Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Redirected page in Wiki

Hello, I would like to make a redirection from the page Tasmeem to the wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmeem_(software)

Could you please add: #REDIRECT[[1]]to the Tasmeem page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=tasmeem&go=Go)

Thanks in advance, Best regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winsoft38 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:REALNAME issue

There is an issue of a Wikipedian who has the same name as a member of the Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee (SAFKA). It is getting quite confusing and problematical discussing the views of "Petri Krohn" of SAFKA as there exists User:Petri Krohn, as the bottom of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Finnish_Anti-Fascist_Committee indicates. A potential COI was reported on Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Johan_B.C3.A4ckman earlier.

As I understand Wikipedia:REALNAME, "If you share the same name as a well known person, or you are a well known person, and you wish to edit under your own name, then your userpage should make it clear whether you actually are the well known person or not". User:Petri Krohn has participated in the discussion in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Finnish_Anti-Fascist_Committee, so he is well aware of the requirements of Wikipedia:REALNAME, but he hasn't indicated on his user page if he is the same person as "Petri Krohn" of SAFKA. Could some resolution to this be found. Thanks Martintg (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you asked the editor? You may wish to advise them of this section, in any case. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought that was apparent in the AfD dicussion referred to above, which he is aware of, but appears to be ignoring the issue. I have explicitly advised him of this section[2]. Martintg (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologise, I meant "have you asked the editor on a talkpage" - I didn't see anything on the user talkpage so was enquiring if it had been brought up elsewhere; you note he has avoided or ignored the query on the afd, but I would be surprised if this had not been brought up previously in a more less confrontational environment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. WP:USERNAME is policy, right? Alll I am asking for is assistance in clearing up this confusion. Martintg (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed, as is Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Another request to clarify the situation is probably the best initial response - and only if the requests continue to be ignored, and the account continues to edit in areas which may be of interest to the RL Petri Krohn, should we conclude that it is likely the two same names are linked. At that point we can act under WP:Username and any other relevant policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the advice, done[3]. Martintg (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

What is a "well known person"? Surely, one who is notable enough to have own WP article, which is not the case with Petri Krohn the Anti-Fascist Committee member. Thus Petri Krohn the WP user doesn't owe anyone an explanation. Óðinn (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Petri Krohn of SAFKA is appearing in the television media, so certainly he is becoming well known. Martintg (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. He's not notable. If it is the same person, what he does off-wiki is of no relevance on-wiki. So long as he abides by the same content policies that everyone is under obligation to follow, he is under no obligation to respond to what can be construed as constant attempts of WP:OUTING and WP:HARRASS. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, the user Petri Krohn has been contributing to Wikipedia since August 2005. He might be the same person as the SAFKA member, or someone who happens to have the same name -- but he didn't join Wikipedia just to promote SAFKA, & presumably has been around Wikipedia long enough to understand the problems inherent in conflicts of interest if he is a member of that group. As well-meaning as Martintg is, it appears that he's needlessly stirring up trouble & possibly offending an otherwise constructive member. Let's give Petri the benefit of the doubt here. -- llywrch (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this really relevant, yes Petri has made a very good contribution, but do we also want to drag up the really negative stuff too? The only one that appears to be needlessly stirring up trouble is Russavia, see here. This is purely a conflict of interest issue. If Petri chooses to edit a topic that mentions a person that has the same name as him, he has to declare his interest. He hasn't done so, yet continues to edit the article. Martintg (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A person named John Smith is not required to stop and make a COI disclaimer every time he edits another John Smith article. policy is meant to provide guidance, not become a crutch to whack other people with.

Potential legal issues with real names

Estonian Ministry of Justice has prepared a bill making it a felony to create a website account in another person's name thereby creating a false and damaging image of that other person. The bill was delivered to Riigikogu yesterday ([4]).

If the Petri Krohn of SAFKA is not the User:Petri Krohn of Wikipedia, the bill might apply to one of them in the future, provided that he enters Estonian jurisdiction. I'm not sure which one would be the victim and which one the evildoer, however -- both have repeatedly behaved in rather peculiar manner that might damage the image of the other.

In any case, it's obviously best to clear up the potential confusion as soon as reasonably possible -- not because of the law, but because of common sense and collegiality. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Gee, I wouldn't want to be named "John Smith" there, or whatever the Estonian equivalent of that name is. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC).

There are several problems with your interpretation of the law. One, we aren't bound by Finnish law. Two, Petri Krohn may be his real name. Three, no evidence has been provided of him being the same person and any attempt to discover his idea is a violation of OUTING. Geoff Plourde (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you meant to write "we aren't bound by Estonian law", even though your comment is, for the most part, correct. -- llywrch (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The Estonian law isn't terribly relevant. I strongly doubt they would prosecute if someone started a website about themselves when they happened to have the same name. In any event, that would presumably be Petri's own issue if he ever went to Estonia. It is not a concern of Wikipedia policy. That said, a statement by Petri making clear that he has nothing to di with the other Petri Krohn wouldn't be such a bad idea. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Problem with recurring sock puppetry.

• Huntdowntheconpiracists (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Cs32en (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• IrFactor (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Counteraction (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Redandgraychips (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• No Time Toulouse (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Locewtus (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ynda20 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Kameelyun (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

The above account is an example of the stead stream of redlink accounts (recycled banned users) coming to disrupt Collapse of the World Trade Center‎ and World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories . Could a checkuser please watchlist those pages. It takes one minute to create an account, and at least ten minutes to file a report at WP:SPI. Obviously, the balance of time if we go that route is not good at all. Jehochman ^Talk 17:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

At least one conspiracy theorist with an interest in that article has recently been banned on other grounds. I'm wondering if she might be behind some of these socks. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Anything is possible. Here's another sock (added above). Could we get some help here please? We need a clueful admin, or a checkuser, to start blocking the socks until the user gives up. Jehochman ^Talk 20:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The two accounts listed as possible socks were both newly created on April 9. Semiprotection would keep them from editing the WTC articles. EdJohnston (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Great would somebody help please with this. I am not using my bit in this topic. Jehochman ^Talk 01:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me be clear. HELP FROM UNINVOLVED ADMINISTRATORS IS NEEDED NOW. WP:UNINVOLVED is a two way street. If you ask administrators to hold back where they are involved, you need to pitch in an help when help is needed. Jehochman ^Talk 01:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've semi-protected World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories for one month, citing this thread as the reason. Other admins may modify this protection as they think best. Let me know if more abuse is going on. User:Cs32en managed to get himself blocked for 24 hours over an AN3. He also has an account on the German wiki, where he takes an interest in 9/11 matters. He does not have very many contributions in either place. He is at present requesting unblock, so other admins may go check out User talk:Cs32en if they wish. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

User:DawnisuponUS? They have definitely used sockpuppets in the past to promote 9/11 conspiracy theories. Hut 8.5 10:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced User:Cs32en is a sockpuppet. de:Benutzer:Cs32 seems to be a long-term editor on de.wikipedia. I suppose we don't know that de:Benutzer:Cs32 is the same editor as User:Cs32en; we'd have to see an acknowledgement there to be sure. If we can find evidence that he isn't the same editor, we should be able to block on a username block basis. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Both accounts are part of the same SUL account,[5] so it looks like they are the same person. Redandgraychips (talk · contribs) looks like a sockpuppet. Hut 8.5 18:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be de:Benutzer:Cs32en, not de:Benutzer:Cs32. There was a User:Cs32 with two edits in 2006, so de:Cs32 couldn't just unify with en:Cs32. But I was wrong about sockpuppets in pro se, so I could easily be wrong here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm just seeing this here, and checked the contributions from User:Cs32. I have indeed created this account, but I didn't remember that, and I also didn't really bother to check the details of the unification process and thought that either unification was only about the projects, but not the language-based accounts, or that something did not work that would be difficult for me to find out. (The two edits of User:Cs32 have no connection to 9/11 issues.) I have also correctly guessed the password that I used for this account, so I can now close User:Cs32 and rename User:Cs32en, if that would be the correct way to proceed. I don't want to do anything that would be difficult or impossible to reverse, or would be considered suspicious. I welcome your advice on this point. --Cs32en (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added two more accounts to the list at the top of this report. There appears to be a sustained attack by Truthers, possibly sock or meat puppets at World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. Could we please have more eyes on the situation, especially a checkuser. The single purpose accounts are coming one after another. It is not scalable to file a sock puppet report for each one. We need uninvolved administrators and at least one checkuser to camp on that page and clear out any sock puppets. Thank you. Please acknowledge if you can help. Jehochman ^Talk 23:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Help? Anyone? Jehochman ^Talk 13:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I've found a few Truther websites which have recently posted criticism of the article: [6] [7] (note the latter is trying to get people to add some text to an article). I think we're dealing with a load of people who read this and decided to edit the articles, which means this is meatpuppetry not sockpuppetry. Hut 8.5 16:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I am watchlisting World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories for a time. Any opposition to indefblocking new SPAs as meatpuppets with reference to this thread?  Sandstein  21:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Given the apparent meat puppetry discovered by Hut 8.5, that seems to make sense. I am an involved editor. Jehochman ^Talk 04:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Locewtus (talk · contribs) has been adding the content suggested in one of those links to large numbers of articles, including some that have nothing to do with 9/11. Hut 8.5 21:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

