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

Hidden page game

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

Arbitration has opened. Please pursue the matter at that venue. Durova^Charge! 03:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

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

It's pointless Myspacery that is more-or-less impossible to stamp out without expending an enormous amount of energy. //roux   22:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But what exactly is the problem? Even creating accounts for such a game would be acceptable under our policies because socks are bad because they are used to circumvent and manipulate. If the second account is only used for something like that, where is the harm? SoWhy 22:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

(ecx2)I'm pretty sure this has been discussed somewhere (or was that some other silly/harmless/even-sillier-than-that pastime of the junior 'pedians?) It's a wee bit MySpacey, but--like those annoying fake "new message" bars, and increasingly goofy userboxen, and all the rest of the kerfuffles--since it hasn't broken the 'pedia yet, most people smile indulgently and hope the participants get bored with it quickly. (And then there are those who rant and holler and yell "THIS IS WIKIPEDIA! It's not supposed to be FUN!!", but again--most people just smile indulgently at THEM, and hope they get bored with their sanctimony.)

So--short form: it's probably all right, though (IMHO) quite silly and pointless. I'm happy to be disagreed with, however.GJC 22:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

How is this even a "game"? Surely such pages show up in trivial special:allpages queries (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AllPages&namespace=2&from=Wikidemon), and so aren't "hidden" at all? 87.112.17.229 (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Per the below using certain tools is considered cheating, like opening your eyes while counting in hide and go seek (another silly but endearing game that can be dangerous if taken to extremes)[1]Wikidemon (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

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

(edit conflict) Apparently using Prefixindex, et al, is considered "cheating"; also, as Wikidemon pointed out, a lot of users will create alternate accounts and hide the secret pages in their userspace. This page outlines some of the more general "rules" for the games, as well as some of the arguments cited for and against these. As for how to handle them, you're welcome to start up an MfD for any you find; this discussion held that these should be considered on a case-by-case basis, although there was a clear consensus that hiding secret pages in the userspace of a sock account was unacceptable.

Personally I think these are a waste of time, but unless I happen to notice one that's really ridiculously over the top, or notice that someone's not doing anything but this (as Protonk just alluded to), I'm not going to go hunting them down. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I've seen several thread like this about "guestbook" pages. So long as there's no violation of NPA, I don't understand what the big deal is. Wikipedia has grown to be one of the top sites on the web, so we're going to attract a lot of young users. That's not a bad thing. They are the future of this site. I understand that guestbooks and game pages aren't encyclopedic, but do we really want to chase off the editors of the future - and get a reputation for being so stuffy. I'd say welcome the new generation, and gently guide them into productivity. After all, we are supposed to not WP:Bite — Ched (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

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

We really should be cracking down on people using Wikipedia for purposes other than building an encyclopedia. Games are great, but if they aren't somehow related to our goal(like playing Whack-A-Mole at WP:AIV) then it does not belong here. There are lots of wikis out there for that kind of thing. Chillum 00:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I know you're an admin and all Chillum, but I just don't agree with you on this one. If we "hook-em" to use the site, and then we guide them into being productive - it just seems to be a win win situation to me. In a couple years - these "kids" will be admins., I think it's better that they have positive memories of their first edits. A couple K of disk space isn't that big a deal. — Ched (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

@KP Botany - one $200 1Tb HD can handle all the text they can throw at us. And I'm sure Brion can handle the bandwidth. — Ched (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to be the fun police. The editor is what is related to our goal. If we piss off someone and send them packing we forgo their future contributions and any positive word of mouth they may offer. This is why we don't have a 90/10 rule like conservapedia. It is why we should apply some common sense when talking about this sort of thing. If someone's only edits (or the bulk of their edits) are to their myspacey user page, sure, nuke it. But if we have people making a reasonable amount of contributions to the encyclopedia, I don't see the benefit of getting our knickers in a twist because someone just isn't "following the rules." Just click "unwatch" and it will be better. Protonk (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

