Just click "unwatch" and it will be better. Protonk (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, here's where to start looking. MER-C 02:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You're going to alienate a heck of a lot of people if you start going down this road. I've noticed many editors take as much pride in their (admittedly sometimes silly) user pages as they do in the content they produce or the administrivia they're involved in. And besides, what are you going to use as criteria? The number of user boxes? Bad color combinations? Images of frogs? There should be some sort of speedy delete option for user pages that are obviously spam (and on Wikipedia, therefore heavily indexed), but other than that... leave them alone :) §FreeRangeFrog 03:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    CSD-G11 applies to blatant spam in all namespaces. Any userpage that is promotional can easily be blanked and {{NOINDEX}}'d or deleted under G11. (Just FYI). Protonk (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I say let them do it, but if you catch them, kindly ask them to donate $10 to the foundation to cover the cost of their game-playing on the server space. And, quite frankly, no individual page hide-and-seeker is actually ever going to generate $10 worth of expense. bd2412 T 03:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But we are already getting free labor from them. :) Protonk (talk) 03:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You're joking? You've just decided for the Wikipedia community against Wikipedia policies and guidelines that it is okay to use Wikipedia user space pages for social networking? I suggest you announce your change to the entire community then. --KP Botany (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No, that would be absurd. What is being argued is that this little crappy game is of no real harm; and that eradicating it from Wikipedia would, pragmatically speaking, take away editing time from admins and others which could be used for more productive uses. No one has claimed that the entirety of Wikipedia's policy against using it primarily as a social networking site has been brought down by people playing this silly game. What is being argued is that it, while a nuisance, is not really worth fighting. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are reducing the results of leaving this game around to an absurd conclusion; that the end of Wikipedia As We Know It can only result from letting people play this silly game. Yes, it is a violation of the rules, no one has contested that. What has been contested is whether or not it is worth the time and effort needed to force people not to play it. And the world is not a binary place; it's a rather simplistic oversimplification to say that everything which is allowed is encouraged. (Or rather, "that which is not forbidden is compulsory") When a user does nothing EXCEPT use wikipedia for social networking purposes, they get blocked. They will continue to get blocked tommorrow, and forever. When a user spends most of their edits working on the encyclopedia, and has an occasional thing like this lying around, it isn't worth it to make them get rid of it. Again, this is not a black-and-white issue; it's not binary choice between "Stop all violations of every rule always" and "Let it be a free-for-all and stop protecting the encyclopedia against anything". That is an absurd reduction of the arguements presented by those opposing you. Time is a limited resource, and the time spent chasing this problem down is better spent fighting real problems... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Past MfDs have fairly clear established that these "hidden" or "secret" pages are not acceptable. When I come across them, I delete them. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And I have no problem with admins doing so. What I have a problem with is demanding that admins delete them. I don't cry when they are gone, but I do not wish to be told which parts of my volunteer job I must do... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you have to look at this kind of thing on a case-by-case basis. I've actually had some users worry that comments to each other are too friendly. Wikipedia is supposed to be a community, and friendly communication nurtures that climate. The issue comes down to what someone is primarily doing on wikipedia. The primary purpose is to make the product as valuable to the reading public as it can be. If someone comes here primarily for the purpose of networking, that's obviously not serving the purpose. But that does not mean we should discourage networking among those who have the proper primary goal of wikipedia in mind. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming you mean that you're just speedying them with no process MZMcBride, I'm curious as to what CSD category you feel they meet. I don't think there's a "we've deleted this kind of thing before so we're not doing an MFD this time" CSD category...--Dycedarg ж 05:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Better indef me then. I found one of those pages, and got a barnstar to boot! I still don't get why everyone has to act like killjoys about the whole NOT#MYSPACE provision. Yes, the original view of userpages differs from how a lot of users would like them. Also note, the original plan was for everything about wikipedia to be discussed only on the mailing list, with no equivalent of AN/VPP or the policy talk pages. People like baubles. They like barnstars. They like userboxes. They also like writing and improving articles. Honestly, so long as the people who made these pages are adding to the encyclopedia, I don't see what we gain by playing the cop on the beat here. What do we gain, at the margin, from deleting someone's guestbook or hidden page? Jayron has the right idea, basically. We do indef people who do only myspacey things, and we should continue to do so. We also do delete things which appear to serve only that purpose for people who do only myspacey things. Where we should throttle back is when we have people who make good contributions to the encyclopedia. Is it worth forcing them away in order to feel better that the rules aren't being ignored? I was semi-joking above when I remarked about these people providing free labor, but that is the crux of it. We have thousands of editors who add content for free. Since we hope that they don't do it for personal benefit, we have to wonder why they do it. We also have to be careful not to use policies intended to broadly define what we are as limits on what these volunteers can do in their spare time. Protonk (talk) 05:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec X 2)Bugs, you're conflicted out of this one due to User:Baseball Bugs/hidden. I'm telling Elmer Fudd. Wikidemon (talk) 05:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No! Not dat! Actually, I created that page as kind of a joke, since I was seeing that kind of thing turn up elsewhere. It's about as "hidden" as the nose on my face. I continue to believe something like that, by itself, is on the same level of evil as tearing a tag off your own mattress. It also gets very little traffic. As I said, if someone's primary purpose on wikipedia is to make it another MySpace or whatever, then they are in the wrong place. But using user talk pages to further the community effort, should not be considered a crime. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (unindent)Gosh, I feel like such a heel for even bringing this up. Next thing you know I'll be yelling "get off the lawn, kids." I think I agree with Protonk that we should have a little patience and not enforce a Wikipedia=no fun policy. Today's eager youth are tomorrow's good editors, and if we sour their experience it hurts everybody. Yes, from this conversation it looks like the pages technically shouldn't be there and it is okay to delete them. But I'm not going to tell you where any of them are - you'll just have to find them yourselves! If you do delete anything, please polite the the little ones, and also don't mention my name. (slinks back into mainspace) Wikidemon (talk) 05:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry for making you feel bad. If it makes you feel better, I wasn't really trying to aim vitriol at you so much as I was aiming for those folks who agreed with you in a particularly vocal fashion. I also think there is something to be said about people like me (~40% wikipedia and wikipedia talk edit count % and rising) who don't contribute that much to the encyclopedia, instead engaging in the myspace-lite of AN, AN/I and other venues where much is said and little is done. :( Protonk (talk) 06:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem here is the creation of accounts, and the use of Wikipedia in general, solely in order to play these games. In years gone past, these people would have been "sandbox fairies" — editors whose sole edits to the wiki anywhere are entirely non-project uses of the sandbox and its sub-pages. Since creation of such pages is now restricted to account-holders, placing the sort of pages, that the sandbox faires created, in user space is now more the norm. A quick check of Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Sandbox reveals not nearly as much accrued there over the past year or so as there was a couple of years ago when I was last involved in purging it. (I've just deleted the pages that were either completely stale drafts or outright problems, such as the long list of actual people's names and addresses that one person was keeping there and the attack page written eight months ago by a purportedly since-reformed editor. Most of the remainder that's there now is test-page content that isn't really worth bothering to delete, in my view. Every deletion, after all, increases the database size. And it is the sandbox.) Uncle G (talk) 06:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    this thread sure grew to be a hot topic. I know you guys (adminz) have a lot of stuff to cover here, so - I started a thread at WP:NOT here. Seems like a topic that should be talked out. And while I do think we need to lighten up a little, I also understand what Uncle G means when he states "...solely in order to play these games." By the way - is the prefindex thing supposed to be a big secret? — Ched (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Policy is fairly clear about using Wikipedia for off topic purposes. Any idea in acting otherwise needs to start at the relevant policy's talk page and gain consensus. Until then we should continue not allowing these things as we have for years. Ched's posting at WT:NOT is a great start. Chillum 17:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I greatly oppose having these 'hidden page' games like this. It's pointless, and it needs to stop (hopefully). Versus22 talk 20:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Tell anyone with one of these pages that they'll never pass an RfA due to it, and watch how quickly they disappear. Most of the editors with these kind of pages are simply here to try and become an administrator (and most will fail for that exact reason). Daniel (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The silliness has nothing to do with creating an encyclopedia. Delete the pages. Someone might wish to start "Hideandgoseekpedia" -- somewhere else. Edison (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete them, whatever happened to the yearly donation drives and precious server space if we allow such things like this to occur? Hypocrite, much? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked the editor of the one mentioned, [User:Bahamut0013/Secret pages], and found a remarkable amount of useful contributions in an area where we need work. I have no problem suggesting to the people who come here only to play that they do some work or go elsewhere, but I am not going to discourage contributors like that. the ratio of useful/useless edits is at least 100/1. They're worth a lot more than $10. DGG (talk) 05:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If they contribute to the encyclopedia, let them keep the pages but tell them they shouldn't be using all their time for the game. If they have very little article edits, delete the pages and give the user a warning. If they have 0 article edits, delete the pages and block them and say they will only be unblocked if they show they can write an article on their talk page. This is how I deal with them, at least.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I really think people are making a mountain out of a molehill here. It's not like these pages suck vast quantities of bandwidth or drive space, after all. It's all text. Jtrainor (talk) 08:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That's kind of like saying that if a person steals a [thinks randomly] deckchair from Wal-Mart, it's not expensive and they won't make much of a loss. But because Wal-Mart don't make their resources available for that purpose (their land, their heating, lighting, and the deckchair), they need to draw the line there rather than allow more than one person to go and start stealing things.
    I'm sure there's all sorts of things wrong with that analogy, but I hope that my meaning is clear... ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The meaning is clear, but what's wrong with the analogy is the trouble. To equate use of userspace with theft is a little troubling, but even if we agree with the comparison, we have to attach some value for the contributions made by the editors. We don't pay them (er...us). So maybe we can think of it as employing a carpenter to make a desk and letting them take home the joining material. Or whatever you like. They are adding to the encyclopedia. If they choose to not add to the encyclopedia because we don't let them fool around in userspace, that is a net loss for us. We've gained the joining materials and lost the desk. Protonk (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If people who play this game are properly contributing to the encyclopedia, for heaven's sake, let them play their silly game! It's not our job to forbid any kind of fun anyone might have around here, and I'm pretty sure that the few kB of text these pages cause aren't of much concern to our servers. --Conti|✉ 14:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The Wikipedia community is weak enough already, we don't need conflicts over a harmless game that gives people practice editing and navigating Wikipedia. rspεεr (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It could be argued that it would be harmless if I used Wikipedia for my shopping lists, or to track the changes in the software I make, or to publish a local town newletter about local farming. But that is not harmless, it is a dilution of our goal to make an encyclopedia. If we allowed people to use Wikipedia that way then such content would become larger than our encyclopedia. People are always looking for free hosting.
    Wikipedia has a purpose, we are not just here for the hell of it. Pretty much all major community forums with a specific topic discourage off-topic postings. We are not going to run out of users because we don't let them post off-topic content. Chillum 15:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    By that logic, we could (and should!) forbid everything that's not directly related to creating an encyclopedia, like most everything you find on user pages. Like this, for example. --Conti|✉ 15:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The "hosting" argument is played out. A hidden page consumes no more resources than this page or this page. Let's get down to it. We are "okay" with barnstars and "wikismiles" and stuff like that but we don't like hidden pages (by we I mean the people who write these policies and post in these discussions). So we look for a way to treat those as suspect while treating other material as benign. I'm not trying to make a "OMG OMG Hypocrite" argument. I'm just trying to note that our treatment of hidden pages isn't exactly on the same level as our treatment of barnstars and other things. Protonk (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Can I ask what is the harm of something that you only find if you look for it? What is actually wrong with 'Myspacing' if it doesn't hurt anyone. The only time it should ever be deleted is if people spend more time on their pages than the encyclopedia. But what about the people who delete these pages and devote themselves to doing so? Why are they here? They don't spend the majority of there time improving the encyclopedia. If any of these pages should be deleted then the userspace shouldn't exist as that falls under the MySpace category. Chubbennaitor 19:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    'Quote'"Per the below using certain tools is considered cheating, like opening your eyes while counting in hide and go seek (another silly but endearing game that can be dangerous if taken to extremes)[2]Wikidemon (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)" Is everything bad and irrespnsible t you? I feel sorry that you don't understand the word fun? Chubbennaitor 19:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia isn't supposed to be fun. ViridaeTalk 23:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Any editor displaying signs of enjoying himself should be blocked immediately. DuncanHill (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Even though we are all volunteering our time, this is supposed to be a second job. (man, and we wonder why our editor growth rate is slowing and why we are losing admins...:/) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 16:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    MZMcBride and deletion