A lot of "truther", and also some non-"truther" sites (e.g. a blog on Huffington Post) report on these issues at the moment (without reference to WP). I don't think that the majority of new SPA editors have seen the two internet sites that specifically report on WP. A meatpuppet allegation is disturbing for every new editor, as many new editors would consider it legitimate to encourage people to get involved here, if they think the WP article is inaccurate. It's even more disturbing to a new user who has not been encouraged by any such web site or other person (and therefore, is not a meatpuppet). --Cs32en (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The Cs32en account has been arguing to include unverified info. This could be dealt with via WP:AE if it can't be resolved through ordinary dscussion. Hut 8.5, could you file a request at WP:SPI with your evidence of meat puppetry? Jehochman ^Talk 01:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have never argued that unverified info should be included in a Wikipedia article. I have proposed to include info that you may consider being unverified. I have presented sources and reasoning with regard to WP:V. If you do not agree, please use the talk page, so that consensus can be built on whether the info should be included in the article. You have simply deleted my proposal from the talk page. Also, I am neither a sock puppet nor a meat puppet, but have been contributing to de.wikipedia.org since 2006 (my account). --Cs32en (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that you are proposing the same stuff that has been discussed and rejected many times before. You are taking the same position as a bunch of meat puppet accounts that may soon get banned. Please, you are the one who needs to slow down and listen to the consensus. As I have said on a few of the other multitude of threads you've started in a very determined effort to get your way, you can request clarification at WP:RFAR. Meanwhile, can we get an administrator to start investigating the meat puppetry that Hut 8.5 has found evidence of? Jehochman ^Talk 06:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't see much point in an investigation, we've dealt with most of the problem by protecting the relevant articles and to my knowledge no lasting changes to articles have been made. Hut 8.5 19:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Added Locewtus and Ynda20 to the above list of accounts that are adding a similar POV to articles. I have warned both editors that editing highly-contentious articles without a serious effort to find consensus is a bad idea. I believe the warning notices would justify a block for edit warring if we see either of them add the same POV to other articles. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

How am I not making a "serious effort to find consensus?" Show me where one person is contributing to discussion on any page of the SINGLE article I am trying to include on pages relevant? Claims were made without basis on one discussion that now is placed in "hidden" mode. Show me the evidence that Bentham is not worthy of being on wikipedia. Aside from one blog upset about one action taken by Bentham in their original solicitation of editors, years ago, I have no idea what evidence there is to suggest Bentham is not conducting peer review or what some are describing as "proper" peer review. Tell me what that is and provide the link to prove it. I don't see anyone giving a reason that an article that is generating attention on national news all over Denmark, has been in the news in Utah, and whose exact title ("Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe") on google returns, now, 23,300 hits, in a little over one week, is not a meaningful event in the articles it is being removed from. The english subtitled version of the coverage of the first author now has 59,656 views just over one weekend. At this point, the paper is news for what this topic is about, which supposedly is the "9/11 conspiracy theories". You frame attempts to post the paper as "attacks" which they are not. People are upset that this paper is being hidden and they want it shown. What IS becoming news is the wikipedia editors behavior around this one paper as it is becoming more and more clear that this is simply news you want to hide. Removing the paper from the page which defines it -- the demolition theory -- with handwaving about "extreme claims" and "Bentham isn't reliable" while leaving other Bentham journal articles on the page, is simple transparent and people see through it. From my perspective, the editors are buying time to block a paper they have no scientific rebuttal to. The editors removing the paper are openly conservative, do not have the scientific expertise to evaluate it, and generally have a history of blocking as much relevant postiive "9/11 Truth" information as possible, while inserting as much negative information as they possibly can. As someone said to me the other day, the demolition page is laughable -- it's so transparently defending the official story and trying to deny all the views the page is about that it makes the role of wikipedia clear as day. Locewtus (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Try a Google search for 'active thermitic material' and wikipedia. You will get 39,300 hits. Notice the number of suggestions (out on the web) that people try to get that information into Wikipedia. Then tell us we don't have reason to be concerned. In your above comment you are repeating the views that have failed to obtain the consensus of regular editors on any page where active discussion occurred. We have our own policies and editorial standards, and we like them the way they are. A majority vote of web-forum commenters is not enough reason to include questionable material in Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually a google of the search you are referring to returns 6,680 hits. Most of those are ABOUT the situation being discussed right now -- the complete censorship of this article from wikipedia. That's what the reason to be concerned is. ScholarTruthJustice (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"In your above comment you are repeating the views that have failed to obtain the consensus of regular editors" -- Obviously, since most editors who dissent from the "consensus" apparently end up being summarily banned, it doesn't exactly seem fair or balanced. It's not unlike the Walrus and the Carpenter claiming a "consensus", after the oysters have been eaten. No Time Toulouse (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No, not quite. Editors who dissent often present material that doesn't meet our threshold for inclusion (per WP:N or WP:RS) and cannot find consensus to include it. Rather than finding new sources that do meet those standards, they instead begin persistently insisting the source be included, edit-warring, and generally being disruptive until they get blocked. The folks who actually work within the rules tend to stick around for quite a while. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There have been discussions on this paper at Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center, Talk:September 11 attacks and Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. One of those discussions contains links to previous discussions on Bentham Open papers which will answer some of your questions. Hut 8.5 19:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. It's also been covered in the News in New Zealand: [8]. However, Editor Jehochmann has stated that the story may not be considered reliable, until it appears in the New York Times first. Such a high personal standard of reliability as he claims authority to dictate, is utterly unprecedented for wikipedia, also ignoring the fact that there could be any number of other reasons why the NYT won't print it without even addressing or rebutting any of the scientific methods used. No Time Toulouse (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not quite what Jehochman said. His point was that if this was generally considered strong evidence that the World Trade Center was destroyed through controlled demolition it would now be front-page news all over the world. Your New Zealand source is some sort of press release (or other user generated content) and doesn't pass WP:RS. Hut 8.5 19:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

So now it's "all over the world"... Well I don't know, but aside from Denmark, Utah and NZ, I've also found it spreading to Canada and Italy media now, so far... No Time Toulouse (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to complain about this Jehochman character. I only entered the discussion because I had been watching the page for some time, and was wondering why he so vehemently opposed any mention of this report existing. Several other editors asked the same question. His response has been to declare that we were all the same user for wondering this, that we were discussing forbidden topics, and that we were all being disruptive and would be blocked. He is even now seeking to prove that we are all the same person and to block us all for our "disruption" for daring to question his authority. I can almost visualize him coming with the proverbial firebrand in his hand, to persecute everyone who mentions that this report exists. And the only thing close to an explanation I have seen why the report cannot be mentioned in the conspiracy article is: "Because there is no reliable source stating that this report actually exists". I have never seen anything remotely like this from Americans in my entire life, and I am an old man. No Time Toulouse (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If you've never seen anything like this before then it is reasonable to conclude that you should spend some time familiarising yourself with how Wikipedia works. In particular, you should make sure you understand our guidelines on Reliable sources. It should all make sense then. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Editor adding many WP:SELFREF-violating entries to reference sections

Ksnow (talk · contribs) has gone on an editing spree that awakes sincere doubts on his mental health. I honestly believe he is insane. For several weeks now he is adding the sentence "Based on the article in the French Wikipedia" in every article on a French commune he comes across. Now, i can assure you as the main author of articles like Colmar, Haguenau, Molsheim or even Strasbourg, Rosheim and Sélestat that nothing at all there is based on French Wikipedia, on the contrary even, i sometimes translate passages into French (i usually write for the German Wikipedia and translate some of my stuff here or ask for the translation of articles i wrote). In other words: User:Ksnow acts for a while now without checking if he actually acts right, which means that he acts silly. You may think that i am very harsh to assume that User:Ksnow has gone genuinely mad, but he definitely needs a reality check. And Wikipedia needs him to be checked again, because he has already come under scrutiny in a recent past, for his unconstructive and obsessive edits. In the meantime, could a bot just undo the addition of this senseless, meaningless and f*cking untrue sentence "Based on the article in the French Wikipedia" he added almost everywhere? I reverted already in the articles cited above. Thank you.--RCS (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "Based on the article in the French Wikipedia" is an entirely inappropriate self-referential statement. Also fails WP:RS. I shall set to work removing these statements at once. –xeno (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC) someone cleverer than me needs to write a proper regex because sometimes it is the only reference and then we would want the ==References== header removed as well, yes? –xeno (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Labelling the editor as insane is entirely unproductive. Comment on content, not the author. See WP:NPA. Further, you've only brought up the subject to the author in the last two hours. While the editor has edited since then, I think a report here is entirely premature. Go talk with him. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Unproductive maybe, but how would you call an attitude that is 1) disconnected from factual reality and 2)obsessive (it is going on at least since March 27)?--RCS (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, if a bot could undo what he did, i'd be glad enough. I just don't know how to call for one.--RCS (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh my, it's further back than that. Since Feb 24th at least... AWB returned exactly 1000 results, which leads me to believe there is actually more than 1000 of the articles with this line in it. –xeno (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the edits are a big worry, nothing untowards about bringing it up here. I would only say, you don't know that the editor is "disconnected from factual reality" or "obsessive," he may have something quite canny in mind (although whatever this may be, it does seem wholly unhelpful to the project). Don't call other editors insane, stick to talking about the edits themselves and how they blend with policy and consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is it necessary at all to describe him as insane? COMMENT ON CONTENT. This isn't difficult. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

N.B. header changed. –xeno (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to add some information here, Ksnow has been editing since 2004 and has over 93,000 edits, virtually all to the mainspace. It looks like a lot of his editing is script-assisted. He was recently blocked for automated date-delinking, and unblocked after promising not to do that any more. So it looks like this is more a case of over-automaticity than an obsessive editor. Looie496 (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to label that editor "insane", as far as I can tell he's merely editing many articles about French communes in good faith.

Having said that, while much of his editing seems alright (updating census numbers, minor corrections, links to the website of the communes etc), the references are going to be tricky to fix. On that issue, it's not just the self reference to the French Wikipedia, he also adds links to the IGN site and INSEE sites, which would be legit if he linked to actual pages on the specific communes, but the links are just to the main pages, hence not useful. Other alterations might be questionable such as turning "département" into "department", I'm not sure what's the concensus on that if any. Equendil Talk 19:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually not so tricky as I earlier thought, I'm doing it now (see Special:Contributions/Xenocidic), so is it your opinion that the linkes to IGN and INSEE should be removed as well (in nearly all cases this would leave the article completely refless)? –xeno (talk) 19:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Definitively, they all reach to the same front page, nothing specific to the communes edited, so in my opinion, those three lines should go:

''Based on the article in the French Wikipedia.''