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

You're going to alienate a heck of a lot of people if you start going down this road. I've noticed many editors take as much pride in their (admittedly sometimes silly) user pages as they do in the content they produce or the administrivia they're involved in. And besides, what are you going to use as criteria? The number of user boxes? Bad color combinations? Images of frogs? There should be some sort of speedy delete option for user pages that are obviously spam (and on Wikipedia, therefore heavily indexed), but other than that... leave them alone :) §FreeRangeFrog 03:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

CSD-G11 applies to blatant spam in all namespaces. Any userpage that is promotional can easily be blanked and {{NOINDEX}}'d or deleted under G11. (Just FYI). Protonk (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I say let them do it, but if you catch them, kindly ask them to donate $10 to the foundation to cover the cost of their game-playing on the server space. And, quite frankly, no individual page hide-and-seeker is actually ever going to generate $10 worth of expense. bd2412 T 03:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

But we are already getting free labor from them. :) Protonk (talk) 03:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

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

No, that would be absurd. What is being argued is that this little crappy game is of no real harm; and that eradicating it from Wikipedia would, pragmatically speaking, take away editing time from admins and others which could be used for more productive uses. No one has claimed that the entirety of Wikipedia's policy against using it primarily as a social networking site has been brought down by people playing this silly game. What is being argued is that it, while a nuisance, is not really worth fighting. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

And I have no problem with admins doing so. What I have a problem with is demanding that admins delete them. I don't cry when they are gone, but I do not wish to be told which parts of my volunteer job I must do... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you have to look at this kind of thing on a case-by-case basis. I've actually had some users worry that comments to each other are too friendly. Wikipedia is supposed to be a community, and friendly communication nurtures that climate. The issue comes down to what someone is primarily doing on wikipedia. The primary purpose is to make the product as valuable to the reading public as it can be. If someone comes here primarily for the purpose of networking, that's obviously not serving the purpose. But that does not mean we should discourage networking among those who have the proper primary goal of wikipedia in mind. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Assuming you mean that you're just speedying them with no process MZMcBride, I'm curious as to what CSD category you feel they meet. I don't think there's a "we've deleted this kind of thing before so we're not doing an MFD this time" CSD category...--Dycedarg ж 05:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

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

(ec X 2)Bugs, you're conflicted out of this one due to User:Baseball Bugs/hidden. I'm telling Elmer Fudd. Wikidemon (talk) 05:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

this thread sure grew to be a hot topic. I know you guys (adminz) have a lot of stuff to cover here, so - I started a thread at WP:NOT here. Seems like a topic that should be talked out. And while I do think we need to lighten up a little, I also understand what Uncle G means when he states "...solely in order to play these games." By the way - is the prefindex thing supposed to be a big secret? — Ched (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Policy is fairly clear about using Wikipedia for off topic purposes. Any idea in acting otherwise needs to start at the relevant policy's talk page and gain consensus. Until then we should continue not allowing these things as we have for years. Ched's posting at WT:NOT is a great start. Chillum 17:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I greatly oppose having these 'hidden page' games like this. It's pointless, and it needs to stop (hopefully). Versus22 _talk 20:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Tell anyone with one of these pages that they'll never pass an RfA due to it, and watch how quickly they disappear. Most of the editors with these kind of pages are simply here to try and become an administrator (and most will fail for that exact reason). Daniel (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Delete them, whatever happened to the yearly donation drives and precious server space if we allow such things like this to occur? Hypocrite, much? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I checked the editor of the one mentioned, [User:Bahamut0013/Secret pages], and found a remarkable amount of useful contributions in an area where we need work. I have no problem suggesting to the people who come here only to play that they do some work or go elsewhere, but I am not going to discourage contributors like that. the ratio of useful/useless edits is at least 100/1. They're worth a lot more than $10. DGG (talk) 05:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

That's kind of like saying that if a person steals a [thinks randomly] deckchair from Wal-Mart, it's not expensive and they won't make much of a loss. But because Wal-Mart don't make their resources available for that purpose (their land, their heating, lighting, and the deckchair), they need to draw the line there rather than allow more than one person to go and start stealing things.