    So at 06:41 today, MZMcBride deleted my "secret page". While I don't really care if my 'secret page' is restored or not (I haven't looked at it in ages, and I couldn't tell you when the last edit was), I'm wondering about precedent here. Since when have secret pages been banned, and since when have admins been allowed to summarily delete pages in userspace with no discussion? If I was a total myspacer and only tried to hunt down these 'secret pages' and the like, obviously this would be different, but I think that I contribute to the encyclopedia: I have 3 FA's, a MILHIST A, 5 GA's (including that A) and 16 DYK's under my belt. "Please contribute to the encyclopedia more" is just an insult. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 14:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

    see WP:AN#Hidden page game--Jac16888Talk 14:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Merged threads and notified MZMcBride (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). –xeno (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was actually going to notify him after I found diffs, but sorry about that.
    Looking through the logs, here are a few that he deleted (disclaimer: they could be crappy contributors, I have no idea): [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and one deleted under WP:CSD#G6, [8]. If the discussion is still ongoing, why are these being deleted? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 14:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    MZMcBride has some helpful advice for those who might complain about his deletions. Mike R (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note, the above comment was removed as "trolling". I have restored it, because it is not trolling, but rather a valuable insight into how efforts to persuade MZMcBride to modify his behavior will likely be met. Mike R (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't quite put it that way... anyway, I apparently missed the sarcasm in your "some helpful advice". --NE2 15:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really see how that helps with his page deletions. Montgomery' 39 (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BITCH is a valid rationale. I suppose I could be lumped into the "deletionist" category, and I could care less, but less than 5% of my deletions have been contested at DRV, and less than 1% of those have been overturned. Those who often do the most complaining often have less than valid rationales. Most of the time, it is purely emotional. If people can act civil and politely ask why their page was deleted, and what they can do to improve it and/or resubmit it for inclusion, then you won't get canned responses (e.g. Go to DRV.). seicer | talk | contribs 15:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "WP:BITCH" is trolling, plain and simple. --NE2 17:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Take a look at some of the shortcuts for the page. "STFU" says it all really. --.:Alex:. 22:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, this is a bit complicated. I appreciate the VestedContributor argument, however, there's also something to be said for applying the rules fairly to everyone. If we say it's not appropriate to have a "secret" or "hidden" page (and really, they obviously weren't too secret if it took ten seconds for me to find them), then it's important that we apply to rule to everyone. Otherwise we quickly run into issues of, "well, I have 50 article edits, can I have a secret page now?" and things like that. And the continued presence of these (and the related barnstars used as reward) only serves to spread this activity even further. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I can can see your side of the coin now. ;) Again, I really don't care about my secret page (I had forgotten about it actually...but its deletion was a hard thing to miss on my watchlist!); I just wanted to raise this before too many were deleted and there were 25 complaints, not just one. You might want to hold off deleting them until the discussion above is finished though.... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 17:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, I think that is precisely the opposite of the intent here. We obviously (as you note) don't want to get into the "I have made 50 contribs, can I muck about in userspace yet?" point, but I don't see that as a real threat. I also don't see the boogeyman here. If you feel that policy is forcing you to delete these pages then we should consider changing that policy. I am very worried that we aren't thinking of this in the appropriate way, as an effective wage paid to free labor. Protonk (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What CSD category do these user pages fall under?--Dycedarg ж 18:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    They don't fall under any speedy criteria. Davewild (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    One question. Why are people like this editor aloud to go round devoted to deleting pages that aren't harmful to people who don't want to find them aren't blocked? Because they aren't contributing to the encyclopedia at all. Chubbennaitor 18:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I presume the first sentence was the question and the second the answer, yes? Guy (Help!) 19:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So they're not speedyable, which makes this IAR then. I don't think that's the best approach for this, considering the rate complaints are piling up on his talkpage someone's going to file a DRV at some point. We could just do a group MFD (like we've done before for this sort of thing) and save some unnecessary drama.--Dycedarg ж 19:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can the BITCH page be removed? I don't think that that's offending people less than a secret page that you can only find if you look for it. It's using a swear word which I completely oppose. We come here as volunteers so what is the problem with a page that's a little fun? Chubbennaitor 19:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a problem with pages, such as don't be a dick (given the helpful acro DICK)? seicer | talk | contribs 19:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Great. Although I'm still not quite sure that'll get what I've decided to do. Plus, I'm not the best on the shortened names. Like MFD etc. Chubbennaitor 19:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Bitch isn't a swearword, its the name for a femable dog. It just happens to have been appropriated for use as an insult as well. ViridaeTalk 23:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I gather MFD would be contingent on the pages being restored first... –xeno (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Any swearing pages that have a meaning shouldn't exist it's offensive. We delete swear words on pages why not use this as sometthing as similar. What do you mean, xeno? Chubbennaitor 20:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The "secret" pages could be undeleted, then sent to WP:MFD for a proper deletion discussion. And lots of pages contain swearing - fuck, shit and so forth. WilyD 20:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. They could go to DRV but then the issues of whether the deletions were out of process and whether the pages should remain would be conflated. @Chubb, the WP:BITCH page just recently came off MFD, closed as no consensus leaning towards keep. –xeno (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, for any deletion that isn't 100% by the books, DRV is a bad option. Undelete and MFD. (Incidentally, that may be one of the merits of following the speedy deletion policy closely. There's nothing wrong with tardy deletion.) WilyD 20:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Undelete and send to MFD, out of process deletions such as this shouldn't happen, even via IAR. Plus, that remark in the deletion log is as The_ed17 says, an insult to a content contributor and coordinator of WP:MILHIST. -MBK004 20:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    So, how do you undelete the page? Montgomery' 39 (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: MZMcBride deleted information I was collecting for an article. No warning or notification given (or reason). He states "discussions have established secret pages are inappropriate". I've never seen that. If I was given the chance to put these pages in my main area before deleting I would have gladly done so. I need my page back. In more than a year and 5000 edits, no one has done this to me. And why would this type of activity be a priority when so much other work needs to be done. It's disillusioning. Thank you. Mjpresson (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've undeleted the page, which MZMcBride probably deleted solely because it was called "secretpage" (User:Mjpresson/secretpage). It has nothing whatsoever to do with any "hidden page" games, and it sure as hell wasn't a CSD G7. I hope marking this deletion as a G7 was just a simple mistake on MZMcBride's part. --Conti|✉ 21:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a "mistake" he made 172 times. Mjpresson (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, this guy has no right in telling us what to do on wikipedia (other than no vandalism and all that other stuff). I mean, seriously, secret pages are fun to do and do not disrupt anything. Montgomery' 39 (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • This just seems like a boneheaded move all around. The pages deserve to be deleted, in my opinion, but that has not been established as a policy. The fact that they are in userspace just guarantees this would be a major issue. Personally, I'd be pissed if an admin unilaterally deleted something in my userspace before running it past me, and I'm an admin, so it shouldn't be too difficult to figure out how your everyday editor would feel and react in such a situation. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You hit bullseye when you made that last sentence. I'm not pissed that my page was DELETED, I'm pissed that this guy is acting like a jerk who thinks that he can go around telling established wikipedians what to do and deleting their pages without ANY warning. He states that we should "contribute to wikipedia". Just to support my statement, I WILL say that I have made 2,000+ comments on wikipedia ALL having been done in good faith with NO vandalism whatsoever. Montgomery' 39 (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Hiberniantears. This shouldn't have been deleted speedily out of process. If this is going to be deleted, there has to be a consensus or at the very least a community wide discussion. WP:BITCH only applies to people's behavior and has absolutely no bearing on article deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 20:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I wonder how MZ would react if someone else deleted a page in his userspace and used the same argument. For the argument to hold the deletion has to be within policy to begin with. If it's even slightly controversial, it's not something a single admin should act on. - Mgm|(talk) 21:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think these deletions were completely uncalled for and in violation of our policies. We have policies for deletions and they apply to all admins all the time, not only to some and if they feel like it. It's nothing bitchy about asking an admin, as a representative of this project, to follow the rules and not go around deleting pages he does not like. One should ask MZM to hand in his mop if he does not like the policies... SoWhy 21:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is a response by MZMcBride about these deletions. Interesting and possibly revealing. Mjpresson (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Makes you wonder if he'd say anything if someone blocked him without consensus or a heads up... Kind of a put your money where your mouth is moment. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, last time this happened. ;) WilyD 21:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, he keeps saying that there was consensus but hasn't provided any diffs. I think we may have a violation of Remedy #3: "MZMcBride is strongly admonished for his conduct in this matter and is instructed to refrain from any further incidents of wheel-warring, taking administrator actions in disregard of on-wiki consensus, or deliberately disobeying decisions of the Arbitration Committee. MZMcBride is warned that any further such incidents are likely to lead to the suspension or revocation of his administrator privileges." Perhaps a visit to ArbCom is warranted? -MBK004 21:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That thought occurred to me as well. Policies such as the deletion policy are codified consensus and taking admin actions like deletions that go against those policies is in fact nothing but "taking administrator actions in disregard of on-wiki consensus". I would hate to go this road but MZM's admin actions and behaviour have been subject of multiple discussions here now and yet such incidents happen again and again... SoWhy 21:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" ← Seems quite fitting to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the deletions I see no reason why anything should be hidden here on wp-en. I would would even agree to ban the ability to hide any page. I also that the deletion were poorly done, doing the right thing in a disrepectfull way can look a lot like trolling. —Preceding need to oreview more. Giggles4U (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)unsigned comment added by Giggles4U (talk • contribs) 19:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. No consensus on the deletions. No warning to the editors. Editors who's pages were deleted were in good standing. These good standing editors were then told to stop bitching. The whole thing is an obvious way of causing trouble, which is disruption... the very thing we are supposed to prevent in the first place. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    All due respect, Hiberniantears, you're getting played (there's no Wiktionary entry for this?). My essay has absolutely nothing to do with these deletions whatsoever and I never cited it anywhere. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad... sorry about that. That does make it a little less over the top. I still see the situation as needlessly slapping around editors in good standing though. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am another editor who honestly couldn't give two figs about the pages. What grates me is MZMcBride's attitude towards the matter, and frankly, towards everyone involved. There are so many ways this mess could have been avoided, a better way of doing this. His approach came across as both WP:POINTY and the summary of the deletions as a veiled WP:ATTACK. That's just poor; really poor. I understand MZMcBride's intentions completely, it's just that the approach he took just doesn't help things at all. --.:Alex:. 22:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that he be deleted A1a6s (talk) 03:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:EfD? ;) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I nommed the don't be whiny bitch user subpage as an MFD for deletion here [9]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    I wonder if anyone can quantify the harm that MzMcBride has done here. Has he done any harm at all, really? More harm than the people who made those secret pages? If he hasn't, then why is it that the secret pages people are allowed to have a bit of harmless fun, and MzMcBride is not? Hesperian 05:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Things stop being 'fun' when they encroach on the rights of others. You know the difference between the secret pages and deleting against any apparent consensus about whether or not they're an obvious detriment to the project. MZMcBride takes things away from others, the others aren't causing harm, unless you intend to argue their actions are somehow worse than all the jawing you do at your job, while on the clock. And remember, they're all volunteers. ThuranX (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, I think deleting crap like this helps define our culture; a culture in which we are united in our focus on creating a great encyclopedia. From that perspective, these hidden pages do harm our culture, and the mass deletion of them has tangible benefits.
    We have a standard refutation to people who insist on their right to free speech and/or free web hosting on Wikipedia; you've probably used it yourself. So it surprises me to hear you characterising this as a rights violation.
    Hesperian 05:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I know, you'd seriously think that he'd sacrificed babies to Satan or something, rather than deleted a few unproductive and useless pages which I would class as more of a "cleanup task" than any violation of policy. Orderinchaos 10:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What's wrong with these pages if they don't hurt the encyclopedia? Chubbennaitor 16:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A question more pertinent to this discussion would be what's wrong with deleting these pages if they don't help the encyclopedia? Hesperian 01:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The question most pertinent is how does having admins who ignore policies, ignore requests to discuss their actions, and ignore concerns about their behaviour benefit the encyclopædia? DuncanHill (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not so much as the pages themselves, than the manner in which this deletion was conducted. The mop is for cleaning messes, not making them. MZMcBride should double-check his grip on that mop handle, because this is completely the wrong way to go about it. His approach has only provoked unnecessary drama and arguing amongst both parties. An MfD should have gone ahead, as there is clearly room for discussion on the matter. Considering there was a previous MfD that resulted in a no consensus at the time, this should have been reopened rather than simply deleting them like this (which reeks of "I don't like it"). --.:Alex:. 19:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    List of pages deleted