*[http://www.insee.fr/en/home/home_page.asp INSEE]

*[http://www.ign.fr/rubrique.asp?rbr_id=1&lng_id=EN IGN]

Equendil Talk 19:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm still concerned that if information was indeed culled from those sources, the links would at least give the user somewhere to go to verify the data. Anyone else have an opinion one way or the other? –xeno (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The INSEE site appears to contain a separate PDF of population data for each commune (the one for Abbécourt is here, for instance) but I don't know how one would automate the replacement of the links to the home page with these specific links. Deor (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a job for a bot-op far cleverer than I. I do note that the direct link to the .pdf is included as a ref for some of the fr.wiki articles, perhaps they could be ported over. For now I'm just going to continue removing the self-ref line. –xeno (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, then some more information: the INSEE conducts census, its site is not terribly easy to navigate as there is a ton of information in there as you would expect from census stuff, but filling in the name of the commune in the search box should do the trick. It might be best to make it a ref next to the census number if we keep that. The IGN maintains geographical information, its site offers a number of services, free or paying, however, the link here leads to some sort of portal to several sub sites and a search query seemingly results in a collection of pages where you can buy maps, pictures etc. Might be best to ask Ksnow how he's got his data from the IGN because that link does not seem useful. Equendil Talk 20:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion should probably be continued at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject French communes, and maybe a WP:BOTREQ could be filed to extract the direct links. –xeno (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Added a section there. Equendil Talk 20:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

From my own editing experience, INSEE is the standard and official reference for populations of French communes, even larger ones than are being discussed here - I'll only give Paris as an example, just to be on the safe side :) It's not that difficult navigating the INSEE site, which contains a lot of useful information. Mathsci (talk) 11:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Interested parties may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 13#Category:Interwiki translation templates. –xeno (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • • although I assume the comment on mental state that opened this discussed was rhetorical, the imputation could be taken as otherwise. I'd advise RCS to redact it, and apologize to the ed involved, and the community. It's a clear and major violation of WP:NPA. DGG (talk) 08:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion time extended to 7 days

A AFD talk page discussion on deletion poll duration just closed with a 3:1 consensus on the AFD talk page to extend AFD durations from 5 to 7 days.

This ongoing proposal / poll had not been notified out to the Village Pump or AN - I am posting a pointer here to make administrators aware of it.

I believe that the poll was reasonable consensus, despite the lack of wider advertising. However, a followup on the AFD talk page may be appropriate if you were not aware and strongly object. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• I have no strong opinion on the issue itself. However, this poll has been very poorly advertised. It is evident that I'm not the only one totally unaware. Frankly on the basis of a poorly advertised 12 day poll (over a holiday period) with only 45 supports, I'd say this is insufficient for a major change. Why only 12 days? Best to reopen the poll so people like me who missed it can consider - and to advertise it in all available places. Then see where we are in two weeks time.--Scott Mac (Doc) 02:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else find it humorous that 12 days is insufficient time to determine if 5 days is sufficient time? – 74  05:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• I have to echo Doc's sentiments. I had no idea such a proposal was in the pipeline. I don't follow the AFD talk page; I follow specific pages for AFD's in which I participate (none recently). Horologium (talk) 02:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• I had no idea it was there, either, until someone brought it up on Wikien-L as it closed. I encourage people to expand the notifications and to open a new thread on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. I'm about to log out for a while, so others may want to run with it... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• I never heard about it. Please lengthen the poll and put the word out. Sounds ok to me though. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Fritzpoll posted notifications at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) (diff), WT:Deletion policy (diff), and Template:Cent (diff). I think reopening and holding open for a longer period is appropriate. Flatscan (talk) 02:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Ah, I see it now. From Village Pump archives: [9]. I didn't see it at the time or when I checked the archive, but it was there. I still recommend wider review, as many don't appear to have noticed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Eventually, it gets to a point where you have to pay attention at least a little, or else c'est la vie. We do too many do overs over every little (or moderate) decision, and sometimes stuff just has to get done. 12 days on Cent is a ton of advertising since that is transcluded to tens of thousands of pages. rootology (C)(T) 05:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Honestly (though I am a supporter of this measure), I can't really understand the need to further advertise this. It isn't a sweeping change in how deletions are done or a change to the scope of what may be deleted. It is simply a change to the suggested length of time for discussion. The motivation for the change is partially wonk-ish (to bring it in line w/ other deletion times) and the outcome is pretty harmless. I know we get bigger every day, but we need to question the mentality of polling every little change that goes on WRT our processes. That way lies stagnation. Protonk (talk) 03:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• This might be non-controversial, & there might be no organized opposition to this proposal, but the more people who know about a change & are offered a chance to participate, the stronger the consensus will be to support the change. Yes, it sucks that it has become harder to makes changes around here (I remember when policy was simply a matter of someone saying, "Let's do this for a while & see how it works.") but it's one of the costs of the success of Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Why advertise it more? At some point people have to pay attention, and Cent is the de facto main advertising place. That template is spammed across the length and breadth of Wikipedia--you have to be blind wandering project space to NOT see it. ;) rootology (C)(T) 05:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• You still have to (IMO) make an affirmative case that more 'polling' or whatever is needed. I'm not convinced that the standard is "maximize discussion for all proposals". If this were controversial, irreversible, or transformative, I would agree with you. but it is none of those things. It is a fairly minor change to a process, nothing more. Protonk (talk) 07:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Meh, whatever. This really is a nothing change, as the overwhelming majority of AfD noms are either snowball closed early, or have an initial rush of comments and are then forgotten until closing. The rest would not be harmed by a couple more days. I'd hardly call this a major change. Resolute 06:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

agreed, shortening the time might cause concern and need a longer debate period, but lengthening it? It's no big deal.Theresa Knott | token threats 07:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

In my defence (I proposed the change) - I put it on Cent, the VP, and the Deletion policy page. I thought Cent would be enough, really for such a relatively minor change, but regardless, it was advertised Fritzpoll (talk) 08:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• I never heard about the poll either... it should have been on watchlist-notices, at the very least. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 10:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Such a (comparably) minor change shouldn't be on the watchlist. Why don't we all click here to avoid such problems in the future? --Conti|✉ 12:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• There was appropriate discussion on the talkpage after advertising on Village Pump and CENT. Over 60 people took part. It is a minor change that a clear majority of people who had an interest in the topic want to see implemented. We are not a bureaucracy - even so, there was appropriate process with people doing the right thing. No rules are guidelines have been broken, twisted or bent in the process of getting this adjustment done. And even those who are questioning this, are saying that the end result was the right one. However, one aspect of this that is worth looking into, is how we are to ensure that the seven day extension is adhered to, given that the current five day guideline is almost totally ignored! SilkTork *^YES! 17:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Shameless plug: Wikipedia:Advertising discussions (created in response to this, but also to similar incidents over the past year where advertising of discussions has been, or claimed to be (not saying it was here) haphazard). It is an interesting question concerning the appropriate level of advertising for different discussions. Something that might be best discussed before any major discussion starts. Minor discussions, of course, shouldn't be bogged down with such considerations, but the very largest discussions do need structure, carefully targeted advertising, and broad input. Carcharoth (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Though it has been pointed out that "publicity" (publicising) is a better term than "advertisement" (advertising). Carcharoth (talk) 00:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Awhile ago I completely missed a discussion that I was rather interested in (I no longer remember what it was). My response was to put {{cent}} on my user talk page. I've never missed a discussion I cared about since. Instead of complaining about missing this discussion, put that template somewhere where you'll see it regularly and that's that. --Cyde Weys 18:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Chiming in to say that I never heard about this either, and as a result I've been relisting a whole bunch of 6-day-old AFD discussions. Definitely could have been advertised better. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC).

User:Fahrenheit451 and Coren

Resolved

 – F451 is long unblocked, but because there was no template it isn't apparent. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Fahrenheit451 (talk · contribs)

This is concerning a block implemented by Arb Coren against User:Fahrenheit451 for "legal posturing". The statement was:

"I hereby refuse this contract and any hidden contracts or contracts of adhesion connected with it. This is done in accordance with State of Florida Law. I reserve all rights under the Uniform Commercial Code. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)"

which resulted in an indef against Fahrenheit, an editor active since 2005 with one (now two) items on his block log. The last item was in 2006. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