I'm sure there's all sorts of things wrong with that analogy, but I hope that my meaning is clear... ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The meaning is clear, but what's wrong with the analogy is the trouble. To equate use of userspace with theft is a little troubling, but even if we agree with the comparison, we have to attach some value for the contributions made by the editors. We don't pay them (er...us). So maybe we can think of it as employing a carpenter to make a desk and letting them take home the joining material. Or whatever you like. They are adding to the encyclopedia. If they choose to not add to the encyclopedia because we don't let them fool around in userspace, that is a net loss for us. We've gained the joining materials and lost the desk. Protonk (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

It could be argued that it would be harmless if I used Wikipedia for my shopping lists, or to track the changes in the software I make, or to publish a local town newletter about local farming. But that is not harmless, it is a dilution of our goal to make an encyclopedia. If we allowed people to use Wikipedia that way then such content would become larger than our encyclopedia. People are always looking for free hosting.

Wikipedia has a purpose, we are not just here for the hell of it. Pretty much all major community forums with a specific topic discourage off-topic postings. We are not going to run out of users because we don't let them post off-topic content. Chillum 15:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

By that logic, we could (and should!) forbid everything that's not directly related to creating an encyclopedia, like most everything you find on user pages. Like this, for example. --Conti|✉ 15:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The "hosting" argument is played out. A hidden page consumes no more resources than this page or this page. Let's get down to it. We are "okay" with barnstars and "wikismiles" and stuff like that but we don't like hidden pages (by we I mean the people who write these policies and post in these discussions). So we look for a way to treat those as suspect while treating other material as benign. I'm not trying to make a "OMG OMG Hypocrite" argument. I'm just trying to note that our treatment of hidden pages isn't exactly on the same level as our treatment of barnstars and other things. Protonk (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

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

'Quote'"Per the below using certain tools is considered cheating, like opening your eyes while counting in hide and go seek (another silly but endearing game that can be dangerous if taken to extremes)[2]Wikidemon (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)" Is everything bad and irrespnsible t you? I feel sorry that you don't understand the word fun? Chubbennaitor 19:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't supposed to be fun. Viridae^Talk 23:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Any editor displaying signs of enjoying himself should be blocked immediately. DuncanHill (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Even though we are all volunteering our time, this is supposed to be a second job. (man, and we wonder why our editor growth rate is slowing and why we are losing admins...:/) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

MZMcBride and deletion

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

see WP:AN#Hidden page game--Jac16888^Talk 14:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Merged threads and notified MZMcBride (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). –xeno (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I was actually going to notify him after I found diffs, but sorry about that.

Looking through the logs, here are a few that he deleted (disclaimer: they could be crappy contributors, I have no idea): [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and one deleted under WP:CSD#G6, [8]. If the discussion is still ongoing, why are these being deleted? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 14:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

MZMcBride has some helpful advice for those who might complain about his deletions. Mike R (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Note, the above comment was removed as "trolling". I have restored it, because it is not trolling, but rather a valuable insight into how efforts to persuade MZMcBride to modify his behavior will likely be met. Mike R (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't quite put it that way... anyway, I apparently missed the sarcasm in your "some helpful advice". --NE2 15:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see how that helps with his page deletions. Montgomery' 39 (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:BITCH is a valid rationale. I suppose I could be lumped into the "deletionist" category, and I could care less, but less than 5% of my deletions have been contested at DRV, and less than 1% of those have been overturned. Those who often do the most complaining often have less than valid rationales. Most of the time, it is purely emotional. If people can act civil and politely ask why their page was deleted, and what they can do to improve it and/or resubmit it for inclusion, then you won't get canned responses (e.g. Go to DRV.). seicer | talk | contribs 15:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"WP:BITCH" is trolling, plain and simple. --NE2 17:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at some of the shortcuts for the page. "STFU" says it all really. --.:Alex:. 22:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Eh, this is a bit complicated. I appreciate the VestedContributor argument, however, there's also something to be said for applying the rules fairly to everyone. If we say it's not appropriate to have a "secret" or "hidden" page (and really, they obviously weren't too secret if it took ten seconds for me to find them), then it's important that we apply to rule to everyone. Otherwise we quickly run into issues of, "well, I have 50 article edits, can I have a secret page now?" and things like that. And the continued presence of these (and the related barnstars used as reward) only serves to spread this activity even further. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can can see your side of the coin now. ;) Again, I really don't care about my secret page (I had forgotten about it actually...but its deletion was a hard thing to miss on my watchlist!); I just wanted to raise this before too many were deleted and there were 25 complaints, not just one. You might want to hold off deleting them until the discussion above is finished though.... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think that is precisely the opposite of the intent here. We obviously (as you note) don't want to get into the "I have made 50 contribs, can I muck about in userspace yet?" point, but I don't see that as a real threat. I also don't see the boogeyman here. If you feel that policy is forcing you to delete these pages then we should consider changing that policy. I am very worried that we aren't thinking of this in the appropriate way, as an effective wage paid to free labor. Protonk (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