    I've compiled the following list should someone feel consensus around undeletion and mass-MFD has been reached. I also left MZM a query to this effect. –xeno (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Batch MFDs are gross and rarely productive for a number of reasons. If there are individual editors who would like individual pages restored and brought to MfD, I suppose that's reasonable. Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually don't have a well-formed opinion of my own about these. But I think some policy about them needs to be divined, one way or the other. –xeno (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but since all of those deletions were clearly outside policy, you should restore them all and then take those to MFD you think should be deleted. Deleting all and then make it the burden of others to MFD them makes a travesty of our deletion policy. SoWhy 21:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly outside which policy? You do realize we had a massive MFD for "secret" pages a while ago, right? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you link to it for those who have missed it? --Conti|✉ 22:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages is the last I'm aware of; there may be a more recent one since. – iridescent 22:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Yes I know. And consensus was "case by case basis", not "they are not allowed". And the result never was incorporated into WP:CSD and CSD is the policy that tells admins what can be speedy deleted and what not. Not an 10-month-old MFD that does not even have a clear consensus. Regards SoWhy 22:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And from that MZMcBride has clearly violated the ArbCom admonisment he was given in the wheel war case to not ignore existing consensus and use the sysop tools out-of-process. I'm thinking it is time to go to ArbCom. -MBK004 22:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What's happened here is flagrant disregard for our WP:CSD policy. I've been trying, but I'm struggling to see any conclusion other than that. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll undelete anyone who protests here or at your talk page, and then if you feel the need to MFD, have at it. –xeno (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (unindent) I have no idea how this view became (somewhat?) widespread that pages can only be deleted if they fall under CSD, but please try to remember that policy is descriptive, not proscriptive. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Now I'm quite confused. Which, of the processes listed at WP:Deletion policy#Processes, do you believe you were following? Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My God, what will these users do without their secret pages? Heaven forbid they do something remotely constructive instead of creating "secret pages" for little Myspace-y games and go on hunts for sekrit page barnstars. This senseless destruction will surely be the demise of the wiki. I propose MZMcBride be banned for this mass-secret-page-murder. Mr.Z-man 22:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hanging's too good for him. I suggest locking him in a secret page^Wdungeon and giving him only printouts of MfD debates to eat. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 22:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I second the motion to have MZMcBride banned for his novel interpretation of the "ignore all rules" guideline (that being, that if it helps the encyclopedia, you shouldn't allow silly rules to stand in your way). Mahalo. --Ali'i 22:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with all this, but I think that this debate is turning into a mob, dummies and picket signs galore. We should all keep a cool head about this situation and burn him at the stakes conduct this in a civilised manner. Montgomery' 39 (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, won't someone think of the users? What about all those frustrated MySpacers fruitlessly searching through a "really difficult" set of clues for a page that doesn't exist anymore? Stone him!. Black Kite 22:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What about "Pages can only be speedily deleted if any of the criteria for speedy deletion apply to them"? Does that make sense to you? --Conti|✉ 22:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, where's that from? :-) And I personally interpret that to be somewhat circular logic. You can cite speedy deletion as your reason for deleting page iff the page meets the criteria. But that doesn't preclude other types of deletions.... --MZMcBride (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    From my mind. :) My point was that we have the speedy deletion criteria for a reason: Everything that does not fall under these criteria should not be speedily (which means without any kind of consensus or consultation from anyone) deleted. We have various processes for everything that's not a candidate for speedy deletion, and I think one of them should have been used. --Conti|✉ 22:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the past discussions, especially the past MFD (referenced above) indicated to me a consensus to delete these pages. Being a slave to process sounds like a rather unfavorable role. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a batch deletion like you undertook but on a case-by-case basis. To me it seems as though you have violated the admonishment that ArbCom gave you and you should loose your mop. But we'll let ArbCom handle that since I don't see this going anywhere but an express-lane to RFAR. -MBK004 22:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    @MBK004: Are you going to initiate a RFAR? — Aitias // discussion 23:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not in the next couple of hours, I'm about to step out. If one hasn't in about 4 hours, I most likely will. -MBK004 23:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems we interpret the closure of that MfD differently. What about "the rest of those pages should be on a case on case basis"? Acting as if one is above the rules isn't a very ideal thing to do, either. :) --Conti|✉ 23:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I went through each page individually, though.... --MZMcBride (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your deletion of this: User:Mjpresson/secretpage points to the contrary since the content of the page isn't what one would expect for a secret page, and isn't deletable under any deletion policy. -MBK004 23:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Good to know. How come you deleted User:Mjpresson/secretpage, then (which I undeleted at the user's request)? --Conti|✉ 23:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    At the time of deletion the page was blank - [10] - well actually all hidden text, but would've appeared blank. Black Kite 23:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I had nowiki'd the text temporarily for my own purposes. The page as Not blank, as you claim, and contained valuable formats and links I needed. Mjpresson (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And that would make it a CSD G7? --Conti|✉ 23:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Actually, it might. "If the author blanks the page (outside user space), this can be taken as a deletion request." Huh, never noticed that line before. --Conti|✉ 23:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Still not technically a G7 ("outside user space"), just pointing out that the current useful content would not have been there. Black Kite 23:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I just noticed that, too. I need a pause, brain's not working, apparently. :) So my question remains after all. --Conti|✉ 23:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • IAR deletions are fine when applied to shite in user space, though best not tried against articles, except exceptionally. RMHED. 23:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The real question is why the hell do so many people give a crap about what other people have in their user space? If someone is editing the encyclopedia and does something a little myspacey to their user space, how does that bring down our little project? There are plenty of other things to do here than go around slapping editors who are doing something goofy but otherwise harmless. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say that with everything we do, we should ask ourselves "does this help the encyclopedia?" The obvious answer to having "something a little myspacey [in] their user space" is that it does not, in any way, help build the encyclopedia. I'm a cantankerous old fool, so this is just my opinion. --Ali'i 23:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My general opinion on the matter is that aggravating hundreds of editors with little justification does not help the encyclopedia. Deleting these userpages, with no more justification than the deliberate misinterpretation of an MFD that did not close with a consensus, is likely to do this. If they were so bad then someone should have run another MFD. They weren't going to burn down the encyclopedia in the time that would have taken.--Dycedarg ж 00:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt more than half a dozen were mildly pissed off, serves 'em right for having the shite in their user space. RMHED. 00:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Process for the sake of process for the sake of process for the sake of process for the sake of process for the sake of process for the sake of process for the sake of process for the sake of process never helped anyone.
    This issue should be over, someone took the initiative to take out the trash, everyone agrees that the trash is trash and I see no need to bring the trash back inside and make a mess just because someone thinks the trash was taken out improperly (enough metaphor for you?). John Reaves 00:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Real constructive. Thanks for that insight. Just for the record, had I voted in the MFD, and were I to vote in a future one, I would vote to delete the pages. I also don't think MZMcBride deserves to be blocked. My point is that this isn't worth pissing people off. The RMHED comment takes the cake, and just makes us look like a bunch of spoiled brats who are acting pissy because we didn't get what we want in a disaster of an MFD. Think of all those wierdos who have crap like Jimbo's head floating around their user page. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Artist's impression
    How dare you call Jimbo's head "crap". The Godhead should be shown due deference, I for one would welcome its addition to every Wikipedia page. RMHED. 00:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you crazy?! You'll wear it out! Do you want Jimbo to have to go to conferences looking like this? -- Earle Martin [t/c] 00:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (did not read whole thread) I'm right on the fence on this one. I don't believe these pages should be restored en masse, or that MZMcBride should be sanctioned for an activity that did not injure article space, and that he believed to be a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia. However, I would not have deleted any of them without community consensus, given the wide allowances given to users to have a little fun in user space, particularly users who make legitimate contributions; I myself would have !voted to keep them, in light of them doing no harm (I don't believe they would significantly affect contributions to articles one way or the other). I move that all the affected users be informed on their talk page, that any such page be restored on request and afterwards eligible for MfD if anyone is interested. Dcoetzee 00:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. This has expanded slightly since I started it...And yes, I did just read all of it.
    I am in total accordance with Dcoetzee. I still want to see where this "consensus" is, though. A MfD case from April 2008 that resulted in "no consensus" is MZM's so-classed consensus for deleting these...
    And what happens if speedy deletion of stuff in user space is allowed after this? Are signature collections next? Award pages after that? Userboxes last? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 02:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And am I missing something, or is he still deleting secret pages, while this is ongoing? (with the deletion summary "made extra secret") —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 02:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    All finished now. As I said earlier, fair treatment seems best here. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Leave the pages deleted, and move on to building an encyclopedia. Lets stop letting these pages distract us from our goals. The consensus for these pages not being appropriate was formed at WT:NOT and is described at WP:NOT. Chillum 05:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If consensus on how to interpret that page with regards to this issue was as clear as you make it out to be, then the last MFD for these things would have ended in delete, and this thread would not exist. But fine, I don't really care either way. My whole point was that MZM should not have deleted them in that manner, because out of process deletions generally cause more trouble than they solve. Now that they're gone, they can stay that way. If the issuse dies with the closure of this thread, I will be happily surprised.--Dycedarg ж 06:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean violating policy is good as long as the violating admin stops after he completed what he set out to do? Even if he completes it while his actions are still under discussion? Somehow this whole thread was completely useless if the outcome is "Who cares? They are gone now". I think the problem is not the kind of pages deleted but the way it was done. Next someone will delete articles like Wikipedia because they think we don't need an article about the project itself and the AN discussion will result it "Ah well, it's deleted now, let's move on". Am I the only one who is dissatisfied when legitimate complaints about policy violations end in such a result? SoWhy 07:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally am extremely annoyed by the manner in which the deletions were carried out. It was a gross abuse of administrative powers, and a deliberate subversion of consensus. What I meant with the above statement was that since I think the pages should have been deleted (albeit properly), if no one else cares enough to file a DRV I am certainly not going to do so and will be quite happy to avoid the ridiculously long discussion that would have resulted.--Dycedarg ж 08:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    While I see no benefit of keeping the pages concerned, I see a lot more harm in deleting them (and annoying/alienating contributors to the project) than leaving them there. I think
    • they should not have been deleted out of process (the quoted MfD does not give the authority);
    • they should all be undeleted promptly;
    • the manner in which these deletions were carried out (and continued to be carried out while discussions took place here) is appalling and shows disrespect for the community. (Deletions continued for nearly 18 hours after the first complaint on his talk page, and 12 hours after being informed of the thread here.) Martinmsgj 10:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Whilst I've never really liked secret pages, the way this was executed was wrong. Had a non-admin tagged all these pages with a speedy tag, they would have been promptly declined. The discrepancy of power between admins and non-admins is disappointing to say the least. It seems that if you get the tools, it's fine for you to make up the rules as you go along. Seraphim♥ 10:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Power without responsibility - the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages. DuncanHill (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm with Seraphim on this. I've never been a fan of the secret page games, but I'm even less of a fan of using WP:IAR to summarily delete them without warning, discussion or consensus. There are already enough Wikipedians who think admins view themselves as above the law and capricious -- why give them more proof when there was absolutely no urgent need to delete the pages?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Have a cup of tea

    What is everyone's problem with these pages? Wikipedia should not be seen as a job all the time. And could notice have been given before the deletion was done so that people could express their opinions? Simply south is this a buffet? 12:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Stop trying to drag out the drama for the sake of creating drama. seicer | talk | contribs 12:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not creating drama, i asked some simple questions and also stated that this project should not be made to be serious all the time. Simply south is this a buffet? 13:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really dragging it out since over 40 pages have been created again (none by me)... Hiberniantears (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I dunno, all this this "hidden page" retardedness really doesn't seem to have much of a justification. If people want to play games, then they can go load up a facebook app, as this isn't the place for it. So for what its worth, I heartily endorse the deletions...MfD 's are not needed for blatant gibberish...and hope that they continue. Tarc (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Although in this case, it just created more work, and either annoyed people, or gave people the opportunity to make fun of people who were annoyed. None of which contributed to building the encyclopedia. That's been my point all along. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, bad example, life isn't worth living if you can't take a break from the task at hand. Well those that don't contribute should be warned but I'm sorry; just coming along and saying, oh this doesn't contribute to WP and deleting is worse than not helping WP. A Userpage isn't contributable to the WP. Why not delete them?
    Well, once the pages are gone, there won't be any more need for some to bitch about it. I'd gladly trade a little consternation and drama now in order for it to be done with. Tarc (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Removal of the pages should help maintain a focus on creating a good encyclopedia. There should be no sanction for deleting them and no mass re-creation of them. Edison (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So, you feel we should just tacitly approve of blatant policy violation, misuse of administrative power, utter disregard for consensus, and the alienation/aggravation of over a hundred editors many of whom were longstanding editors with lots of mainspace edits under their belts, because we agree with the end result? What about when something happens like this in the future, except to a page you like? You'll argue that policy should only be violated when you happen to agree with the outcome? The whole problem with this is that the community is supposed to decide these things, consensus is supposed to reign supreme, and instead we get one administrator deleting over a hundred pages with no consensus, discussion, or warning, and falsely justifying it to those who complain by saying that it was approved by discussion when it was most certainly not. This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work, this is not how administrators are supposed to act. They are not supposed to be a police force able to arbitrarily force their will on an unwilling community because they feel like it's justified by policy.--Dycedarg ж 18:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOT is also policy, and these secret pages were/are a violation of this policy. Count me in the group that has no issue with MzMcBride taking out the trash. Resolute 18:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And policy is clear that "Reasons derived from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" are not grounds for a unilateral/speedy deletion by an admin. Davewild (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, however lets not step up on our pulpit and cast down one "policy violating heathen" in suport of other policy violating heathens. McMcBride probably should have MfDed them, however his only failure here was that he circumvented process to get to the proper outcome. Resolute 19:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no consensus that these pages were/are a violation of this policy. The reason deletion policy exists is so admins can't arbitrarily delete things based on their interpretation of policy as opposed to the community's (except in the narrowly defined set of cases in the CSD categories). The belief that it's OK to blatantly disregard policy and consensus because WP:IDONTLIKEIT is, in my opinion, completely ridiculous and completely contrary to the manner in which the project is supposed to operate.--Dycedarg ж 19:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And creating these pages under WP:NOHARM is any better? Resolute 19:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Creating the pages was not an explicit policy violation, and there's no consensus against them. Deleting them was an explicit policy violation. Quite frankly, they needed no justification in policy to create them whatsoever.--Dycedarg ж 19:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "His only failure was that he didn't follow policy." Yeah, can't fault him for that. Oh, wait.. --Conti|✉ 19:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:IAR is policy, and that seems to be his rationale. Regardless of the drama surrounding his methods, the end result was right. All that is really left is for people to form up on either side of the trenches and argue ineffectively for a while. Resolute 19:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) That is your opinion. Others have different opinions. There is no consensus on this matter. But most of this thread was not about whether such pages are acceptable or not but whether an admin can go ahead and delete them outside policy. I think some people missed this and are still debating the nature of the pages when the problem is the way these deletions were done. Regards SoWhy 18:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have read this entire thread and I still can't understand what all this bollocks is about. Yes, I agree that creating secret pages is time unused improving/upgrading articles, but so is creating such a fuss about a load of rubbish. Just quit your bullshit and consider using your time more constructively instead of wasting your time.--O'DELAQUATIQUE (talk) (contributions) (e-mail) 19:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, this reading of that past MfD is rather faulty. It did not close with a finding of "no consensus", it closed on a matter of process; the closing admin did not believe that a mass AfD on the concept itself of secret pages was proper. They should be evaluated case-by-case. Perhaps this is one of the few times where I'd see a valid WP:IAR invocation, in that bypassing MfD to delete dozens upon dozens of cruft userpsace pages for the sake of the betterment of the Wikipedia is actually a good thing. Tarc (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no consensus on that page, and the closing admin says as much. He doesn't say that the mass MFD was not proper. He said that the only consensus that existed was to get rid of the worst of the pages, and that the mass MFD was not going to accomplish that, so individual mfds should be conducted for those pages. Not that he expected individual MFDs for every single secret page out there.--Dycedarg ж 19:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a very odd and selective reading of that closure, then, as it in no way prohibits MZMcBride from looking at each page, and deleting them as a speedy. There's just no collective policy for "secret pages" to wipe them in one fell swoop, unfortunately. Tarc (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually while personally I would not/have not created such pages I don't see the difference between these pages and signature books or this sort of thing (or is there a difference when it is primarily admins who are doing it?). I agree with this view (expressed when someone said that signing signature books did not contibute to the encyclopedia) - "Sure it does, if it contributes to a collegial atmosphere of friendliness. Snapping at people who are just being friendly doesn't improve the encyclopedia at all, as far as I can tell". So long as those who have created these pages remain primarily focused on building the encyclopedia then this sort of thing helps keep editors instead of just driving them off by unilaterally speedy deleting their pages while implying that they do not contribute to the encyclopedia. Davewild (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nicely put. I keep a handful of quotes on my user page, this among them: "Community is built by allowing the free activity and interaction of members, not by blocking harmless behavior even if many or even most think it "useless." If something is useful to my neighbor, it's useful even if I have no need of it at all." I support what I believe to be the traditional, prevailing view: that these pages are a problem only when they are the main or sole focus of an editor. When an editor is predominantly occupied with article editing, these auxiliary pages serve to help him de-stress and like editing at Wikipedia a bit more. Such functions are valuable. Now that we've past the easy part of creating the largest reference work in all of history, Wikipedia's stability and success depends on creating a respectful, pleasant community entirely online. If that doesn't scare you, it should. Treat each other with tolerance and goodwill. --Kizor 19:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me split the comment... there. I should add that a few of the arguments about the harm of secret pages seem troublesome. First is the idea that non-article-writing-related editing is harmful in and of itself by taking effort away from writing the encyclopedia. Volunteer workers donate their labor to us, and its amount is not fixed. I have trouble accepting the notion that removing and forbidding things considered fun would cause volunteers to funnel the same effort (or, indeed, more effort at all) into more productive things.
    Second is the performance effect. Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance has no formal status, all it has are arguments from a developer and the ultimate authority on Wikimedia servers and software. 'As a technical matter, it's our responsibility to keep the system running well enough for what the sites require. In other words: it's not a policy issue. If and when we need to restrict certain things, we'll do so with technical measures.' ..." '"Policy" shouldn't really concern itself with server load except in the most extreme of cases.'
    Hope that helps. --Kizor 20:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh goody goody!!