From User talk:Coren
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi Coren (cross posting from Roger's talk page because you implemented the block), curious about this edit. Looking through the user's edits I agree the portion that pertains to Scientology is cause for concern. That said, it is unprecedented (to the best of my knowledge) to indefinitely block someone preemptively in that manner, without arbitration vote at the proposed decision, without an outing or legal threat or other user action that would compel immediate response. He does edit productively to other areas (most recently the copyfraud article, etc.), and he has indeed participated to this case, although before he was named as a party. From this vantage it could very well appear that he foresaw no further need to post, or (at worst) anticipated a topic ban proposal. Could you explain, please? DurovaCharge! 04:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC) First off, to make things perfectly clear, this was not a Committee block. My action has the support of a number of Arbitrators, and there will be a corresponding finding to that effect on the proposed decision page, but the decision to go ahead with the block is mine alone. That said, the reason I made the block is a fundamentally principled one: a community effort like Wikipedia functions because of the social contact to heed and follow the basic rules of conduct that constitute our framework. We routinely block editors when it becomes obvious that they are unable or unwilling to abide those rules; and I can think of no clearer and less ambiguous evidence than an explicit refusal to agree to them (even when it was poorly worded as a pseudolegal disclaimer). Ultimately, what Wikipedia has as "terms of service" is the amalgamation of policies, guidelines and community expectations; Fahrenheit451 is correct, at least, in that he is in no way obligated to agree to them— but then all that is left to him is the right to leave. Now, of course, if I have misunderstood his refusal, or if he wishes to withdraw it, then I will be more than glad to unblock him (noting, however, that the arbitration case will proceed with him as a named party regardless of his decision in the matter). I'll not argue that this position is a bit more... hardline than traditional. But I see this declaration of his in exactly the same way that I would see someone stating outright that they will ignore WP:V, or that they will sock around a block— and those also traditionally have led to swift, immediate blocks. — Coren (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Hardline? Try coercive. His name wasn't even on the proposed decision page and he hadn't been blocked in three years. This came with no warning, and it's completely outside of both process and policy. This isn't a court of law; you don't jail people for contempt of ArbCom. He wasn't even uncivil. Bad block. I'll be glad to discuss and would prefer to handle it this way, but am also quite prepared to take it to the admin boards. DurovaCharge! 05:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC) I am, however, heading to bed. So let's both sleep on this. DurovaCharge! 05:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC) As an afterthought, I'm left wondering where his asserted opt-out was taking us if it wasn't to a Florida court, relying on the Uniform Commercial Code. And, by extension, if he doesn't accept being an involved party, is there any realistic prospect of him accepting a topic ban or any other restriction? In the circumstances, on top of the examples mentioned by Coren, I don't see the block as any more coercive or unusual than a NLT block for which there is mountains of precedent.  Roger Davies talk 11:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC) "Coercive"? That is what any involuntary sanction is. Whenever someone is blocked, or topic banned, or even just warned we are — pretty much by definition — attempting to "compel by force of authority, pressure or force". You've done that yourself thousands of times (and, indeeed, you are attempting to do so to me now). — Coren (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC) As for the substance of the block: I disagree with you completely. If an editor states "I don't want to follow your rules", then the only proper response is "Don't let the door hit you on the way out". We are too big, and have too much work keeping the encyclopedia running as smoothly as it is, to take on the malcontents and protesters. We extend every courtesy and every effort to allow people the benefit of the doubt when they are disruptive— in the hope that they do not understand the rules. Someone that doesn't want to play nice? Internet is big enough that they can find some other occupation elsewhere. The block is good, and IMO more blocks like this should be given out. I'm not going to unblock; but if you feel this requires the wider review of a noticeboard, then I'm not going to stop you. — Coren (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Coren, I have never seen anything like this during arbitration before. Fahrenheit451 had over 6000 edits, was not an SPA, and did nothing worse than civilly decline to give further evidence in a case where s/he had already participated. Even disruptive SPAs don't get indeffed while arbitration is ongoing unless, like Ilena of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal case, they do something that would be indeffable under any circumstances (in her case outing another editor's real identity). At worst, Fahrenheit451 could be called uncooperative, and as such the remedies when they were posted and voted upon might go a bit harsher than otherwise. This is an unprecedented grab for autocratic power by an arbitrator and I must oppose it. Election to the Committee does not elevate you above the norms of this website. DurovaCharge! 15:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC) This isn't really a question of being merely uncooperative, though. There's no exemption for threats directed towards ArbCom in WP:NLT; as Roger points out above, Fahrenheit451's statement can reasonably be interpreted as threatening legal action should the case continue, and he may be blocked on that basis alone. Kirill [pf] 15:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Please explain how that constitutes a threat. Editors routinely invoke spurious legal rationales of what they think their rights are, and if those rationales do not constitute threats of legal action then we ignore the statements. I see no fundamental difference between this and the complaints Commons occasionally gets from editors who want to upload images according to US law only, instead of the stricter site policies there. We explain why our policies exceed their expectations; we ask them to respect that. Many times they change their minds and abide by policy. Did Fahrenheit make any statement beyond what I see on the page? If he emailed the Committee to say I will take you to court, or if he made some onsite post to that effect that needed to be deleted or oversighted then I will strike through everything I've written here and give Coren a barnstar. But if he simply said a longwinded form of 'I think I don't have to give more evidence' (which is what this looks like to me), then off to AN this goes. I'll wait a reasonable period for reply before taking this any farther. Perhaps I misunderstand; what's apparent at this point simply astounds me. DurovaCharge! 15:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC) And to clarify further, when ScienceApologist announced at his user page that he intended to disregard your topic ban, you did not siteban him preemptively--you waited for him to actually violate the restriction and then voted upon further remedy in an orderly manner. As yet, Fahrenheit451's name still does not even appear on the proposed decision page. DurovaCharge! 16:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC) I don't recall that SA was invoking any legal rationales in his announcement, though. As far as I'm concerned Fahrenheit451 is merely blocked until he withdraws his legal claim, not banned in any more substantive manner. Kirill [pf] 16:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC) (ec) You and I have very differing interpretations of how 'I think I don't have to give more evidence' may be worded, I think. From my perspective, posting a notice that one refuses to participate in arbitration on a contractual level is inherently an implicit threat of taking the matter into the legal system, regardless of whether a specific intent to do so has been explicitly stated at this point; because the statement has no relevance outside of a context of legal action, it seems reasonable to assume that the context of legal action is what the person making it had in mind—and, consequently, that the statement was intended to call up that same context in the minds of the targets of the statement. It exudes a threat of legal action in the same way that "That's a nice house. Would be a shame if anything were to happen to it" exudes a threat of violence, in other words. (That the legal rationale happens to be spurious is not, I think, particularly relevant; one doesn't need a legitimate rationale in order to bring a lawsuit.) Kirill [pf] 16:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Ah, well then Kirill, look at it this way: it happens that I am a named party to the current case as well. And I don't think I have to give any more evidence either. For all I know the Committee might enter a remedy on me too (although it hasn't happened either, I can't read your minds). So I invoke whatever rationale Fahrenheit451 was citing: note that neither Fahrenheit451 nor I say anything about what we might do if these supposed rights are violated. Now if you intend to indef me for this post, please wait half an hour. I'm uploading a restoration of an Easter egg roll at the White House lawn from 1911 while we discuss this, and I'd like to get it nominated at FPC in time for the holiday. Might take a bit longer to straighten out if you truly do see any threat in this statement. Regards, DurovaCharge! 16:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Just to squeeze a word in here edgeways, he wasn't actually asked to do anything. He just, um, withdraw unilaterally and reserved his rights, citing the UCC as justification. Anyhow I'd better leave you in peace with your egg rolling.  Roger Davies talk I'm sorry, but you can't voluntarily declare yourself a party and then try to reference Fahrenheit451's rationale, since the substantive point of his claim concerns adding him as a party in the first place. You'll have to come up with a different threat. In any case, I choose to invoke IAR and not block you for your attempts at threatening us, since you're obviously not taking this seriously. :-) Good luck with your restoration! Kirill [pf] 17:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia's newest featured picture candidate. Feel free to indef me now. Cheers. :) Lol! Kirill, please check the case. I am named as the filing party. And note that I have not been asked to provide any more evidence either (indeed, have gotten hints from one or two of your colleagues that what I've already supplied is a bit much to read). Now do be nice and unblock this other established editor in good standing of four years' experience. Give him the same chances you gave ScienceApologist; he's been far less trouble. Happy holidays, DurovaCharge! 17:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Durova, have you noticed, during all that, that F.451 has yet to even request being unblocked? If they do so, and withdraw the legalish posturing, he's but one click away from being unblocked. — Coren (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Down from legal threat to legalish posturing? Which policy are you citing for having blocked him: Wikipedia:No legalish posturing? Tsk, tsk. He shouldn't need to ask. DurovaCharge! 17:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC) No, I'm just stating that their legal threat is poorly stated and based upon a very incorrect pop-understanding of contract and commerce law— WP:NLT has no provision for poor legal arguments and flawed reasoning; "legalish posturing" is an apt description of the nature of their legal threat. — Coren (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Right, this point is important. Although I am skeptical that there was a legal threat (I described it as "silliness"), NLT blocks are not usually permanent; they're just formally indefinite. They're reversed as soon as the party withdraws the threat. If Fahrenheit451 clarifies that no threat was intended, we would be done here. Cool Hand Luke 17:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Fellows, this isn't even a threat: "I hereby refuse this contract and any hidden contracts or contracts of adhesion connected with it. This is done in accordance with State of Florida Law. I reserve all rights under the Uniform Commercial Code. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)" That's all he said; be reasonable about it. DurovaCharge! 17:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC) When you state that you want X to happen or not to happen according to some law (now matter how incorrect your understanding of the applicability of said law is), then you are necessarily stating that legal action will be forthcoming unless you get the desired compliance. I fail to understand how you could not see this. — Coren (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC) We deal with similar situations all the time in copyright disputes, and unless the editor specifically threatens a consequence we ignore the spurious reasoning. DurovaCharge! 17:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Then you are being generous in your enforcement of NTL— I'm supposing here that copious assumptions of good faith on your part are the primary reason. In this case, we are discussing someone who has had years to learn our policies, and who went out of their way to make a legal statement/disclaimer in multiple fora. — Coren (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

(arbitrary break)

I don't know whether that is a threat, but legal threats do not have to be explicit. See e.g.[10][11] NLT blocks are indefinite in form only. As soon as Fahrenheit451 clarifies that no threat is intended, user should be unblocked. Cool Hand Luke 18:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - the whole point of WP:NLT is that invoking legal language is not conducive to a useful discussion here. Most of us aren't lawyers, making it hard to assess the legal validity of such comments, and I think we all shudder at the thought of being involuntarily drawn into some sort of litigation. I don't want to interact with someone who's throwing out various legal disclaimers and citing law. Chances are it's just empty intimidation, like 99% of the people who make legal threats here, but who wants to take the chance? This is a volunteer endeavor. You'll find volunteers mighty scarce if disputes degrade into assertions of law. MastCell ^Talk 18:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It does not look like a legal threat to this lawyer. Bearian (talk)

Thats the problem - No Legal Threats isn't only actual threats under law(suit), but the chilling effect resulting from the perception of legal threat. If it takes a lawyer to figure out it isn't a legal threat, its enough of one to be a problem.--Tznkai (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It didn't look like any threat to me, and I'm no lawyer. Durova^Charge! 18:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The perception of legal threat rationale does not stick in this case; I would know too well what it covers given that it was the Haines case that precipitated the change in policy. Also, in an instance like this, education and warnings are a must. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Ridiculous block.What exactly is the threat presumed to be? I see no threat - the laws in England state "thou shall not slander or libel" it's a statement of fact, it's not a threat. Why block for that? Giano (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hell freezes over: Giano and Durova/Ncmvocalist agree on something.

• • Well said, my good man. Durova^Charge! 18:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

yes, well, agree with this then, it's about time someone had a good look at Coren and half the rubbish he comes out with these days. Giano (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The immediate concern is whether we'll lose an editor of four years' experience who's made over 300 edits to the Borda count article, and whose only previous block was lifted by the blocking admin three years ago. Durova^Charge! 18:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Bad block in the absence of discussion. While I agree with CHL's examples above, per Bearian, this is certainly not one that warrants a block in the absence of some discussion first. Even in all my time here, there are policies/guidelines that I've either forgotten or have not come across before.