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

They don't fall under any speedy criteria. Davewild (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

One question. Why are people like this editor aloud to go round devoted to deleting pages that aren't harmful to people who don't want to find them aren't blocked? Because they aren't contributing to the encyclopedia at all. Chubbennaitor 18:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I presume the first sentence was the question and the second the answer, yes? Guy (Help!) 19:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

So they're not speedyable, which makes this IAR then. I don't think that's the best approach for this, considering the rate complaints are piling up on his talkpage someone's going to file a DRV at some point. We could just do a group MFD (like we've done before for this sort of thing) and save some unnecessary drama.--Dycedarg ж 19:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Can the BITCH page be removed? I don't think that that's offending people less than a secret page that you can only find if you look for it. It's using a swear word which I completely oppose. We come here as volunteers so what is the problem with a page that's a little fun? Chubbennaitor 19:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a problem with pages, such as don't be a dick (given the helpful acro DICK)? seicer | talk | contribs 19:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Great. Although I'm still not quite sure that'll get what I've decided to do. Plus, I'm not the best on the shortened names. Like MFD etc. Chubbennaitor 19:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Bitch isn't a swearword, its the name for a femable dog. It just happens to have been appropriated for use as an insult as well. Viridae^Talk 23:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I gather MFD would be contingent on the pages being restored first... –xeno (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Any swearing pages that have a meaning shouldn't exist it's offensive. We delete swear words on pages why not use this as sometthing as similar. What do you mean, xeno? Chubbennaitor 20:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The "secret" pages could be undeleted, then sent to WP:MFD for a proper deletion discussion. And lots of pages contain swearing - fuck, shit and so forth. WilyD 20:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. They could go to DRV but then the issues of whether the deletions were out of process and whether the pages should remain would be conflated. @Chubb, the WP:BITCH page just recently came off MFD, closed as no consensus leaning towards keep. –xeno (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, for any deletion that isn't 100% by the books, DRV is a bad option. Undelete and MFD. (Incidentally, that may be one of the merits of following the speedy deletion policy closely. There's nothing wrong with tardy deletion.) WilyD 20:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

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

So, how do you undelete the page? Montgomery' 39 (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: MZMcBride deleted information I was collecting for an article. No warning or notification given (or reason). He states "discussions have established secret pages are inappropriate". I've never seen that. If I was given the chance to put these pages in my main area before deleting I would have gladly done so. I need my page back. In more than a year and 5000 edits, no one has done this to me. And why would this type of activity be a priority when so much other work needs to be done. It's disillusioning. Thank you. Mjpresson (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've undeleted the page, which MZMcBride probably deleted solely because it was called "secretpage" (User:Mjpresson/secretpage). It has nothing whatsoever to do with any "hidden page" games, and it sure as hell wasn't a CSD G7. I hope marking this deletion as a G7 was just a simple mistake on MZMcBride's part. --Conti|✉ 21:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a "mistake" he made 172 times. Mjpresson (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