    It seems that Mcbride removed another secret page, right here. This time it was with a different explanation ("made extra secret"). It was all done AFTER this conversation was started. Montgomery' 39 (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    See the comment from the_ed in the above section that begins with And am I missing something and MZM's reply. –xeno (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitration

    I have filed a request for Arbitration here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#MZMcBride -MBK004 19:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for taking that initiative. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur. This action seems appropriate considering the situation. --.:Alex:. 20:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've noted my opposition there. Discussion is still taking place, arbitration seems premature. --Ali'i 21:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What's the intention of this action at arbitration? If you're forcing the matter to be heard by...authorities, that forces editors who couldn't care less about this conversation to care. I happen to think that secret pages, while somewhat benign and banal, foster in part a sense of community as well as a sense of relaxed atmosphere. Unfortunately, the editors it seems to be popular with in my experience don't really need much more relaxing. These secret pages and the barnstars that are given for finding them were at issue during an MfD of an "Awards Center" where participants became so focused on receiving awards, barnstars, and collecting other ephemera that editors cut corners severely, worked with each other to promote articles at WP:GA that they knew were not quality articles, and repeatedly nominated poorly written undersourced articles at WP:FAC, all so they could have another award. It started as so much fun, but it wasn't maintained by anyone with a voice of reason and it got out of hand.

    More recently, a discussion is taking place at WT:Featured article criteria about making sources better for FAs, and I'm quite astounded at the opposition to it. It appears people just do not wish to do the work involved in getting an FA and would rather have a lowered standard. I surmise this is because they can get... more bronze stars. The mentality is connected to these secret pages. I don't have much to say about what MZMcBride did as an admin, but I'm starting to develop a well-reasoned argument why secret pages should be removed. I will participate in the discussion about getting rid of secret pages; I read the initial ArbCom notice and it is not clear right now what this will be about. --Moni3 (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    MBK004, who left the request, does point out that has no opinion on secret pages and focuses entirely on the appropriateness of taken administrator actions. His request and other edits support that statement, as does the arbitrator who's accepted the case. Again, hope that helps. --Kizor 21:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The appropriateness of the secret pages bears directly on the appropriateness of MZMcBride's actions. If the pages were inappropriate, then his actions were appropriate and vice-versa. So making a judgement on the one requires making a judgement on the other. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The request for arbitration is not about the secret pages. It is about the actions of MZMcBride. If there still needs to be a discussion of secret pages, I submit that this is not the appropriate forum. Miscellany for deletion seems to be a more appropriate forum; for those who feel that MZMcBride acted legitimately in his decision to speedily delete the pages, perhaps a discussion at Criteria for Speedy Deletion to explicitely incorporate such language in the guidelines would be in order. Nutiketaiel (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel that this "Hidden page game" section here is the appropriate forum. We have a discussion going. Assuming that MfD is not fundamentally unlike AfD, it is - alas - not a place for productive discussion, just a tool of last resort. The raised stakes make it far more polarized and less civil than WP:AN.

    There is another matter. In my nerve-hit opinion, a serious one. If the secret pages go to MfD while most of them are - or just were - deleted, it is going to affect the situation, and it will be an effect achieved not by its merits but by the use of force. That is obscene. --Kizor 21:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The RFArb was a knee-jerk reaction by people who prefer a witch hunt to following dispute resolution. How ironic that the people complaining about MZMcbride bypassing policy and guidelines completely side stepped WP:DR and ran straight to "the last resort" rather than follow any of the other potential steps outlined in that policy first. How even more sad that Arbcom accepted it. Resolute 06:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Data

    Secret, in closing this MFD from last year, recommended that such pages be approached on a case by case basis. Out of interest, does anyone have any information about how such pages have been treated subsequently? Is anyone aware of any subsequent individual deletion discussions? --bainer (talk) 04:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I grepped the deletion log for "secret" and "sekrit" in the log_comment field. Here's what I found:
    Note: This list is in no way conclusive. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not "secret pages", but a similar myspace issue was handled at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 11. It related to pages listed at User:Keilana/Deleted cabals. That involved IAR deletions of 14 deleted cabals, as well as an MFD, an RFC, and two ANI threads. I closed the DRV as "IAR deletion not endorsed due to lack of consensus to do it that way, no consensus that the pages should exist so not undeleting, if anybody asks for a specific page back and explains how it help the encyclopedia any admin may undelete". Only one was undeleted. As I recall it was moved elsewhere and the redirect later deleted. GRBerry 14:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I remember that one. Despite the stuff that went on at that time, it's interesting to note a couple of the "caballists", once their stuff was taken away, actually improved decidedly as editors. Orderinchaos 01:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Secret go bye-bye

    This is why the secret pages have to go. What a monumental waste of time. Doing away with them in no way hinders the ability of editors to socialize with each other. It just removes Wikipedia as a lame target of disruption in yet another way. It removes the incentive to discuss their presence, debate their deletion, and take sides about the issue. It's a game. Wikipedia was chosen as the board. Wikipedia is not a game board. It actually is an encyclopedia. People ought to chew on that for a while and think about the compatability of being an encyclopedia with being a social networking site for children. The two aren't. --KP Botany (talk) 06:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Part of the time wasted is spent here, complaining about them. The actual time wasted by editors looking for, making, and logging into these pages is probably minimal. But fine. If you guys think it is best that these folks "just do games like that on some facebook app", then people will follow your lead. People who might have made some reasonably constructive contributions (remember that these are the folks we are discussing, not the "20 edits and they are all to a secret page crowd") might just leave if we come along and break up their fun because people think they should be editing articles. This is purely a social convention. We allow barnstars, elaborate userpages, user essays, user chess games, wiki-smiles, etc. We just happen to think that the "secret pages" are less desirable. We don't like them, so why should anyone else? This is fundamentally the same as far as the encyclopedia is concerned--mainspace doesn't care if your non-article edits are to a user essay about how much you like WP:AFC or a template to send cups of tea to people or on a secret page so that people will try to find it. The articles don't care. The only variable here is us. Can we step back and think that maybe we are being too intrusive? Or maybe (if that doesn't bother anyone), the lowest energy route is to do nothing for anything but the most egregious cases. This isn't a law and order problem. We won't get "more offenders" if we don't "crack down" on the misdemeanors. It's a community of human beings who all have their own kick. They all have something that keeps them here, helping us. We (as external observers) can't determine what, specifically, that is for each person. so we can't just say User:Bob doesn't like his secret page enough to leave or help us less wholeheartedly if we delete it but User:Jane does--delete bob's but not Jane's. We just have to guess. And wouldn't we rather just leave things up to Bob and Jane? Isn't that more in line with the wiki way? Protonk (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Call me jaded if you must, but honestly, I can't really fathom any user coming here for the "secret page games", or any user leaving solely due to the removal of said games, possessing the modicum of maturity required for worthwhile, well-written contributions. It's a tantalizing hypothetical, but in the end, it's rather like owning a car dealership and debating over whether or not to include pre-recorded loudspeaker announcements on behalf of blind people who'd be otherwise unaware of your excellent signage. Badger Drink (talk) 08:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we tend to find it difficult to visualize other points of view. I'm not saying that as a diss, just that it is hard for you or I to imagine someone who is sort of interested in the wiki (say, ~20 contribs a month), but also has fun w/ userspace (say, 20-30% of contribs). It's hard for me to imagine because I have ~500 edits/month, among other reasons. But the whole basis of the wiki is that we try to draw in as many disparate views and sources of effort and expertise as possible. For many people, if the barriers to participation are even a trifle, they won't do it (hence why we are successful and why citizendium is not). My point is not that those folks with secret pages are all on the margin, ready to leave at the drop of a hat. But that some probably are, and that the self-righteous feeling we gain from knowing that people aren't mucking about in userspace isn't worth a fixed typo, IMO (I guess that's where my bias comes in...). Protonk (talk) 10:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Protonk. We also need to delete barnstars, elaborate userpages, user essays, user chess games, wiki-smiles, etc. Clearly, all of those things are demonstrations that people aren't doing their job when they come here. They were hired to write articles, and if they want to get paid, that's what they'd better do. For the same reason, I'd like to see the removal of our 'E-water Cooler', the Village Pump. That's nothing but a place for people to stand around gabbing. There's facebook for that, or they can go to the local bar after work. If editors want to get paid, they'd better be on here eight hours a day writing and nothing else. I notice raul654 was one of those wasting corporate resources in the Chess Championship linked above, and now he's an admin, so perhaps HR should reassess his file. ThuranX (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoa, back it up! The things you're talking about getting rid of is things that help civility getting rid of barnstars and wiki-smiles would destroy wiki-love. I hope you were being sarcastic because that's a terrible idea. The Cool Kat (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he was being sarcastic. If not, can I get paid monthly? I find it easier to pay the bills that way, especially on part time wages. Jack forbes (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never had a "secret page" and never will, but I have to say I do wish certain Gradgrindish editors would concentrate on building an encyclopædia instead of spending their time hunting them out to delete them and then wasting everybody's time with the "omg people are having a bit of fun we must stop it!" antics. Editors are (mostly) human beings, and human beings need sometimes to let off steam. Some do it by playing little games of hide and seek, some by writing snide and bitey little essays with redirects from WP space, some do it by rambling off at a tangent on the refdesks. One size does not fit all, and if we start making too big a deal about these odd little bits of userspace we actively undermine encyclopædia-building by preventing editors from having their little bits of stress-relief and "getting to know you" pages. DuncanHill (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In my day we used to go outdoors and play sports etc to let off steam. Yours grumpily, Jack forbes (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And we walked to school. Forty miles. Uphill. Both Ways. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Walked to school? In my day we didn't even have have legs, we had to drag ourselves there on our bellies over hot coals and broken glass. DuncanHill (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Walked to school? No legs? Young people today don't know when they are well off. Now, when I was in the war..... Jack forbes (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And stay off my lawn, you kids! *shaking fist while holding on to my walker* --Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    So much hyperboleee-haw, Protonk. There are all sorts of things one can't do on Wikipedia, making it your social networking website being just merely one of them. En.wiki is one of the most hostile places on the web. I leave all of the tim. Now I just have a thick skin. It's required.

    If and editor is going to leave because their "secret" non-wikipedia page was deleted, they were going to leave anyhow. The over the top speculation is not necessary, and the rampant protection of the speculated thin-skinned giver-uppers and leavers is not necessary.