More importantly, there is an important fact/circumstance/issue in this case that the blocking administrator should've taken the effort to investigate prior to imposing a block, especially given his position in ArbCom. Namely, if this user has not actually gone through the details in the relevant Wikipedia arbitration pages, he may have no idea that Wiki-Arbitration is significantly different to typical "real life" (legal) Arbitration, where contractual consent means everything in order for that Arbitration to proceed. His statement of showing no consent seems to be in line with this (though he clearly needs to do more research too). Discussion was in dire need here, and I consider that the block should be overturned as a matter of priority.

As a btw, everyone is entitled to restate what rights they (think they) have, even if they seem or are legal - repeatedly doing so can be disruptive, but I see nothing that justifies a block in the absence of education and warnings to this effect. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Bringing us back to the top. Can we all agree that "As soon as Fahrenheit451 clarifies that no threat is intended, user should be unblocked?"--Tznkai (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not a case of here or there; it's a bad block. Even the block message is insufficient in the circumstances, and I see no reason to continue to prevent him from editing or to force an appeal. Good grief; are some arbitrators going to block me for the legalistic language I've used all over the place because they "perceive" something? He needs to do more research; the blocking admin should've done more research. It's inequitable to suggest 2 wrongs make a right, and the block should be swiftly overturned and education/discussion needs to begin. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

He hasn't been asked whether it was a threat. here's the block notice. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This was a ridiculous decision on Coren's part, and I fear that he doesn't seem to get even the basic idea of what a community like this entails. On his talk page he tries to rationalize the block by saying, "We are too big, and have too much work keeping the encyclopedia running as smoothly as it is, to take on the malcontents and protesters." Apparently he can label anyone he wants a "malcontent" and permanently block them. And, news flash, there are GOING to be protesters of certain decisions on any big site. By his explanation here, anyone who disagrees with him (including those of us here, presumably) should all just summarily get kicked off Wikipedia. This is one of the most blatant violations of common sense and common decency I've seen on this site. And this is someone on the Arbitration Committee? Any group that wants to successfully integrate ideas from multiple sources for the better of itself needs tolerance of people questioning them, otherwise they're just going to be a bunch of rubber-stamping yes men running down whatever path catches their eye trampling everyone who gets in the way. It's clear that the supposed pseudo-legal threat wasn't even the real reason for the block, it was merely having the audacity to disagree with someone on a power trip. The Scientology arbitration can continue without Fahrenheit451's direct involvement, and I think he's understandably upset at being accused there of impropriety based upon someone making sweeping accusations that anyone active on Scientology articles that opposes pro-Scientology edits must be too biased to edit there. Come on, people. This is a witch hunt twice over. We need to return to some sanity here. And if Coren can't see why this was a bad decision then he has no business being in any position of power. Let's hope he comes to his senses or someone else has the good sense to overrule him on this. DreamGuy (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I gather from reading this that you've not actually been through the 300-odd pages of evidence and workshop, closely examined any of the hundreds of battlefield articles, and examined the thousands of diffs. Summarily lynching the Scientologists is of course one option but as a great many editors on both sides of the war have been involved in, and thrive on, a great deal of impropriety, as you put, that hardly seems fair. I find it personally disappointing that you should characterize a desire to put an end to the problems that have plagued this topic for four years – and, without firm action, show every indication of continuing unabated – as a power trip but, hey, you're entitled to your opinion.  Roger Davies ^talk 20:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I certainly did not "characterize a desire to put an end to the problems that have plagued this topic for four years [...] as a power trip." The desire to end problems is a good thing. Instantly blocking someone for no good reason -- and claiming that arbitration committee members shouldn't have to put up with protesters -- is completely different. It's quite disturbing that you equate the two. DreamGuy (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but on Wikipedia who has the guts or the common decency to do that? Giano (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I think an uninvolved admin should take over the block, unblock Fahrenheit451, and clarify his intent (reblocking if necessary). I would not have made the block myself, but I understand why Coren was concerned. Cool Hand Luke 19:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that User:Roger Davies, the main target of Fahrenheit451's remarks has unblocked with precisely such a note. Thank you. Cool Hand Luke 19:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

My thanks go to Roger for this wise decision. Durova^Charge! 19:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :) And I hope you are able to sufficiently impress upon him the need for circumspection in his response to my questions, otherwise, we'll all be back at Square One.  Roger Davies ^talk 20:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, but if that happens nobody will have jumped the gun and I'll have no objection to how you run your race. Enjoy your rabbits and tortoises: I'm off to buy chocolate bunnies for the coming holiday. Durova^Charge! 20:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The unblock was probably a good idea. I am as puzzled as others here how this edit [12] (yes, I think the actual diff hasn't been provided yet) could reasonably be construed as a violation of WP:NLT. Whatever this legal mumbo-jumbo may mean, it would not have occurred to me – I'm a lawyer, though not familiar with US law at all – to see a threat of legal action in it.  Sandstein  21:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The funniest thing to me, is that—if anything—user Fahrenheit451 seems to be defiantly suggesting WikiMedia to take him or her to court, rather than the other way around. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Not a Legal Threat if the statement is a legal threat then anyone making any copyright statements (even GFDL or CC) would be making a "legal threat". Legal threats are threats of litigation or prosecution. Not statements about rights. We cannot prohibit people from stating what their rights are. We can only ask people not to edit when they are pursuing those rights in order to keep from developing either a CoI or dragging Wikipedia into a trial. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the licensing statement on my userpage must be totally unacceptable. I think I'll go and block myself now... _{joking, joking} Keegan^talk 04:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• As Roger said on F451's talk p. before the block, "The case will go ahead with you as a party, whether or not you participate". I note the proposed new policy seems to say otherwise at 2.7.3 "Editors named as parties to an arbitration case and given due notice of the case are expected to participate in the proceeding" but it then continues in 2.7.4, "Should a party to a case fail to respond ... or explictly refuse to participate in the case, the Committee may nonetheless rule on that party's conduct in his or her absence." I would appreciate a statement of just what other members of the committee agreed with this block. DGG (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• What do you mean? Coren made this block in his individual capacity. He informed other arbitrators after he blocked Fahrenheit451. Cool Hand Luke 19:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Extremely Poor block Whilst the statement maybe postured in what may appear to be legal talk, the spirit of NLT is that the statement must be a threat against another party. In this case it is clearly not and Coren acted in violation of policy, which reflects extremely poorly on himself and arbcom. There is a big difference between a legal statement that isn't a threat that was made out of cockyness (Which in this case it would appear to be) and an actualll threat to take someone to court or sue etc etc. Please use common sense and AGF   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 11:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

* Unblock immediately - There was No legal threat in his post. This was an outright bad block and it needs to be reversed. — Kosh _{Naluboutes, Nalubotes} ^{Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris} 11:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Roger Davies already unblocked F451 2 days ago... Mathsci (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Having seen a number of tax protesters on other boards, I can assure you that that statement could be a (quasi-)legal threat. I don't think F451 intended it as such. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Iman (model) vs. Iman Abdulmajid

Iman (model) was moved to Iman Abdulmajid without discussion. Discussion on the talk page suggesting that it should be at "Iman (model)" based on the name she is best known as and the occupation she is most associated with (as with Madonna (entertainer), Prince (musician), etc.). Contesting parties cite that she is best known as "Iman" not "Iman (model)" and her primary occupation is not currently modeling. Requesting an opinion from an uninvolved admin. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

By this statement I am obviously not neutral, but wouldn't her legal name now be Iman Bowie (or is that Jones - has the Thin White Dude changed his name legally?) LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I assume like many celebrities (and non celebrities too), she did not take on his name upon marriage. Syrthiss (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Even if they do change their names (after marriage), most seem to have the more notable previous name on their article (i.e Ashlee Simpson). As for Iman, I'd say common practice is to keep Iman (model), as I had never heard her last name, which is a similar circumstance of Prince & Madonna (not a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but just stating the fact that it seems that's how similar celebrities' article are handled). hmwithτ 17:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Iman is sometimes referred to as Iman Abdulmajid (her real name), Iman Bowie (due to her marriage to David Bowie), or just plain Iman. She is never, however, referred to as "Iman (model)". All of this has already been thoroughly discussed point by point in this talk page post that SummerPhD should've already linked you guys to. Middayexpress (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved administrator, I reviewed the talk page discussion. 6 participants there expressed opinions, over 2 weeks of discussion (March 25 to today). 4 of those 6 supported Iman (model), 2 Iman Abdulmajid. Both sides reviewed policy and precedent. In general, I believe that policy supports Iman (model) but not so strictly as to override good justifications and a local consensus to the contrary.

However, the consensus here on the article talk page, among the article's editors, is aligned with the policy default. Given 4:2 opinions and a policy preference for Iman (model) and 2 weeks of discussion, I believe we have a consensus to use that as the name.

I encourage anyone who disagrees strongly to continue discussion on the article talk page. I think that the consensus could conceivably change, and argue for another rename, but I think that the burden of proof at this point is on those who argue for the full name.

Article moved. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Good call, consistent with precedence. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, I appear to have miscounted. 8-P Reviewing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Argh

I did miscount. After reading the article talk page in detail a couple of times to get the sense of consensus, I scanned down it to total up the participants polling each way and misread a couple of things in doing so (thought there was another IP, and misread part of a link as another username commenting). Actual "poll" results are a neutral 2:2 of talk page participants. 2 ANI participants (Hmwith and Garion96) have weighed in here or there with support for Iman (model) as well.