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

• This just seems like a boneheaded move all around. The pages deserve to be deleted, in my opinion, but that has not been established as a policy. The fact that they are in userspace just guarantees this would be a major issue. Personally, I'd be pissed if an admin unilaterally deleted something in my userspace before running it past me, and I'm an admin, so it shouldn't be too difficult to figure out how your everyday editor would feel and react in such a situation. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You hit bullseye when you made that last sentence. I'm not pissed that my page was DELETED, I'm pissed that this guy is acting like a jerk who thinks that he can go around telling established wikipedians what to do and deleting their pages without ANY warning. He states that we should "contribute to wikipedia". Just to support my statement, I WILL say that I have made 2,000+ comments on wikipedia ALL having been done in good faith with NO vandalism whatsoever. Montgomery' 39 (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Hiberniantears. This shouldn't have been deleted speedily out of process. If this is going to be deleted, there has to be a consensus or at the very least a community wide discussion. WP:BITCH only applies to people's behavior and has absolutely no bearing on article deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, I wonder how MZ would react if someone else deleted a page in his userspace and used the same argument. For the argument to hold the deletion has to be within policy to begin with. If it's even slightly controversial, it's not something a single admin should act on. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think these deletions were completely uncalled for and in violation of our policies. We have policies for deletions and they apply to all admins all the time, not only to some and if they feel like it. It's nothing bitchy about asking an admin, as a representative of this project, to follow the rules and not go around deleting pages he does not like. One should ask MZM to hand in his mop if he does not like the policies... SoWhy 21:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Makes you wonder if he'd say anything if someone blocked him without consensus or a heads up... Kind of a put your money where your mouth is moment. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, last time this happened. ;) WilyD 21:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, he keeps saying that there was consensus but hasn't provided any diffs. I think we may have a violation of Remedy #3: "MZMcBride is strongly admonished for his conduct in this matter and is instructed to refrain from any further incidents of wheel-warring, taking administrator actions in disregard of on-wiki consensus, or deliberately disobeying decisions of the Arbitration Committee. MZMcBride is warned that any further such incidents are likely to lead to the suspension or revocation of his administrator privileges." Perhaps a visit to ArbCom is warranted? -MBK₀₀₄ 21:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That thought occurred to me as well. Policies such as the deletion policy are codified consensus and taking admin actions like deletions that go against those policies is in fact nothing but "taking administrator actions in disregard of on-wiki consensus". I would hate to go this road but MZM's admin actions and behaviour have been subject of multiple discussions here now and yet such incidents happen again and again... SoWhy 21:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" ← Seems quite fitting to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the deletions I see no reason why anything should be hidden here on wp-en. I would would even agree to ban the ability to hide any page. I also that the deletion were poorly done, doing the right thing in a disrepectfull way can look a lot like trolling. —Preceding need to oreview more. Giggles4U (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)unsigned comment added by Giggles4U (talk • contribs) 19:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. No consensus on the deletions. No warning to the editors. Editors who's pages were deleted were in good standing. These good standing editors were then told to stop bitching. The whole thing is an obvious way of causing trouble, which is disruption... the very thing we are supposed to prevent in the first place. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

All due respect, Hiberniantears, you're getting played (there's no Wiktionary entry for this?). My essay has absolutely nothing to do with these deletions whatsoever and I never cited it anywhere. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

My bad... sorry about that. That does make it a little less over the top. I still see the situation as needlessly slapping around editors in good standing though. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I am another editor who honestly couldn't give two figs about the pages. What grates me is MZMcBride's attitude towards the matter, and frankly, towards everyone involved. There are so many ways this mess could have been avoided, a better way of doing this. His approach came across as both WP:POINTY and the summary of the deletions as a veiled WP:ATTACK. That's just poor; really poor. I understand MZMcBride's intentions completely, it's just that the approach he took just doesn't help things at all. --.:Alex:. 22:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that he be deleted A1a6s (talk) 03:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:EfD? ;) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Things stop being 'fun' when they encroach on the rights of others. You know the difference between the secret pages and deleting against any apparent consensus about whether or not they're an obvious detriment to the project. MZMcBride takes things away from others, the others aren't causing harm, unless you intend to argue their actions are somehow worse than all the jawing you do at your job, while on the clock. And remember, they're all volunteers. ThuranX (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I think deleting crap like this helps define our culture; a culture in which we are united in our focus on creating a great encyclopedia. From that perspective, these hidden pages do harm our culture, and the mass deletion of them has tangible benefits.