    What Wikipedia should be worried about retaining is expertise, not social networkers. There are already free web-sites for the latter. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. --KP Botany (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • We shouldn't make a habit of deleting pages because a collection of users doesn't think that other users would be helped by it. I'm not joking when I say that as regards the mainspace, there isn't a lick of difference between "secret pages" and all the other crap that we do on our userpages. The difference is that the editors who congregate here have a particular view of the type of person who would have a secret page. It isn't hard to see that. Read some of the comments above. Thuran was being sarcastic above, but the VP is practically useless and it consumes more time an effort than these secret pages do by at least an order of magnitude. I don't see what is so hard about leaving things be. Protonk (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    All you bastards need to stop assuming I'm being sarcastic. I'm just here for the 401(k), and Payroll's had me in the queue for sixteen months for a meeting on establishing my withholding amount. (/sarcasm.)
    This is a stupid abuse of time and editors. I agree fully that Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and I fully support elimination of such users. But this 'don't waste our time and bandwidth meme is idiotic. You may as well say 'Registered Editors who are currently logged in cannot browse random pages and read', because they're equally wasting bandwidth and shirking some apparent burden of writing/editing required of them. What's to stop me from randomly ramping up bandwidth use by picking a random article, then clicking the first blue link I see as fast as I can over and over? or better, writing a program that does it for me, even faster than I could? And then running that program on every computer in my house? that would eat up more bandwidth, from one user, than all users engaged in pagehunting at any given time. There's a reason donations are made to the foundation; and if things get so tight that pagehunting is a real dent in bandwidth, this project has already been over for a month. Protonk's right. You're assuming that everyone 'wasting' time on these other things is a 14 year old popularity contest nimrod. EVEN if that's true, that's not foundation for alienating them just because you're older and think you're better. Really, beyond a skimpy NOT and a lot of IDONTLIKEIT, there's no good argument yet. ThuranX (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you both for reading my mind. However, I don't congregate here, if by here you mean W:AN. I can't even usually find it. And, since I'm nowhere in the vicinity with my thinking that gives me any clues what you are talking about, please do tell me what I am thinking so I know.
    Your continued freak out on the issue of bandwidth and children and other time wasting simply is not the issue in its entirety.
    Oh, and I know they're not really secret. Duh.
    What's hard about leaving things be is it requires that it be a formal leave it be. Because, without a formal give in, this issue will arise again and again. Some dopey admin will mistakenly delete a pure garbage page, and some owner of said page will freak out, then the whole community will freak out about singular points, "Oh, my gawd, it does NOT waste band width, which is essentially free" "Oh, mercy me, it will cause users to quit," "Oh, they're evil, they must be deleted," "Oh, they waste bandwidth which is precious,"
    ArbComs will be raised, RfCs promised, names called, incivility will abound, bullshit will be passed around, hostility will abound2. People will get pissed off at editors who support it, or editors who don't want to allow it.
    Editors will not only think they can read others' minds, but boldly assert the thoughts of other editors.
    Where precisely do you draw the lines of allowing things? This is a good point. The pages assert that they are for an extra-Wiki purpose, and a community of members with extra-Wiki purposes. None of the other pages and vices mentioned assert this. The users of said "secret pages" have allowed that they have done everything necessary to get their pages deleted. Delete them. --KP Botany (talk) 08:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, my mind is pained from all that being read. --KP Botany (talk) 08:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well what about pretty much everything in Category:Wikipedia humour then? WP:EUI? Frivolous userboxen? The upages that directly clone Facebook? (I forget whose that is, it's awesome) It's all about letting off a bit of steam in the face of serius biznes of editing. It's not just unproductive kids, and it manifests in lots of ways. I like reading through the RefDesks and maybe answering a few at the end of a long session of editing. Other people like hunting for sekrit pages. Some take pictures of themselves in bathrobes. Whatever. Really, the only determinant should be whether the editors are making a net positive contribution and not causing harm. Franamax (talk) 08:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If we are discussing, at the moment, the pages themselves, rather than MZM's actions, I'd like to chime in for a moment. Many of you have cited that these pages are a "waste of time" and thet people could be doing more constructive things with that time. It's not a zero-sum game here: banning this sort of activity will not promote more constructive editing. In fact, it does quite the opposite: admins will have to waste time cleaning them up and enforcing such a rule... Just look at the length of this discussion! It should be quite clear that there are many differing opinions here, and many different interpretations of policy and the last MfD discussion, so it is logical to say that many admins would take different actions and respond differently in any given scenario. This is why we have the consensus building policy.
    I'll use myself for an example. I've been editing for quite some time, and I'd like to think I'm in good standing with five digits of edits, most of them to the article namespace. I discovered secret pages a while ago and spent a few hours blazing through it. I wrote an essay about them, and then moved on. That's it, a few hours of my life were spent and then I went on to "productive things" without any needling from anyone else. Had I been forcibly (and quite possibly sarcastically) prohibited from doing this, there would have been some hard feelings. I'm not such a dramatc person that I would have huffed up and left, but I can surely say that Wikipedia would have recieved far less constructive edits from me. I edit for the enjoyment of sharing knowledge with others, and while I'm usually not prolific in the project spaces, I do enjoy the interation with other editors.
    What would be gained from banning this practice? Nothing, in essence. You cannot legislate behavior and attitude... people will not do "productive things" by disallowing a certain practice. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My whole view on the situation is that deleting "secret" pages would set a dangerous precedent on Wikipedia. Has anyone thought about Wikimeet ups that are organised on wikipedia? What about the cabal pages? Arn't they also "social" in nature? Im just thinking that your going to piss of alot of people if you go around deleting a harmless page that helps users establish relationships. Wikipedia is a community, this is largly because of the social aspect which in actual fact makes the other users seem less forign to one another, and more likely to work together for the common goal. The latest generation of editors are very social by nature and I fear that making Wikipedia stictly on-topic will actually push users away because it's largly the friends you make here that make you stay during tough times. Its the same as "Blocking all non-work related sites will make my users more productive" in schools and companies, We all know that is a myth and a farce because users will waste even more time circumventing blocks or inventing new ways to bend the rules. Besides, if people are really pationate about secret pages they will throw a small draft article on the secret pages and claim that it serves 2 purposes, which would supposedly "waste" more diskspace and negate any deletion criteria. I also note that Diskspace is REALLY REALLY REALLY cheep and bandwidth generated by secret pages is no where near that of which has been generated by self perpetulating drama on AN. Neverloan the process of deleting secret pages would be a clusterfuck, a huge waste of time and would chew up more immediate space (Revisions are kept + deletion log entry's) than if they were left alone. add on top of that several people leaving because "Wikipedia has become a Bureaucratic cesspool". </rant > :)   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In the arbitration request page, arbitrator Newyorkbrad notes that "Typically, I sign secret pages and hidden guestbooks with the comment "I never sign guestbooks. Signed, Newyorkbrad" and "I can think of at least a couple of editors whose first edits consisted of excessive prettying of their userpages, and signature-pages or hidden-pages or the like, who are now administrators." I hope that this puts an end to the repeatedly used argument that editors who use or have such pages are disposable. --Kizor 19:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems that those who support allowing these pages rather than delete them cannot argue for their support without making things up about those whose opinion differs. Who said that any editors were disposable? The pages are. What is ridiculous is all this unsupported talk, "oh, they'll throw fits and leave if they have to follow the rules." Good golly miss molly, get a grip. If they're going to throw fits and leave because they have to follow the rules and want independent rules just to accommodate their behaviour, they'll find something else to throw fits and leave about.
    To contend that one must design an encyclopedia user space around the possibility that rules enforcement, designed to keep the primary focus of this online space in line with its purpose, could send editors packing is absurd. Communities have rules. Good, bad, indifferent. This is an encyclopedia. For enforcing that idea, an editor is being threatened with arbcom to supposedly prevent editors playing games here from leaving.
    And Wikipedia keeps saying they want experts contributing. That's the real laugh. --KP Botany (talk) 04:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Communities have rules, true, but both communities and rules can evolve. A significant part of the discussion above is about what the rule should be. Furthermore, all communities, explicitly or implicitly, prioritize rules. The rules about civility, verifiability, proper sourcing, etc. are important for building an encyclopedia, and need to be vigorously enforced -- maybe the rules about secret pages and game playing, as long as the "misdemeanors" are at an overall low level, perhaps don't need to be enforced as strongly. BTW, how exactly do secret pages keep experts away? -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I find this response to be insulting and condescending, enough to be wholly inappropriate. I would prefer it if those without a personal stake went through the argument. --Kizor 14:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Kizor - can you just clarify exactly which response to be insulting and condescending? Because I cannot see anything in ArglebargleIV's comment that could reasonably be construed as either. DuncanHill (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    By the indentation, Kizor's responding to KP Botany, whose comments are far more potentially insulting and condescending. WilyD 15:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice indirection there KP. Do you have a response to the first sentence Kizor posted? The one mentioning the arbitrator? The one wasting something-or-other playing games with secret pages? Should we have an RFC on NYB? Any comments at all on that sentence? Franamax (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You can have an RFC on NYB if you want to, or you can try to. I won't block you--well, I can't block you, but I won't do anything to try to stop you. I'm not interested. --KP Botany (talk) 02:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to say, the edit summary for that last comment caught my attention.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So can we agree then that you're unwilling to comment on Kizor's quotations of Newyorkbrad? Specifically, you wish to discuss everything but the outlook and practices of a sitting arbitrator, which appear to run counter to your own position? I'm looking here for just comments on that first sentence. It appears that there are widely divergent views on the "secret page" practice. Franamax (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that NYB never said that he has a secret page or guestbook. Rlendog (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I just really continue to have no idea why I should comment on New York Brad or start an RFC on him. Please feel free to let me know on my talk page or collude with me in secret to get his ass fired or whatever it is you think I should do to him. Sorry, NYB, something must be terribly wrong with you as hard as I am being pushed to start an RFC about you..... --KP Botany (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Closure please?

    It seems to be KP Botany arguing for removal of the SPs against numerous other editors who see nothing wrong with them. (No slam against KP, he has comported himself fine in this debate.) Is there any finality we can find with this? This section's screens long, over a week old, and there's little consensus to remove them. ThuranX (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I tried to close it a few days ago after the arb got filed but someone thought there might be useful discussion still to come. I think that useful discussion has run its course and agree this thread should be closed. –xeno (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Before closing, can this loooong debatebe be summarized so that we can use the conslusions for later debates? (I read some of it and decided it was too long to read it all and then gave up so I would like to see if any conclusions were drawn.) Thanks. --Tone 20:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, please, close it, as I am now being badgered into starting an RFC against a user I'm pretty sure I've never interacted with. There is really no point in continuing to allow this space to be used for a weird and unexplained tangent. --KP Botany (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just don't edit it and the thread will be archived automatically. So long as everyone resists the temptation to have the last word, manually archiving the discussion is unnecessary. Besides, that big blue box never stopped anyone really interested in continuing a discussion anyways. Protonk (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Wikipedia:Books

    As the new Extension:Collection has been implemented, some administrative and policy questions arise. It'll create a "add a book" link for content pages (already the case for registered users), see Special:Book. The book can be managed there, it contains a link to http://pediapress.com/ to order as a printed book and a link to download as PDF. There is also the option to save and "share" your books, either in a user subpage, or in a subpage of Wikipedia:Books, see Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Books/ for "community" books, and Category:Wikipedia:Books for all. This system has already been (ab)used to create inappropriate pages, such as attack and spam pages (examples in Wikipedia namespace: 1, 2, 3). I have added {{NOINDEX}} to Template:Saved book to prevent indexing of this kind of books, and also because they are not part of the Encyclopedia. But we need more rules and restrictions, otherwise, it'll get out of hand. I think we should completely disallow the sharing of books in Wikipedia space, and only allow autoconfirmed users to save their books in userspace. What is really the interest of sharing books ? It is prone to WP:MYSPACE/sharing concerns, and would distract from our goal to build an encyclopedia. A few example books for readers created by the community would be worthwhile, but I think further steps in this direction would be detrimental. Cenarium (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    To prevent indexing is a good idea for now. The community needs some time to develop guidelines and rules for stored books. But I would not impose premature restrictions until the community had a chance to catch up with this new feature. I'd propose to discuss this topic on the tool's feedback page. --He!ko (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If we don't impose restrictions quickly, we'll have thousands of those pages and it'll be harder to detect inappropriate pages such as User:Pooblahtest/Books/Mrs. Wishin and User:Bobby1773/Books/robsmith. On the other hand, we can loosen the restrictions later if we want to. Also, what should be done of this kind of things: User:Janime6/Books/Boobism, User:Therealtomgowner/Books/Tomg.synthasite.com, Wikipedia:Books/new stadiums in Bulgaria, Wikipedia:Books/FATHER OF SAIYANS (has been nominated for deletion, see here), Wikipedia:Books/Graal, Wikipedia:Books/Kuwait, Wikipedia:Books/sabina wantoch, Wikipedia:Books/yeah. See for example Wikipedia:Books/HCDF for blatant advertising. Many users save those pages as their first action: 1, 2, 3, with only a help/intro page as content. Guidelines can be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Books, but I think we need to take action swiftly if we don't want to be overrun. Cenarium (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, this is only gonna get worse. I'd suggest we disable the project-space sharing (whatever it takes to do that) until we have both a useful set of standards and a way to enforce them. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, yeah, what does this have to do with Wikipedia? That MediaWiki can do this functionality does not seem to me to mean that its usage on this specific Wiki is useful towards its goals, which is to build an encyclopedia. Why is this not a completely seperate Wiki rather than enabled here?!? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I misunderstood how this worked. This doesn't seem all that bad now that I have researched it a bit more. Nevermind any objections from me. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this not useful? Some people don't want to have to print out dozens of articles; this offers a useful way of organization and transmission of certain article revisions. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    God forbid editors should make and share assemblies of articles with others! While I do accept that this feature, as with every other feature of Wikipedia, may be abused by some, I find claims that the book extension has nothing to do with building an encyclopædia to be bizarre at the very least. Readers of Wikipedia (who are in fact much more important than editors) are very likely to want to be able to assemble collections of articles, and to be able to export them or have them printed - indeed, as readers of the various help desks and village pumps will know it is a feature which has been regularly requested over the years. DuncanHill (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Any reader can create a book in Special:Book, then export or print it (and also order it). It's not about that, it's about storing books in user or project space (only available for registered users since it involves creating pages).
    Sharing books, collections of articles, is not the purpose of an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not a social networking site. Creating a few books maintained by the community or wikiprojects for presentation and as examples to readers is one thing, and good, but allowing any user to store books in project space is looking for problems (see above) and distract from encyclopedia building (let's say that improving our lists is more important than creating books). So we should disable automatic creation of books in project space imo. As for books stored in userspace, I propose to restrict it to autoconfirmed users, because it'll limit the problematic books and books by new users are generally tests or drafts of new articles. User books can be found (and so shared) in Category:Wikipedia:Books. Cenarium (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, you're right. I propose we delete all userspace and project space as they are not the purpose of an encyclopædia. Encouraging editors to get to know each other, or to share interests, concerns etc should all be prohibited. Can you spot the sarcasm yet? DuncanHill (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarcasm... go tell it to Mrs. Wishin. In a few weeks, we'll have thousands of books and who is going to check all of them ? Users can share their books through Category:Wikipedia:Books and subcategories already. But creating and having them in project space is a waste of resource and volunteer time, it has no purpose. Cenarium (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds like a job for a new CSD. I've made a proposal at WT:CSD#Books. MER-C 02:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    So what happens, when we start getting loads of people who turn up to edit the articles to ensure that the book they print reflects their opinion? Surely this is a threat to NPOV? Just my thoughts... --Cameron* 14:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We do what we already do when people turn up to edit the articles to ensure that the website they view reflects their opinion. DuncanHill (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have proposed to disable book creation from Special:Book in project space, and instead let wikiprojects make one or a few books on their subject in project space, so that they are checked for quality and be helpful for readers. See detailed reasoning, please, participate there. Cenarium (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Deceased Wikipedian