I would like to request another uninvolved administrator to review and determine if consensus exists despite my ham-handed scanning and addition 8-P. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• My view would be to leave it as Iman (model). There was no discussion about moving it in the first place, and it's clearly the name that the person is best known as (a la Madonna (entertainer), whereas Beyoncé Knowles was also well-known under that name). You've got a 2:2 non-consensus, but also two other editors weighing in on the side of the original name. If an editor wants to move it from where it is now - and has been since it was created - let them start a discussion. (And I've move-protected it just in case this gets disruptive).Black Kite 23:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
• Not that it's exactly germane here, but WP:DISAMBIG and I think general practice support Iman (model) (the whole argument that she isn't called Iman (model) has to be the worst strawmen I have heard in a long time.) --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not sure we're exactly at consensus yet, but more input continues to come in, and it looks like it's tending towards Iman (model), which I supported at the Talk page. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Archive protection

Resolved

 – Doesn't look like this is going anywhere. — Jake Wartenberg 20:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I imagine Village Pump would be the place to bring this up but before doing so, it'd be nice to see what, if any, consequences would result from this proposal. It seems that at times, archive pages get vandalized. And who has the thousands of archived pages on their watchlist? Not I. You? So, what about an auto-full-protect of archive pages related to the various notice boards, such as this one, ANI, etc.? And of course archive pages of AfD, MfD, RfA, RfB, etc. This would also do away with the many "This is an archive, don't edit it!" banners on archive pages. Thoughts, opinions, trouts? - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 18:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too sure. I think there are probably times when it is appropriate to edit talk pages - see my relevant proposal at WP:VPR for adding {{Reflist}}s to them. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Our huggle army probably catches most of it. –xeno (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The admin archive pages do get vandalized. I've found it useful to watchlist a few of them: one long term vandal tends to edit his own ban discussion when he returns on new socks. That archive page is a useful honeypot. Durova^Charge! 19:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

@Jerry1250: that couldn't be done via {{editprotected}} on the archive page's talk page? For example, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive189 would be fully protected and any changes needing made to it could be brought up on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive189 with the editprotected template. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 20:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There are several reasons why archive pages might one day need to be edited (updating redirects that have been retargeted, for example). Forcing people to use edit protected requests in these cases to stop vandalism once in a while doesn't strike me as a net benefit. –xeno (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (I'm assuming you mean me!) Yes, but the currently proposal is for clearing the backlog i.e. the equivalent of hundreds of PERs. I'm not sure that's going to pass anyway (I was merely testing the water, as you are here), but it's just one point to be considered. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this would create a huge backlog but I guess it could add to the work in a sense. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 20:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't we have a bot that watches all archives and update one page that we can watch? That should ease detecting vandals. — Edokter • Talk • 20:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Is a useful honepot. Moreover, they get edited on occasion for legitimate uses. Since they are all NOINDEXED vandalism is not a serious concern. Net benefit is negative. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
• Archive pages are often edited en-masse by people removing old signatures when they do not want their name/pseudonym associated with an account any more. I don't like the idea of people having to bug admins to do that (but, to be honest, the fact they do it bugs me anyway). I would support such a proposal. Shouldn't be too hard to get a bot to do all the protecting. J Milburn (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I would strongly support such a proposal, too. This is a problem with an easy, common sense solution. In fact, if we made the archive bots adminbots, full protection could be applied to article talk and user talk archives, too. — Jake Wartenberg 00:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• I'd like to think that one doesn't have to gain administrator privileges merely in order to be a WikiGnome. Uncle G (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • One probably shouldn't be wikignoming talkpage archives, if I understand you correctly. Can you elaborate a little bit? — Jake Wartenberg 01:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I've done WikiGnoming in archives a few times. For example, I removed confusing TFD notices which came with Template:Smile (before I became an admin), and I retargetted links in very old signatures, such as changing links to LMS so they point to User:LMS. Sometimes, bad subpage links need to be fixed, such as this edit to an RFA talk page archive, or discussions need to be moved to or from an archive page, such as my edits to Talk:Astrology/Archive 1. I've even moved around discussions in noticeboard archives for readability, like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive27 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive29,. Having said all that, I've found that most edits to archive pages are unhelpful, but are usually made in good faith (e.g. spelling fixes). I don't think that we should deny non-admins the ability to tweak archive pages, if they find that it's necessary. Graham87 09:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I regularly gnome Talk archives to add better templates, such as Template:atn, which provides much easier navigation of multiple archives. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Hmm. You both make really good points, though we still have {{editprotected}}. I would say that giving the bots the ability to edit protected pages still makes sense though, as there are times when full protection is appropriate. We just might not want to indiscriminately FP all talk page archives, and instead do so on an as needed basis. The changes that would be made to the protection policy as a result of this proposals implementation should probably reflect that. — Jake Wartenberg 18:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback all. I guess I'll let this one rest, as some valid points for not implementing this have been raised. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 01:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Complex sock investigation question...

At a recent checkuser which turned up a DavidYork71 sockfarm, see [13], one of the confirmed hits was User:Skavb, who was already blocked as a confirmed VERY ducky sock of User:YesOn8. So, does that mean that YesOn8 is another DavidYork71 personality, and should the reports on them be merged, or was Skavb misidentified as a DavidYork71 sock. The checkuser who ran it stated that Grawp socks were found on the same open proxy as DavidYork71 socks; that also further complicates the matter. Is this a case of THREE of our friends using the same proxy IP, or is it a case of two of these, formerly thought to belong to different people, really being the same person? Anybody have any ideas? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Crinsz appears to be another crossover between DY71 and YO8... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you ask on the SPI talk page - One of them may be able to disambiguate based on other behavioral evidence, user agent, etc. Or perhaps not.

I have indefinitely semiprotected Violence against women - they appear to be very focused on it, and using new throwaway accounts. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YesOn8/Archive, where I said the editing pattern, use of open proxies and user agent of YesOn8 reminded me of DY71. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 04:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Bad image/whatever the fad is

Can someone add this image (of Goatse) to the bad images list, or whatever its replacement is?

• File:Goatsehello.jpg (NSFW)

And please don't G3 it, because it's not eligible (as it was ostensibly uploaded in good faith for use in the article). Sceptre ^(talk) 00:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Made the image into a link and added a warning :/ Majorly talk 00:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I swear I already made it a link. Regardless, no disclaimers :P Sceptre ^(talk) 00:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Wow, NSFW indeed... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

User:124.185.153.3/Wayne Smith

Any idea who Wayne Smith is and why he's attacking Jimmy Wales? He seems to be Australian. 124.185.153.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/Universe_Daily. Antandrus (talk) 02:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I listed the JimmyWales domain at the local blacklist, I should take it to meta? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt. I give this guy the award for the nastiest, most vindictive spammer we've ever had (once I deleted over a thousand anti-Semitic hate-mails from him, which he shamelessly sends from the admin account on his main website). RBI and set your e-mail filters. Antandrus (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please delete and salt User talk:Harald the Magnificent

Resolved

 – Deleted, permablocked and oversighted. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please delete and salt User talk:Harald the Magnificent. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Gone. Oversight would be good too. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

PoliticianTexas sock

Resolved

 – Sock blocked Keegan^talk 20:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

AMenendez (talk · contribs) is another sock of community-banned serial-sockpuppeteer PoliticianTexas (talk · contribs). Positive evidence includes:

• Strong interest and opinions about the placement of demographic data at New Mexico. [14][15][16]
• Odd capitalizations appearing in infrequent edit summaries (Please see contribs of recent socks AndrewGirron (talk · contribs) or JWillems (talk · contribs) for more examples)
• Interest in the politics of Northern New Mexico, often manifested by the addition of local politician's parties, despite the non-partisan nature of many of New Mexico's municipal governments.[17][18]^{<-- This diff shows an IP edit that is the same range as many of PoliticanTexas' IPs, for more information please see User talk:DoriSmith/PoliticianTexas}
• Recent socks have also shown interest in New Mexico State University (see DianaRuiz (talk · contribs),[19]), particularly its athletics, which is in line with typical behavior of editing articles about New Mexican high schools and sports, especially pages involving the New Mexico Activities Association[20]

For more information refer to User talk:DoriSmith/PoliticianTexas. –Synchronism (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I've had a history with this sockmaster, it seems to be the same sock of PT. Dayewalker (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Not to be trite, suspected sock puppets is that away. Proper place for investigation. Keegan^talk 07:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You're not being trite. Because he is a community-banned serial puppeteer, it is routine and in accordance with guidelines to bring it here first, I've been told[21]. —Synchronism (talk) 07:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Er, this should have been posted at ANI, actually, sorry to disrupt this board.Synchronism (talk) 07:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, regardless of what you have been told, WP:SPI is the proper place BECAUSE, unlike this board or WP:ANI, cases are collated by sockmaster, making it easier to track long term abuse. It is almost impossible to keep track of all of the socks of a user like this here or at WP:ANI in the same way that one can at WP:SPI. Plus, since checkusers regularly patrol SPI, IPs and hidden sockfarms can be taken care of as well, where they may not here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

These cases show clear socking, so clear that a request for checkuser might be denied as being unnecessary. PoliticianTexas socks have been generally handled at ANI, I don't know why. Data on the sockmaster is painstakingly compiled at User talk:DoriSmith/PoliticianTexas, including a listing of all relevant ANI discussions. The first time I found one of his socks I opened a SPI, and was told that THAT was unnecessary and that I should take it to the AN subpage. Maybe it would have been better to just not report it at all, if no matter where and how it is reported it is viewed as the wrong process, if its content goes largely uncommented and especially if admin action remains to be done hours later. I reposted this thread to ANI, and once again sorry -Synchronism (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh, based on this thread I can see how and why you are frustrated with our bureaucratic crap. Apologies to you for the inconvenience, you don't own anyone an apology for working on this. I had time today to review the compiled evidence v the account, and it has been blocked. Happy editing to you, Synchronism. Keegan^talk 20:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

American tax dollars at work

Does anyone else find it odd that a Department of Justice IP is editing an article on a still open murder case? - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 09:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No more odd than such edits being reverted despite being apparently factually accurate, presumably because Teh Gubmints Are Evil. Guy (Help!) 15:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I am not sure why the fact that it is from a Department of Justice IP is a problem unless there is specific information that can be provided in diffs as to why this is a pressing CoI concern. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a problem or not allowed.. I said.. odd.. still open murder case. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 19:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bit odd, but it might just be some random clerk following a news story he/she is interested in. Unless we hear something about leaks in the investigation, I wouldn't worry about it too much. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• I don't find it odd at all. Why don't you invite them to register an account and help build our coverage of legal issues? Protonk (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