    I'm sad to report that one of our fellow Wikipedians passed away last week. I tried, but have been unable to verify his passing beyond the initial message left by his son (via an IP). However, considering the editor in question had acknowledged a serious illness and his account has been atypically inactive since, I considered it acceptable to take care of the administrative aspects today. I have not done this before, so could someone else cast an eye over it? Its obviously not something we want to get wrong. Thanks, and the editor's page is here. Rockpocket 21:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems okay to me, looks fine. As long as autoblock/ACB are off (which they are), it is pretty much just straightforward indeffing. — neuro(talk) 02:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indef in memoriam — someone who contributed so much to Scottish football articles. RIP. – Toon(talk) 02:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Whilst I do agree that it is entirely appropriate to leave messages of sympathy and the rest (I did so myself), I beg of people to do it at the talk page, not here (wasn't going to mention it, but then I saw the above comment). — neuro(talk) 03:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That was meant to be encouragement, not a message in itself, if it came across that way... – Toon(talk) 03:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Neuro. It would be best if the page is indeffed. Chamal talk 12:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which has already been done by Rockpocket (talk · contribs) on 28 Feb. Chamal talk 12:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I joined wikipedia to find out why my dad (Titch Tucker) enjoyed it so much. When I came across this I was going to ignore it but feel I have to say something. I found this through looking at Rockpockets edit history, and was to say the least a little dissapointed. I e-mailed Rockpocket yesterday and he was very kind to me. I'm sure he would have laughed at this, as I know my dad loved this place, but I don't think it's for me. Little Tuck (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Users: Juanacho and Decodet

    In the main Ashley Tisdale article which I have been editing for 1-3 days now. The page in the past before my edits included fake awards, Tisdale was never nominated for a Nickelodeon Australian Kids' Choice Awards, the link provided to support this statement does not mention Tisdale nor does it list the nominees, here is the link: [11] Then another award which she supposedly got nominated for which was the Germany Jetix Awards. The links provided to support this statement ([12]) does not show in German that she got nominated for the award. I clicked this: [13] which is what these users posted and I found nothing mentioning the Jetix Awards. Another fake award nominated that got posted it the Nickelodeon Brazilian Kids' Choice Awards, the link posted to support this award (In Brazilian): [14] is a blog. The site's host is Word press and the site does not look reliable at all, the first link posted was an article in Brazilian that when I translated show the pre nominations for the award. The el superficial site was a blog, not just any blog a celebrity gossip blog which is hosted by Wordpress en Español. In the end of this page: [15] the copyright of the site is shown and the host.

    Every time I edit on this page, these following users revert my work for no reason listed: Juanacho and Decodet. I put some of effort into fixing the spelling and pun caution errors (In January, 31, 2008, Forth, european etc. ), these children truly need education. And I have absolutely no idea how this article is a Good Article. I found 2 duplicate references, text that has references yet is repeated in another section with a brand new reference, trivial text (In her Music and Influences section, there was something about her singing a pop rock song in a TV movie. Well the song was a Shadows of the Night cover and was not released in any soundtrack nor was it over 2 minutes long. So why is it mentioned in her Music and Influences section?), over linking (over 3 links that are all reliable but are all of these references necessary? There was a very reliable reference from her official site that supported half of the text in her Early Life section that had dozens of references: [16].

    All of Tisdale's magazine covers were listed, and most of them referenced. Now is this necessary to list all of the covers she has been on, she has been on dozens of magazine covers.. Notable or not, these two users were searching everywhere to find these links. It was a massive collection of links. To support the text stating Tisdale auditioned for the roles of Gabriella and Sharpay in HSM, t High School Musical Pop Up Edition would be used as a source. When it is just text, not even a link. I found many paragraphs which have been over linked with 2-4 references each sentence stating the same thing.

    In the career section there was a lot of references from blogs, celebrity blogs and fan sites etc. saying when Tisdale's promotional singles, real singles, re-releases, music video releases, re-releases for album and singles got released in Germany, The U.K, Brazil, Poland, The U.S. and on. Why list and reference all of the release dates for her album's deluxe edition and Radio Disney promo single? Since all of this is listed and referenced in Tisdale's music pages which include her album page, discography, and on.. There is a large amount of links from Just Jared and Just Jared Jr which is a gossip blog, the site is quite reliable but the site is a gossip, celebrity site that posts rumors as well. Since it would take time and space to list all of her minor television roles, I listed a few of them. Her most notable guest appearances. All of her guest appearances have been verified in the past (IMDB, her official site). So I don't see why two references were added to support her The Hughleys and Still Standing appearances: [17] Honestly I am so sick and tired of cleaning up that article. It gets reverted every time. Gimmetrow and Gprince007 have reverted Juanacho and Decodet's reverts to my trimmed version,but it seems that these multiple accounts are never going to stop reverting. I am so sick of this. Please can an admin please stop this.

    Look at these:

    I could explain each of these edits but I am honestly too tired to do so. There are many more edits that I would like to explain and show but at this moment I am not willing to do this. Can an admin please sort this out. This article need a lot of serious clean up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivewildes (talk • contribs) 14:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Without looking too deeply into this, there are no posts from any of the three editors on the talkpage of the article. I'm going to recommend to all three they start communicating on the talk page and thrash this out there. If they can't dispute resolution can be tried. Exxolon (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Nutshell: Juanacho has a habit of making big reverts, often using misleading edit summaries [33]. This is rather frustrating to other editors like Olivewildes. Gimmetrow 16:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Problem bot (CSDWarnBot)

    Moved to WP:BON#Problem bot (CSDWarnBot). –xeno (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    i wana add my profile in the list of pakistani media persons........how can i do

    i wana add my profile in the list of pakistani media persons........how can i do

    anwar hashmi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anwar hashmi (talk • contribs) 06:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mr Hashmi, sorry to disappoint you, but I don't think you should try putting yourself on the list, because you are not notable. --Eaglestorm (talk) 07:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    AfD Creation Issue

    First of all, I hope I am in the right place. If not, please let me know. I created an AfD for Corpse Road (movie/series) unfortunately, while the main article tag appears to be properly applied, the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corpse Road (movie/series) and the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 2 show the title as /series) and not the full name. Don't know if I messed up or stepped on a bug to create this mess. Any help in fixing this would be appreciated. Thanks... ttonyb1 (talk) 07:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks fine to me right now.
    For future reference, please take these questions to the technical section of the Village Pump. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Exaggerated figures

    A certain user is re-adding highly exaggerated numbers for Iraqi and Syrian Turkmen, whose numbers according to western experts estimates is no more than a few hundred thousands.The same POV-pushing is going on Template:Turkish ethnicity. Ellipi (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tactical Battle

    Resolved
     – Blocked, talk page editing removed, WP:DFTT

    Tactical Battle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Apparently new account since first activity is today. Vandalised article BraveStarr in manner similar to that that has been done repeatedly over the last few weeks. Previous vandalism has always been anonymous IP edits for IPs subsequently blocked. Given the nature of the eidt in question it appears unlikely that this is not the same individual now using accounts, althoug hadmittedly this is the only vandalism so far. Only other activity is a few quick reverts, some of which were questionable. It may also be worth checking for accounts creatign at the same time from the same IP.

    In addition, user is impersonating an administrator. He has added himself to the administrator's category and made edits to an unblock request in a manner suggesting that he holds this position. CrispMuncher (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Troll. Blocked. Resolved? Pedro :  Chat  12:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unresolved - I have re-blocked removing talk page editing after this trolling request to be unblocked. Perhaps I should have let another admin declie but I see no reason to waste time. Other eyes appreciated to endorse however, and if not endorsed please feel free to overturn my actions. Pedro :  Chat  12:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was in the process of doing EXACTLY what you did before you beat me to it. Therefore, I completely endorse this action. We do NOT need this guy around here anymore. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur - we are well shut of this person with haste - Peripitus (Talk) 13:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you both. I've re-marked this resolved. Pedro :  Chat  13:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fast track for cranks?

    Have we got some sort of fast track for disposing of cranks (junk science, conspiracy theorists)? These single purpose accounts seem to take up an inordinate amount of time and resources with an obstinate willingness to argue their good faith yet ridiculous points ad nauseam. Simple vandals are easy to deal with, and edit disputes also have their own venue. But how shall we effectively deal with "flat earth" folks fueled by the "media" which is more than willing to give equal time to "opposing points of view" no matter how absurd. The general approach I'd like to see is a simple nomination of the offending user, a brief summary of the user's edit history, a vote by experienced editors/admins as to whether or not the offending editor is a crank, and a permanent banning if found as such. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think there's any way to do that in a wiki that defines itself as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." But there are ways to alleviate the problems; see e.g. the next section. — Sebastian 18:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can edit - any way they want? - or can edit to help make the world's best, free encyclopedia? Rklawton (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently Wikipedia is evolving in the direction of becoming Crankopedia. This can be stopped, but only if there is a will to do so, and at the moment it seems that the majority of admins believe that all views should have equal weight. Looie496 (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll strongly disagree with Looie496's assertion that the majority of admins believe all views should have equal weight. (On a side note, I wonder why WP:AGF never seems to apply to statements about admins?) But I can see a problem with fasttracking cranks -- who exactly is the arbiter of who is a crank and who isn't? I sure don't want to make that call. But if we hold firm to requiring independent, reliable sources, the trend towards Crankopedia can be reversed. And we already have processes for dealing with people who insist on inserting unsourced material.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What process is that? Rklawton (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Educate/warn/block. Same as anyone who insists on editing disruptively. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The "block" part gets a bit tricky because there's an appearance that the block resulted from an edit conflict (not allowed) rather than from cranky edits. Rklawton (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The only tricky part is that the people warning and blocking need to focus on the true problem, which is making controversial additions without getting consensus on the talk page.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is all just words. Any clash of views gets classified as a content dispute, in which admins are not empowered to intervene. The practical effect is that all views are treated equally. Looie496 (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's problematical in the case of cranks. Content disputes take considerable time and energy. On the other hand, giving an individual the authority to determine what is crank/conspiracy and what is not seems to go too far the other way. Hence my search for some sort of fast track that provides sufficient oversight without becoming over burdensome. And, in the case of cranks, we're often not dealing with a single article but with a pattern of editing multiple articles to promote a specific crank theory. I think we need a process (or have we one already?) that addresses a user's pattern of behavior and addresses the user specifically rather than on an article by article basis. Rklawton (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Before you go to far down this path, review the case of User:!! and User:Durova from late 2007/early 2008. There are problems with quasi-automatic review of a particular contributor. To really evaluate someone takes time and effort, not just in review, but in attempt at education to wikipedia processes. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (unindent) The mechanism that Rklawton wants actually exists -- the problem is that it doesn't work. See WP:ANI#Community ban of ImperfectlyInformed for an example of what happens in almost every case. It typically takes around 100 net wasted hours to get people to support a topic ban, as far as I can see. Looie496 (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone care to propose a system that might work? Rklawton (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Stopping a vicious circle of blocking and account creation