A DoJ employee making edits to an open murder case article.. of which the DoJ may be involved in trying to solve.. and you don't find it odd? Alrighty then. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 01:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If DoJ were involved, it would definitely be odd. But I don't see why they would be involved at this point. Looie496 (talk) 02:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• DOJ is a big department. And I'm not sure that anyone from DOJ is directly involved w/ the murder investigation itself or its prosecution. This is a little different from a house IP address editing the bio of a congressman. Protonk (talk) 03:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's odd and--on the face of it--very possibly improper in terms of their own internal ethics if they either are involved or may become involved. Not so much in terms of our own policies. Potential conflict of interest which ought to be declared. Other than that, so long as the edits are productive and not vandalism, not actually our problem. Enough to raise an eyebrow if one takes an interest in that sort of thing: the editor, the editor's (probable) IT department, and their PR/management assume a risk that the next incarnation of the Wikiscanner will track it, or that some intrepid reporter may discover the action. All things being equal I'd prefer not to see Wikipedia associated with such instances at all, but we're structually vulnerable to it. Durova^Charge! 04:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the article United States Department of Justice the DOJ has some 112,500+ employees. There are all kinds of folks working in an organization that size: secretaries, IT people, janitors, accountants, cafeteria staff, you name it. Nothing "odd" about an IT guy who happens to work for a government editing Wikipedia on his coffee break. No drama, no Illuminati, move on, nothing to see here. 88.112.62.225 (talk) 06:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

What I find weird is a U.S. Department of Justice employee using British spellings like "criticised". —Angr 12:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing odd about a government employee editing Wikipedia during a coffee break, unless s/he chooses to edit an article that does (or soon could) pertain to a departmental investigation. Durova^Charge! 14:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the press would have our understanding qualities... – Toon^(talk) 15:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why, unless they're drumming up sensationalism. This case is still in the hands of the DC city police. The DoJ shouldn't be involved in the case at all right now. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Check the history on the WikiScanner. After the press milked headlines out of one CIA IP address making useful tweaks to the Buffy the Vampire Slayer article, nothing is surprising. It's not our risk (and this might as well be marked resolved), but I wonder how more organizations don't learn from that example. Durova^Charge! 20:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for editnotice

Hi, we at WP:EAR would like to request that an administrator create an editnotice. See WT:EAR#Request to add editnotice for the request and code. Thanks! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

•  Done by the excellent Uncle G. Guy (Help!) 15:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Spam template

Is it just me or is this a spam template? {{Modelref}}. It links to a load of arbitrarily selected sites including at least one that was previously blacklisted. Should we really be encouraging this kind of thing? Guy (Help!) 17:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well if the sites are legit, I don't see a problem. Anything blacklisted should be removed from the template of couse. There is at least one precedent with geographic coordinates that link to a truckload of map sites. If that worked, I'm sure the people editing movie articles would gladly have a template that links to imdb, rotten tomatoes, metacritics and whatever reference sites are commonly in use... Equendil Talk 17:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Links are not supposed to eb decorative, though. This amounts to an official endorsement of sites that are in some cases just paparazzi twaddle. Guy (Help!) 19:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Further, does this template just link to the site, rather than to the article subject's listing on the site? If so, I would be very much inclined to agree with Guy. J Milburn (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The template docs say that it links to specific model info if the necessary id's are given as parameters. Looie496 (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ferris Bueller's Day Off in popular culture

Resolved

Hello, Ferris Bueller's Day Off in popular culture underwent an AfD discussion, and there was no consensus. The closing admin suggested a discussion to merge, and this discussion started at Talk:Ferris Bueller's Day Off#Requested merge on April 5. Sufficient time has passed with enough opinions weighing in, and I ask for an uninvolved admin to review the discussion and determine what the consensus is, if any. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I've closed the thread as merge and done so. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

User talk:MacGyverMagic#List of highest grossing Tamil-language films

Someone contacted me about deleting an article, but I don't feel comfortable doing it myself because I was the nominator in the related AFD. Could another administrator make a judgement, perform an appropriate rename/merge action, or help the user in question mount a DRV? - Mgm|^(talk) 22:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Since List of highest-grossing Bollywood films exists, what's the problem? The article is a mess because people are putting in what they think are the "best" films which is not objective. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Shahid misreads the AfD; the consensus was for the deletion of the "top" lists, not of the highest-grossing lists. One may, to be sure, remove from the article content for the exclusion of which a consensus exists (here, I gather, the "critically acclaimed" sections), but article deletion, in the absence of a new AfD (which is, I note, likely to result in a "keep", consistent with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing Bollywood films, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing films, and [OTHERSTUFFEXISTS notwithstanding] the apparently uncontroversial existence of various other lists of highest-grossing films by country and language) is inappropriate. 69.212.22.27 (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I closed the related AfD, and received a similar request. I was uncomfortable with deleting this additional article because a) I don't see that it was discussed specifically in the AfD, which is often an issue in multiple noms. And b) the person requesting states an intention to replace the article anyway, so I see no reason to expunge the previous history of the article. I am happy for a consensus here to overrule this opinion, however. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Harassment and intimidation

Resolved

 – No admin action required —Travis^talk 02:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Daedalus969 has taken it upon themselves to flag my user and talk pages with a box claiming that "This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia". As you may have already noticed from my ability to edit here, this is demonstrably not the case.

This action is part of a pattern of aggressive and abusive behavior by Daedalus969 and it has more than crossed the line. I am requesting that they be blocked, not indefinitely, but long enough that they think twice the next time they get it into their head that they can harass and intimidate users. Spotfixer (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should ask Daedalus why he added the tag to your user/user talk pages instead of coming to WP:AN. I think it was simply an error. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, could you please provide some diffs as evidence of this pattern of aggressive and abusive behaviour? Cheers, – Toon^(talk) 23:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I assume he is referring to this. Tiptoety ^talk 23:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, I meant the other pieces of the "pattern of aggressive and abusive behavior by Daedalus969" – Toon^(talk) 23:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Haven't heard from Daedalus969 yet but as someone who's seen D969 in action, he is a tireless vandal fighter. He's a real bulldog about disruptive users, vandals, and socks. Not to tag Spotfixer with any of those labels, but since SF has been blocked seven different times in this calendar year, D969 may have misread one of them and assumed SF was indefinitely blocked. Dayewalker (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

And you hit the nail right on the head. I made a mistake, no need to create needless drama, please mark this thread closed and we can get on with our editing.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

But of course, assuming SF will continue to press this matter on, I eagerly await this aparrent evidence he has against me.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

So are we saying that Spotfixer brought this here without discussing it with Daedalus969 first? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

We aren't saying that, that's what happened. He came to this noticeboard first, then, about 20 minutes later he came to me, without ever even hinting at the ANI discussion.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I do believe that the previous question was posted with tongue planted firmly in cheek. In any case, this is a frivolous report. —Travis^talk 02:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Open Proxy that needs to be blocked

207.97.213.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As seen here, the IP states that it is an open proxy owned by some company. Per our policy regarding open proxies, and the vandalism we've been getting from it, it needs to be blocked.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Port 80 is open, so blocked. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

While the diff is certainly evidence enough, who doesn't have port 80 open? Chillum 03:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Its actually a CGI proxy in this case, [22]. Mr.Z-man 03:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Today's featured article semi-protected since last year.

Resolved

I tried to bring up this subject at Talk:Main Page, but nobody seems to be monitoring there tonight. Anyway, I noticed that today's featured article, Emma Watson, is under semi-protection and has been since last May. It has always been my own understanding that semi-protection is not preferred in the daily featured article unless there's a pressing reason for it, which I fail to see in this case. I'm thinking the semi-protection should be lifted- at least for as long as the article's linked to from the main page. Ashanda (talk) 06:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Done by User:SoWhy here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both very much! Ashanda (talk) 06:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of indefinitely blocked user talk pages

I have raised the issue of deleting the user talk pages of indefinitely blocked editors at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Deletion of indefinitely blocked user talk pages. Comments and suggestions are welcome. --Vassyana (talk) 09:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Long-term, very slow vandalism

I received a very cryptic message from Maine Is 28th (talk · contribs) today, which led me to check out his/her contributions. I found an editing pattern consisting primarily of inserting nonsense words into various articles, including some related to professional wrestling. The editing pattern is similar to blocked vandal User:Tip Ipp Ipp and his suspected sock puppets (although, notably, Maine Is 28th hasn't yet used the telltale "ba-limp" phrase). However, the fact that he/she messaged me in particular without my having reverted any of Maine's vandalism is suspicious, since I did have some interactions with Tip Ipp Ipp and his puppets.

(A little background: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/63.164.47.2 (2nd), Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive321#User:XusSatyrtn, disruptive edits, possible sock of blocked user, User:EyeSerene/Archive7#Thank You!)

Maine Is 28th's vandalism is very slow, but even so, much of it had gone unreverted before I took a look. Powers ^T 11:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

-- Powers ^T 11:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoever it is, based on this comment removal on Gwen Gale's talkpage a few months back, they maybe a sock of The27thmaine (talk · contribs). D.M.N. (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked indefinitely. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

There's definitely a connection; the user whose talk page was being discussed there, Watermelon Eet Choo Weets (talk · contribs), is listed as a sock of 63.164.47.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who appears to be the designated puppeteer. My guess would be that the Maine Is 28th username was created as a parody of The27thMaine, but I might be wrong and The27thMaine might be involved. The27thMaine certainly seems legit, though, based on his/her editing history and user page. Our friend the vandal doesn't go to the trouble of trying to look legitimate. Is it time for a long-term abuse entry on this person? Powers ^T 13:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Image violates law?