    Resolved

    A chain of administrators recently have been busy blocking sockpuppets of user:Melienas. He/she is not recreating accounts in bad faith, as is clearly evident from his/her openness about it. For this reason, and based on what I wrote at WP:HD#How to prevent a vicious circle of account creation and blocking, I would therefore like to unblock one of these accounts. I'll watch that account and nudge them towards becoming a normal editor. — Sebastian 18:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think the problem here is the use of sockpuppuets. YellowMonkey initially indefinitely banned the user due to the nature of his edits, inclduing repeated WP:BLP violations. If you see the edit summery one of his socks used here [34], you can understand the type of user we are dealing with. Unless their initial block is overturned, per banning policy, they are not allowed to edit pages on this project anymore. Therefore I don't think the ban should be overturned. The orignal account's unban request was denied by Sandstein this morning [35]. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 18:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But then it's not an encyclopedia anyone can edit. Rklawton (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So we should get rid of bans altogether? Let every other vandal do as they please?--snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 18:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll have to ask Sebastian. It was his/her idea. Rklawton (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course not. I have myself blocked people before. That is just an appeal to ridicule. I think my point is clear, that blocking is not the panacea, and it is a particularly bad idea if different partisan opinions in a heavily disputed conflict are involved. It's futile to try to enforce censorship by blocking accounts here. — Sebastian 19:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So removing junk science and conspiracy theories from articles is censorship? Isn't that a bad thing? And I've had great luck getting rid of vandals via blocking, so while it might not be a cure-all, it sure helps. Rklawton (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't talk about junk science, I have stayed away from that area ever since the incident from which User:Paul August saved me, for which I nominated him for admin many years ago. In the area of this case, I found that only patience with the people behind the accounts helped. I've seen it work with editors from both sides, and I believe it is the main reason why the Sri Lanka conflict has less problems with sockpuppets than other areas. (See also WP:SLR#Why we can do without trickery.) — Sebastian 19:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to ridicule the comment. I was merely pointing out that there are people who are banned from editing the English Wikipedia. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 19:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem - we know each other well enough to not be offended by such things. And I agree with your point; I'm not completely against all banning. — Sebastian 19:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) I'm very well aware of what you mean by "repeated WP:BLP" - this is a silly revert war, which we already discussed at length at WT:SLR. As I pointed out there, this would have been easily preventable, if we had stuck to the "Don't re-revert" rule. If you guys had agreed with that, then I would have protected the article in your version.
    The reason given for the indef block of the sockpuppeteer is "sock troll". — Sebastian 19:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Melienas (talk · contribs) is not the original account. I believe it is Marinecore88 (talk · contribs). The first edit by Melienas was a revert to Marinecore88's version, with the summary "RS supports". That doesn't sound like a new user.[36] --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 19:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that seems very plausible. — Sebastian 19:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And Marinecore88's unblock request was denied this morning [37], not by a partisan editor seeking censorship of Wikipedia, but by, I pretty sure, a neutral admin. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 19:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this editor has done a number of bad edits. But I wouldn't condemn them forever for that. That was a month ago, and they has shown signs of goodwill since. — Sebastian 19:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Another sock is Sobberrs. Ruslik (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think calling YellowMonkey a "Psycho ArbCom Troll on Tamil issues", asking me to take online English lessons because I extensively lack writing skills, accusing admins of vandalism etc etc within the last week are signs of good will. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 20:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, these are not nice. But it wouldn't be the first user who started out like this and mellowed down with the help of WP:SLR. As long as we keep hectically pounding the user, it's only human that he/she reacts emotionally. Why not give it a try and break that vicious circle? — Sebastian 20:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why should we trust that user to behave calmly when all that is asked is basic civility? Don't write that people are "maggots" on their articles and don't create a million other accounts to try to do the same thing. If the user's normal reaction is to melt down like this, I really don't want them anywhere near this project. If you cannot do a basic thing like read what people are criticizing and respond appropriately, you don't get to play here. Period. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The answer is simple: Because it works. Trust me, I have two years experience doing just that here. And please don't be so judgmental about other people who may live under circumstances that you may not even imagine. Are you sure you would be always civil if you experienced this trauma? — Sebastian 20:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a noble mission, but don't expect all others to join in, and don't be surprised if some do not. It's secondary to Wikipedia's primary mission: write a free and reliable encyclopedia. Rklawton (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you. To be honest, I did put in more time than I would have if I were only motivated by Wikipedia's primary mission. See my reply here. — Sebastian 21:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a noble mission, and an inspiring one. I can only wish for as much patience and dedication as Sebastian has shown in guiding editing in a topic area that could very easily be as much of a disaster as Sri Lanka is itself. If Marinecore88 can come to realize that civility and well-sourced research pays, and that there are two sides to every conflict, (both on and off WP), then I would actually construe this as being, in a small way, part of WP's primary mission to bring knowledge to the world. If s/he can't, well, we just block again. I trust Sebastian, and if he is willing to give it a go, I say let him try. --Slp1 (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your votes of confidence. It's deep night in South Asia now, so I'd like to give the blocking admin and the blocked editor a chance to say something before I proceed. — Sebastian 22:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Got a promise from blocked editor, and the blocking admin is awake but has not objected. I will therefore resolve this. Thanks everybody! — Sebastian 02:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)    (I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so here and let me know.)[reply]

    Er no, there have been periodic sock bursts from the city of the said sock every now and then, all with intricate knowledge of all Wiki policies. Just the usual rampage from meatpuppets and socks. Seb, you've been had, again. Simply saying that one is sad about some victims of war doesn't mean people are here for fthe right reasons. Quite a few "model" users on that project consistent make synthesis to push their POV, adding massacre cats when no proof of intent vis a vis deliberate premeditating/targeting of air strikes. Most articles on SLR are a joke. Some people might be polite, but given that they are part of the media outlets and PR for some groups in the RL conflict, it's no wonder. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I strongly agree with the first comment in this thread by Snowolfd4 (talk · contribs), as well as this most recent one by YellowMonkey (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you both for giving me the occasion to counter your opinions with facts that highlight the achievements of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation with respect to sockpuppets. In 1996, before the project was founded, sockpuppets were one of the big problems in the SL conflict. A big raid on sockpuppets in fall 1996 did cut down on sockpuppets, but also left good editors with deep scars, such as Lahiru, who apparently had been wrongly accused because of technical pecularities of the IP number system in Sri Lanka. Since the project was founded, this ceased to be a problem altogether.
    The reason for the present problem is that the user was caught in a vicious circle, from which they could not escape on their own. By addressing such issues calmly, we always break the vicious circle. We treat people like people with emotions and shortcomings, not like dreadful demons that need to be banned for eternity. We're not afraid of any bullies or sockpuppets, and we don't give in to any POV pusher. We set clear boundaries. This includes our unprecedented system of classification of sources, which alone reduced the incidence of edit fights dramatically. This will shortly also include our new Don't re-revert! rule, which will effectively eliminate edit warring, including any advantage people might gain from sockpuppets and tag teams. Facing our strict rules, some decided to leave, and others stayed and became better editors. Many, from both sides of the conflict, decided to join the project. I don't think anyone can deny this success.
    Your disagreements with individual users and your assessment of the quality of articles are off topic here. You are cordially invited to bring that up at our project talk page, where we welcome editors regardless of their position in the conflict. But you have to be concrete, as vague allegations are against another one of our strict rules. — Sebastian 05:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    After looking further I also agree with the decision to decline the unblock request as judged by Sandstein (talk · contribs) [38], who cited this disturbing diff of the sockpuppet on a WP:BLP article. Cirt (talk) 11:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Hello everyone, it is me Marinecore88, unfortunately my account has been blocked so I made this account (notice the extra 8) to have a opportunity to voice my opinion here. First I'd like to thank Sebastien for his support. I appreciate it very much and I promise to be a well contributing member of this site if given the chance. The two only incidents of vandalism I made were a month ago, but I've not vandalised since and I've taken a serious stance on editing by voicing my opinions on the SLR page. I'm commited to making this site a better representation of what it should be. The first thing I'd like to note is that I am not associated at ALL with Melienas‎/Meliioure‎/Sobberrs‎/Cheares or any other accounts. The only accounts I have are Marinecore88 and this new one. I've been mistakenly marked as a sockpuppet. There is a large tamil population in my city so this maybe why yellowmonkey thought I was related with them (I don't really know how IP's work, but i'm guesing similar ISP's from similar areas have similar IPs? yes? no?), but I have no idea who they are or there stances. Melienas wrote on my talk page about one of the controversial edits but I've not been able to reply because I was blocked. Also, I believe users Sowhy and C_J_M_B, agreed with me that there were no WP:BLP violations, as I had argued on the SLR page. I admit I've made mistakes in the past but I'm ready to be a serious editor, including using the SLR page rather than do these revert wars. I have a strong ability in both english and knowledge on the SLR conflict. I'd like to use this account (or my other one if i could have it back) to help where possible. Also please note again that I am not involved with Melienas‎/Meliioure‎/Sobberrs‎/Cheares so any issues with them still would need to be adressed after you've delt with me, since we are not related at all. Thanks again. --Marinecore888 (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Another sock? [39] Compare against [40] --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 23:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thats not me if thats what your trying to say. Considering that you've falsely accused me and other users of WP:fringe, Wp:BLP, and vandalism, can you, Snowolfd4, please stop accusing people of being socks just because they have a different opinion than you. Again, Marincecore88 and this are my only accounts. PLease ignore Snowolf4d who seems to have his own agenda. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SebastianHelm#Marinecore88.E2.80.8E.2FMelienas.E2.80.8E.2FMeliioure.E2.80.8E.2FSobberrs.E2.80.8E.2FCheares please read Cheares comment where he acknowledges that I was not part of his several accounts. --Marinecore888 (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    From my CU analysis, I've  Confirmed that StopGenocide=Marinecore888. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect Nishkid64's findings. He has a proven track record of being neutral in the Sri Lanka conflict. It doesn't necessarily mean that Marinecore lied; as I wrote above, the SL system of IP addresses has already burnt other editors. But it does mean that we have to treat the two accounts as one. This is settled, since YellowMonkey already blocked StopGenocide indefinitely for this reason. — Sebastian 05:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    RfPP backlogged

    Resolved

    Wikipedia:Requests for page protection Enigmamsg 18:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks better now. Tiptoety talk 22:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Block review

    Could I get some people to take a look at the unblock request at User talk:Notabilitypatrol? It's a bit much to go over myself, however it seems Golbez has some good points about the conduct of this user. Considering the massive amount of text on that page, I felt the review would be better handled by several sets of eyes rather than one or two random admins that happen by the unblock category. Thanks, all. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Golbez should not have made this block; there is too much personal involvement. Golbez should have brought the problem to ANI and requested another admin to block. This block should be reversed on principle, leaving it open to any other uninvolved admin to make a fresh block. Looie496 (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Without commenting on this specific block, blocks should not be reversed on principal, they should be reverse for good reasons only. Chillum 01:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Without commenting on the block itself as I have yet to review it, I am curious why (as you never stated the block was improper) would the block need to be reversed? I understand the need for un-involvement, but if it is a good block why waste everyone's time by undoing it, then having someone else redo it? No need for all that pointless bureaucracy. Tiptoety talk 01:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed - but a note to the offending admin with appropriate suggestions would be in order. Rklawton (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not agreed. In my opinion, it is bad to have procedures that encourage admins to make dubious blocks. If the default, once a block has been made, is to maintain it unless there is consensus that it is bad, that encourages bad blocks. It should be standard operating procedure for blocks by involved admins to reverse them and then look for consensus. Looie496 (talk) 05:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Pull it. User has been fairly good at adressing specific complaints so there is hope for improvement.Geni 01:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I am more concerned about the user blanking every warning and scrambling other messages so that the conversation on the page is completely incomprehensible. I warned the user about biting a newbie and it was blanked; they responded to this as harassment, then I restated again that no, it wasn't so, it was a reminder to stay cool, which was once again blanked. I know users have a right to blank whatever they want on talk outside of warnings, but the user has changed his page so much it's hard to follow any of the threads brought up. I'm also trying to stay on the periphery of this due to the editor accusing me (and others voting to keep) of being a sock based on my vote in a previous AfD (which was later closed as punitive); I don't want to get involved in this drama and feel backing off is better than anything else. I don't have any comments as far as the block, but the user's actions suggest that sanctions might be in order should they continue to be an editor here. Nate • (chatter) 02:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI, I am aware of this discussion. As for the block, for several days I realized this editor needed some form of discipline, and while I was compiling my large list of grievances I realized that if I took this to RFAR I would likely be treated with a "This is a duck, just block them". If it is reversed, I certainly won't wheelwar over it. But I do suggest people look at the two-faced behavior of this editor, from forging comments (if anyone believes the story about it being a clipboard error...) to claiming to be so distraught over a "death threat" that they care not to delve into it and can't be bothered to give a link... but then continue to repeatedly bring up the death threat in some effort to garner sympathy. But my case has been made; fortunately it's in the history if we need to take this to RFC, either for them or for me. Should I have blocked? Possibly not, in fact I refrained for several days because I was so involved, but those days just gave more and more grounds for a block. Oh, and FYI, I am not stalking NotabilityPatrol in real life, nor do I intend to cause them any physical harm. Shock and disbelief, maybe. --Golbez (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I can see that Golbez did little wrong here. Based mostly on his username, Notabilitypatrol irked my "spideysense" and has been riding the disruption fence since he first showed up. Golbez may have been quite involved, but I don't see where this user has the best interests in Wikipedia at heart. Might it have been better to ask another admin to do the block? Possibly. Should this user be unblocked because of that minor lapse in judgement. No... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User has now asserted on their talk page once the block is dropped they will ask for a name change to "The Gigabyte Granny"; do we want to userblock that name and "TheGigabyteGranny" until a block expiration in case they try to register and round their block? Nate • (chatter) 03:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Not until they show some semblance of calm and reasonableness. If they can ask like someone who seems like they will be helpful in the future, fine, but until then, I wouldn't trust that they aren't just going to be the same until a different username. If they cannot even make a request without being insulting or aggressive like that, we really trust that they are going well in talk discussions? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And I think "I regret that I give up. It is clear User:Golbrez has won in his campaign to run me off wikipedia" means it's all a moot point. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet he (or she? who knows, but I very much doubt this is a little old grandma; funny how until a couple of days ago he'd never mentioned anything about age and stuff, but all of a sudden there's grandkids and witnessing the moon landings and the holocaust?) continues to spend lots of time and energy editing their supposed goodbye speech. I continue to be amused by them claiming I have so many extra hours a day to spend on this than them, when they managed to wrack up an average of 50+ edits a day during their time here, not to mention an impressive 50+ edits in just the last eight hours. I very much doubt every word this person says; if they do turn out to be a little old lady named Gladys (again, funny, how she'd be giving me MORE personal, identifiable information, if she's so afraid of me stalking her IRL?) then I'm deeply sorry; I won't hold my breath on that one though. He's not a little old lady, I doubt he's a zoologist, and I doubt he's said a single true word during all this. He's just someone, perhaps an existing user, who knows, who has some agenda against public radio and Luke Burbank for whatever reason, and has resorted to near-insane tactics. --Golbez (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that Golbrez probably should have brought this up here rather than blocking himself, given his involvement, but I also agree with those above who thought that the account seemed awfully fishy. I'm basically not convinced that the operator of the account is all that interested in constructive contributions to the project. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

    The user in question has noted that she had a prior account. It might be useful to know which account for the purpose of determining whether or not the current account might constitute an active block evasion. Rklawton (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Now that the block has been repeatedly reviewed and eventually declined, I think we can assume this was a good block(we can also tell by the contribs of the blockee). As to if the correct admin made the block, that is a matter for debate, but is more relevant to the admin than the block. Chillum 14:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In future, if consensus is that the block was essentially a good one but that the admin wasn't strictly uninvolved, one solution might be for a different admin to re-block with the same settings. This is less bureaucratic than automatically unblocking and (assuming consensus supports a block) later reblocking, and it removes the incentive for anyone to protest admin abuse.
    In this particular case, I could informally hazard a guess as to which username this editor might have used before. Hint: [they] Received Death Threats. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    User:IReceivedDeathThreats is blocked indefinitely already for that username (block log contains link to the RFCN, if anyone cares). Taking a brief look at that account's contributions, it seems they also had a slight to moderate temper issue. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Joke accounts

    Resolved
     – Users warned, one sock blocked.//roux   20:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    [[::User:Its the Cookie Monster|Its the Cookie Monster]] ([[::User talk:Its the Cookie Monster|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Its the Cookie Monster|contribs]]) is going around adding {{cookie}} to various User_talk: pages. I have a few questions:

    1. Are joke accounts allowed?
    2. Is this a role account?
    3. At what point does it become more than a joke and cross into disruption?

    --MZMcBride (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (Also, can someone please inform the user of this thread, if appropriate. Thanks!)

    I would say it's a role account, and we don't allow accounts that have no interest in making edits to the encyclopedia. --Golbez (talk) 04:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no evidence of a role account here - no reason to think more than one person is operating it. However, I do believe that this account isn't here to help build the encyclopedia - and I think that this may justify a block. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not an admin, just an observer, but I don't think this account should be blocked. I think they should be told that while giving out {{cookie}}s is a good thing, they should be working on articles too. Let's not break out the banhammer before the person has the chance to show they are willing to be a contributing member of Wikipedia. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 3, 2009 @ 07:24
    As an uninvolved admin, strongly agree with NeutralHomer. Please warn before blocking. This is not a role account, just probably a newbie fooling around. Andre (talk) 07:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The moment I saw this thread header I imagined the usernames "What did Tennessee?" and "The same thing Arkansas". :P -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 07:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not an admin, but rather a new user who is the target of several attacks by the user who I believe is the sockpuppeteer account of this one in question. One BeebleBrox has been harassing me since I first showed up. Him and his other alt account, BACON EXPLOSION, trolled me within a day of my accounts creation. Beeble is hiding behind the ruse that I am only on this website to have a social network or something, when in reality I am merely taking my time to create and article for this site. He and his alt accounts will not leave me alone, and I don't know what to do. I fear he is trying to get me banned because he hates me for some reason that I do not know.--GaryDaFatSnail (talk) 09:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that doesn't really have anything to do with the discussion in this section, but... the reason Beeblebrox has been trying to engage you in conversation is that we are all here primarily to build an encyclopedia. A certain amount of social interaction goes along with that, and goes a long way towards fostering a collegial and cooperative work environment. The problem with your editing is that you are only using the site for chatting and whatnot, and that is not what Wikipedia is for. If what you want is social networking, please feel free to visit Facebook or Xanga or MySpace or LiveJournal or BeBo or any of the thousands of networking sites out there. At the same time, please start actually editing articles (try clicking here and correcting any errors you see, but you should probably read this first). Users who are here solely for socializing tend to be blocked from editing, period. Cheers. //roux   09:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I recomend giving a level 1 civilty warn to User:GaryDaFatSnail and then semiprotecting his talk page for a couple of days thus forcing him to do something that contributes to the encyclopedia.  rdunnPLIB  10:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    FOR GODS SAKE! I am currently working on a page to add. What is it with you morons always trying to rush me to post something! It is not my fault that I have people trolling on my talk page, I AM NOT USING IT AS A SOCIAL NETWORK I AM NOT!! Please, just stop the other people from posting on it! Warn them, not me!--GaryDaFatSnail (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your warnings for breaking the image use policy, and making non-constructive talk page edits do not constitute trolling. Papa November (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolution

    1. {{uw-socialnetwork}} left for User:Its the Cookie Monster
    2. No evidence seen for sockpuppetry by User:Beeblebrox.
    3. Warnings regarding image use policy, civility, assuming good faith and social networking left for User:GaryDaFatSnail

    Bootleggers 'reborn'

    Resolved
     – Bootleggers redirected to Bootleg, dabs merged in

    I remember a while back, an article on a web-based game called "Bootleggers" was deleted as non-notable, and eventually converted into a disambiguation. Now, someone has converted the dismambiguation page into an article on the game again, leaving the disambiguation links on the bottom. I would delete it, but I don't want to start an argument, so I'd rather get a consensus first. But as this has been brought up before(quite a long time ago, probably around a year). Is it even appropriate to list the game on the site?--Vercalos (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Converting a disambig into an article is the same as creating an article at a new title: it's cirucmventing AFD and should be deleted. And that "article" was a fluffy POV-spam thing, so it should be deleted regardless, which I have done. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Bootlegging and Bootlegger both point to the dab page Bootleg, yet Bootleggers points to a two entry dab page of its own. Doesn't make any sense to me, and a 2 entry dab page is against policy anyway. MickMacNee (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Fixed. Black Kite 12:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Rabbit

    The Rabbit article has several very long sections that are copied verbatim from the Encyclopædia Britannica. It isn't that the E.B. isn't cited, but the length of the passages that is the problem. The entire section of: "Location and habitat", Characteristics and anatomy", "Behavior", and "Reproduction" are made entirely of material taken directly from EB. I added quotes and described the problem on the discussion page, but nothing has of yet been done. Could someone with better understanding of copyright policy and style guide please have a look at this? I double checked the text against my copy of EB, it is the same. My copy is: "rabbit." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica 2009 Student and Home Edition Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 2009. Rapparee71 (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It could be that these tracts of text come from the 1911 edition with the expired copyright. A large number of our articles started off that way. Rklawton (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the citation even states the 2007 version of the Encyclopædia Britannica Standard Edition. I added a non-free tag to the top of the article. I didn't know what else to do. It has four full sections that are direct copies. I added the quotes, but I'm pretty sure that that isn't proper usage.Rapparee71 (talk) 12:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, except that copyright applies to the first, not latest, appearence of the text in published form. It is entirely possible that Britannica has not updated their text since 1911, which would remove the copyvio problem. Does anyone have a 1911 copy, or a link to one online, which would show whether or not this was the case? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    here. Have fun ;-) SoWhy 13:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The original edits that introduced this copyvio. And this seems to be the 1911 text. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently User talk:Serendipity15 was a known copyvio'er. He was known to add verbatim text copies of brittanica.com material occording to the block statement by User:Durova. It's a shame it took so long to detect these. I'll be going trough the rest of his contributions to be sure that we got it all this time. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What does User talk:Serendipity15 have to do with it? The CV seem to have been made by User talk:Ed Brey, or have I missed something completely? --Slp1 (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Forget it and sorry. I missed the intermediate edits. Here's a better link that makes Serendipity's involvement clearer.[42]--Slp1 (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just about to correct that. Sorry for the confusion. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have had to remove significant sections of Mammal, and I have serious concerns over Hamster health conditions. The latter seems way too similar to it's primary source, and although edited before it was brought to wikipedia, if you compare the original and the wikipedia version, it is simple to recognize. Perhaps full on deletion of this article might be the best approach??  :( --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I thought we had a bot the googled random sections of major articles looking for copy vios, did this slip through the net somehow? Chillum 14:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    New articles afaik. Majorly talk 14:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, full deletion is an overblown "solution". Remove and rewrite the plagiarised parts as necessary, even stub it down if you have to. Deletion of an article as important as this is a bad idea though. Majorly talk 14:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I just discovered that he actually took Hamster health conditions out of the primary Hamster article. So it's not "his" plagiarism in this case. Still needs heavy rewriting regardless. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hamster health conditions taken care of. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Lastly, there are these edits to Hamster. Although some of these additions are still recognizable in the current text, they have been edited quite significantly over the years, and I don't think they should be blanked at this time. I have notified the talk page of this article, and will keep an eye out to see if any editor can clean it up appropriately. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone might also want to look at the other rabbit related articles to see if there are other violations in them. Rapparee71 (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There's an interesting discussion started by MZMcBride going on at Wikipedia talk:User page#Non-contributors. There are also some related MfDs listed in the subsection below it. I encourage folks to add their comments pro and con; broader participation would be useful since user page content is a recurring tricky issue. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tarek Abedrabbo

    I came across the article Tarek Abedrabbo while doing some NPP, and have prodded it. But I'm wondering if this is a nicely disguised attack page. Anyone want to take a look and offer their opinion?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a WP:HOAX, not worth much investigating after Google searches provide nothing. Just warn the user who created the article on their talk page about creating non-notable/unverifiable BLPs. — Moe ε 22:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Works for me. Thanks.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Range block review

    Can I get a sanity check on these? User:Moulton is back (again) and I just punted a couple of his dynamic ranges. rootology (C)(T) 00:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You seem to have missed the range which includes 141.154.72.204 (talk · contribs). I suspect the ranges you are aiming for should be at a minimum 141.154.64.0/20 and 141.154.80.0/21. You've blocked 4096 Verizon IPs for six months, or 6144 IPs including the range you missed, but I can only see 3 IPs from these ranges which you have had any dealings with recently. A proper sanity check would ask if you have balanced the collateral against the benefit for the next six months. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Bot gone crazy

    Resolved
     – Done. Kralizec! (talk) 04:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SoxBot has a typo and is replacing lots of links with "expn" instead of "espn," like on the Amanda Beard article. Maybe someone wants to turn it off?--Braindude (talk) 04:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Done - bot blocked for three hours. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And fixed already by the owner! --Kralizec! (talk) 05:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User disrupting AfD

    YSWT (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) is the author of the MagicView article, which I brought to AfD based on concerns of advertising and lack of general notability. Aside from attempting to influence the discussion with determined verbosity, he's now inserting comments into the AfD rationale paragraph and overwriting SPA notices (I presume the IP address that's been seconding him is actually him as well). I left a message on his/her talk page asking him to stop, and undid the last text insertion he made... which he has now duly reverted. I'm not losing sleep over the probable fate of the article, but my concern is that the AfD page itself is the procedural record of the deletion process, which will probably end up mangled to the point of uselessness if he keeps it up. Don't know what to do about this (or even if it's an issue at all), so I figured I'd bring it here. My apologies if this is not the right way to go about this. §FreeRangeFrog 04:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I wouldn't worry about it. An experienced closing admin could sort this out in about 90 seconds. 1) view the article. 2) view the keep votes. 3) "case closed". The article is clearly problematical, and no amount of verbiage on the AfD can fix it. Rklawton (talk) 05:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent. I'll stop worrying about it then :) Thanks! §FreeRangeFrog 05:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wheel warring by YellowMonkey

    Yesterday, in the discussion #Stopping a vicious circle of blocking and account creation, I unblocked a user after the blocking user confirmed my understanding that "It looks like the discussion there's resolved."

    Today, YellowMonkey, whom I had also invited to the discussion, re-blocked the same user without consensus for doing so.

    I only want to report this here; I will not pursue this matter anymore. I have more important things to do with my life, and I am taking this occasion to take an indefinite wikibreak. — Sebastian 07:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Per the thread you cite: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Stopping_a_vicious_circle_of_blocking_and_account_creation, you did not have consensus to perform an unblock. Also, are you a checkuser? Cirt (talk) 07:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I've read in that thread and this one, you unblocked a clear sockpuppet for no reason I can ascertain. Yellowmonkey replaced this block which (also from that thread) you had no consensus to remove in the first place. Am I correct or am I missing something about assuming good faith to someone who has already had that chance and abused it?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to make sure I understand what happened Sebastian. From this comment, the blocked editor promised to "remain civil and follow Wikipedia:SLR", correct? Then you said that because you felt the blocked admin was "awake but hadn't objected" [but never commented in the thread, you decided to unblock, even though I can't find anyone in the thread who supported that action. I will say that User:East718's comment after-the-fact that he doesn't have a real opinion on the original block I guess could justify this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=274889972"