 Done File:G839.jpg may be in violation of Counterfeit Detection Act of 1992 as it depicts both sides of a 500 dollar but Template:Money-US (which it uses) states that one of the requirements of this law is that "The illustration is one-sided;" (If this is the wrong place for this then oops but I don't know where else to put it) --Wanders1 (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The illustration is one-sided, but depicts both sides of the note. Given the objects of that legislation, I doubt there's a problem, and anyone who tried to use it as real currency would deserve all they got. Rodhullandemu 13:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not American, but there's no current $500 note that is legal tender anyway is there? Black Kite 13:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

They're still legal tender, but you'd get very funny looks if you tried to use one. – iridescent 14:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a one sided representation. If you printed it out with each side of the bill on both sides of the same piece of paper then that would be an issue. Nobody is going to accept that picture as money, so I don't see how it could be seen as a counterfeit. Chillum 14:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh, this type of discussion shows up how obsolete that law is. It's fairly simple to bring into clear and full compliance: split into two images, rotate and crop so it displays better, and resize so it is absolutely positively more than 1.5 times the size of an actual $500 bill. Now in compliance with Act of 1992, Public Law 102-550, in Section 411 of Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations, I am deleting all files used in creation of the following images. Suggest deleting File:G839.jpg per the above, and since it isn't really needed anymore. Durova^Charge! 14:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• File:500 bill front.jpg
• File:500 bill back.jpg

image deleted as replaced by the two above Gnangarra 14:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Alastair Haines

Alastair Haines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked several times for legal posturing, most recently indefinitely. I have looked through this and I think that the best way to avoid a repeat of the source of the OTRS complaint #2009040310049955 which triggered this request to the arbitrators is to protect AH's talk page to prevent recurrence of defamatory comments, and leave a note there to enable him to contact OTRS if there is a need for courtesy blanking of any debate pages he feels are problematic. I am just off to do that.

As an aside, there is a question as to whether we should interpret WP:BLP as covering comments made on a talk page of a user who is publicly identifiable. I would say that this is consistent with a small-c conservative interpretation of that policy, along with the more widely accepted policies on user-to-user interaction. In other words, I would suggest we should accede without fuss to any request to courtesy blank in meta-discussion any material which references a readily-identifiable real world identity and which we would consider problematic in a biography. That's just a statement of my POV here, and a justification for protecting the page to prevent further problems.

Not quite how I expected to spend my day off :-) Guy (Help!) 16:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with this method to cope with the problem, offhand. — Coren ^(talk) 18:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP states in pertinent part that it applies to "any Wikipedia page" (italics in original), and Wikipedia:BLP#Non-article space says the same thing at greater length. It would thus seem that we should treat unsourced derogatory statements about editors who use their real name the same as we would treat such statements about any other person in an article. Against this, one could argue that, as opposed to the proverbial man on the street, Wikipedia users who contribute identifiable information do so voluntarily, knowing the risks associated with reading one's name on a very high-profile website. But that argument would be unpersuasive: We explicitly extend BLP protection to all living persons, including public figures who make their living by throwing their name around as widely as possible, such as celebrities. It would make no sense to protect these, but not our own contributors, who are generelly far less avid self-promoters.

Accordingly, I agree with Guy. But I would make an exception for:

• ongoing discussions about the conduct of the user at issue, and
• discussions to which the user at issue has contributed, which can be construed as implicit consent to the association of his name with the discussion.

In such discussions, only patently derogatory material, such as insults, should be removed (as it would if directed against any other user), and then only to the extent that the discussion itself remains understandable.  Sandstein  20:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

hmmmm... I was rather hoping the talk page would actually be unprotected to allow Alastair a sensible means of communication - I still think that's the best idea. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#gigantic_boobs for my, and others' thoughts. Privatemusings (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Given past legal threats, questions of baiting and failure to identify the supposed locus of other complaints, I think directing him to OTRS is the best course. You're flogging a dead horse at RFAR, they are extremely unlikely to take action based on the complaint you make there, especially as there do not seem to be any prior attempts at resolution. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's be kind to the fellow and courtesy blank the material that offends him. It doesn't seem to be vital to the encyclopedia's functioning and we have other things to work on that are more central to our project's mission. Durova^Charge! 22:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Policy question

Resolved

 – No worries here. –xeno (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Could someone clarify the policy on moving an article space page WHILE it is in an ongoing AfD discussion? I can't seem to find anything on it. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 16:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless it is the location of the page that is at issue, I don't see a huge problem with it... Is there a specific case you're talking about? –xeno (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't see a problem unless it's an attempt to avoid the AfD outcome. – Toon^(talk) 16:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The location isn't the issue but someone's vote! for a renaming option prompted the page to be moved by the original creator. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama (disambiguation). - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 16:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the problem. The AfD still links to the article. If you feel that it was a bad move, you can always move it back. Be the R in BRD, as it were. But it looks like an improvement to me and we certainly shouldn't stop improving an article because it is at AfD. Quite the opposite. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is perfectly fine and a more accurate name. Barack Obama (disambiguation) should really be used to disambiguate between notable Barack Obama's, but I think there's only one at present. –xeno (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirection request

Resolved

Hello everybody. Im not sure if this is the right place for my request. Now, you will surely tell me, if this is the case. I write this, because I need the help of an administrator. It has to do with the following article: Jacob Westervelt. Actually the common/usal name of the person, which is described in this article is Jacob Aaron Westervelt. I cant move the article, because the article Jacob Aaron Westervelt already exists (redirection to Jacob Westervelt).

I wrote a huge article (60kb - 150 hours of work) about Jacob Aaron Westervelt, that I would like to upload as soon as the old article is moved. I also wrote an article about Jacob Westervelt (a sheriff and Assistant Alderman, who lived in the same period as Jacob Aaron). There is even a third man called Jacob Westervelt, but I have not written an article about him yet.

My idea: making a disambiguation page from the current Jacob Westervelt-page, and creating a new page for Jacob Westervelt (Sheriff). Could anybody help me? With kind regards --Rectilinium'♥' 19:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The best place to request this is WP:Requested moves. – ukexpat (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops looks like someone is working on it already. – ukexpat (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've moved it to Jacob Aaron Westervelt over the redirect - leaving Jacob Westervelt yet to be created. Go forth and disambiguate! In future the best place is, as Ukexpat states, WP:RM. – Toon^(talk) 19:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast! Thank you very much Toon05 and Ukexpat... :)--Rectilinium'♥' 19:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Did it... I hope it is ok like that...--Rectilinium'♥' 19:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

IP vandal

I just reverted the last four contributions from this IP user. Because it's a shared IP and it's been blocked before, but it doesn't look like the IP is currently engaged in a vandalism spree this instant, I really wasn't sure where to report it. If you've got future guidance for where I should ask about these (or if I shouldn't bother at all), please let me know - thanks. Townlake (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, not much to do with that IP anymore (no vandalism in about the last hour as of time stamp). In the future, if you see that it had resumed vandalism about now after a break, report it to WP:AIV. If you had caught it ongoing, same place. If you notice it after the editing has ceased, leave a strongly worded warning on the talk page just in case. We aren't prone to blocking if the disruption has ceased. Thanks, Townlake. Keegan^talk 20:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing - and thanks for the helpful response. Townlake (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Userpage redirect to article?

Resolved

Hi, not sure if this is something worthy of anyone's attention. I noticed that User:Phdmaven redirects to an article authored by that editor. I was wondering about the appropriateness of that, and whether it would lead to confusion from people who try to navigate to this editor's talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Looks like he wrote the article on his userpage, and then moved it into articlespace, leaving a redirect behind. I've simply removed the redirect. Black Kite 22:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

nudie pics on user pages

Resolved

 – No need for admin intervention

G'day all - I recently had this chat with User:WebHamster, whose userpage features a nudie pic. I'm unaware of the practice / guidelines / policy in this area (nudie pics on userpages) so thought I'd come here for a pointer - is there some sort of generally accepted practice in this regard? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

ps. I generally think that we urgently need to tighten up policy and practice concerning sexual content on wikipedia - I've written an essay about it, if anyone's interested (this is not safe for work, and I'm advised to note that you shouldn't follow that link unless you are over 18, or the age of majority in your neighbourhood). Privatemusings (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

W8, but I thought that wikipedia is not censored? (not that I look at porn anything). I think that they should be free to do anything harmless on their userpages. --Montgomery' 39 (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

On what basis should it be removed? Editors of the encyclopedia are already familiar with the broad scope of the project, which includes articles on matters of a sexual nature (with images) and should have the sense to simply avoid pages that have material they find distasteful - and it isn't as if anyone need go to a userpage to contact the editor. Readers of the encyclopedia are extremely unlikely to go to an editors page, even if they know such things exist - and those that do know are likely as familiar as editors on the range of subjects and images provided on these pages and should be able to handle them. So, why does it need to be trimmed? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

gotta commend you on the use of the word 'trimmed' in this context :-) - I'm just genuinely after any pointers to current practice is all - is it fair to say that there's no problem with any pictures on userpages or in userspace? Seems so...... Privatemusings (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You tried to do this before and it didnt work. repeat after me: wikipedia is not censored. deal with it. //roux   22:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

First they came... Gwen Gale (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec*lots)I've seen this come up before, and the general consensus has always seemed to be that they're ok since Wikipedia is not censored. However I'm not sure I agree with this since there is a difference between not censoring ourselves from showing images that are relevant and simply hosting pictures, many or which are probably copyrighted anyway, a lot look professionally done, and several that don't are of people who most likely don't know there image has ended up here. Added to this the fact that most of these images are used nowhere outside of userspace, and there doesn't seem to be much logic behind keeping these. Having said that, are they actually hurting anyone? The whole 18 thing is a bit of a moot point since even the most innocuous of google image searches can have unexpected results(I'm reminded of a time back in college in a computer room lesson the results of an image search for a picture of some historical figure included a naked transexual man) and the internet is filled with easily accesible porn. Also, many of these images are on commons, who we have no control over--Jac16888^Talk 22:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I recall your ramblings about censorship before and as you were told then and above Wiki is NOT censored. BigDunc^Talk 22:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think we can mark this thread as resolved for no violation of any policies and thus no reason for admin intervention. If you think it should be removed, ask the user nicely or use WP:MFD but no policy forbids using such images in userspace like it does not forbid them elsewhere. If it violates WP:NOT#WEBHOST, WP:MFD is the way to go. Regards SoWhy 22:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless there's a copyright issue, I'm not sure why we should care. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Privatemusings's conversation with the user acknowledges that it's a political statement of opposition to the former president of the United States. So while it's a crude pun, It's arguably defensible. Stumbled across this conversation shortly after dropping a few boobies and tits on PM's own user talk (unrelated discussion, serendipitous coincidence). And Privatemusings seemed to enjoy the sight of them--so who are we to judge? Best, Durova^Charge! 22:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)