We have a standard refutation to people who insist on their right to free speech and/or free web hosting on Wikipedia; you've probably used it yourself. So it surprises me to hear you characterising this as a rights violation.

Hesperian 05:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I know, you'd seriously think that he'd sacrificed babies to Satan or something, rather than deleted a few unproductive and useless pages which I would class as more of a "cleanup task" than any violation of policy. Orderinchaos 10:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with these pages if they don't hurt the encyclopedia? Chubbennaitor 16:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A question more pertinent to this discussion would be what's wrong with deleting these pages if they don't help the encyclopedia? Hesperian 01:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The question most pertinent is how does having admins who ignore policies, ignore requests to discuss their actions, and ignore concerns about their behaviour benefit the encyclopædia? DuncanHill (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much as the pages themselves, than the manner in which this deletion was conducted. The mop is for cleaning messes, not making them. MZMcBride should double-check his grip on that mop handle, because this is completely the wrong way to go about it. His approach has only provoked unnecessary drama and arguing amongst both parties. An MfD should have gone ahead, as there is clearly room for discussion on the matter. Considering there was a previous MfD that resulted in a no consensus at the time, this should have been reopened rather than simply deleting them like this (which reeks of "I don't like it"). --.:Alex:. 19:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

List of pages deleted

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

Batch MFDs are gross and rarely productive for a number of reasons. If there are individual editors who would like individual pages restored and brought to MfD, I suppose that's reasonable. Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually don't have a well-formed opinion of my own about these. But I think some policy about them needs to be divined, one way or the other. –xeno (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but since all of those deletions were clearly outside policy, you should restore them all and then take those to MFD you think should be deleted. Deleting all and then make it the burden of others to MFD them makes a travesty of our deletion policy. SoWhy 21:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Clearly outside which policy? You do realize we had a massive MFD for "secret" pages a while ago, right? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you link to it for those who have missed it? --Conti|✉ 22:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages is the last I'm aware of; there may be a more recent one since. – iridescent 22:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes I know. And consensus was "case by case basis", not "they are not allowed". And the result never was incorporated into WP:CSD and CSD is the policy that tells admins what can be speedy deleted and what not. Not an 10-month-old MFD that does not even have a clear consensus. Regards SoWhy 22:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

And from that MZMcBride has clearly violated the ArbCom admonisment he was given in the wheel war case to not ignore existing consensus and use the sysop tools out-of-process. I'm thinking it is time to go to ArbCom. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What's happened here is flagrant disregard for our WP:CSD policy. I've been trying, but I'm struggling to see any conclusion other than that. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll undelete anyone who protests here or at your talk page, and then if you feel the need to MFD, have at it. –xeno (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Now I'm quite confused. Which, of the processes listed at WP:Deletion policy#Processes, do you believe you were following? Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

My God, what will these users do without their secret pages? Heaven forbid they do something remotely constructive instead of creating "secret pages" for little Myspace-y games and go on hunts for sekrit page barnstars. This senseless destruction will surely be the demise of the wiki. I propose MZMcBride be banned for this mass-secret-page-murder. Mr.Z-man 22:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hanging's too good for him. I suggest locking him in a secret page^Wdungeon and giving him only printouts of MfD debates to eat. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 22:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I second the motion to have MZMcBride banned for his novel interpretation of the "ignore all rules" guideline (that being, that if it helps the encyclopedia, you shouldn't allow silly rules to stand in your way). Mahalo. --Ali'i 22:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all this, but I think that this debate is turning into a mob, dummies and picket signs galore. We should all keep a cool head about this situation and burn him at the stakes conduct this in a civilised manner. Montgomery' 39 (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Please, won't someone think of the users? What about all those frustrated MySpacers fruitlessly searching through a "really difficult" set of clues for a page that doesn't exist anymore? Stone him!. Black Kite 22:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What about "Pages can only be speedily deleted if any of the criteria for speedy deletion apply to them"? Does that make sense to you? --Conti|✉ 22:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Er, where's that from? :-) And I personally interpret that to be somewhat circular logic. You can cite speedy deletion as your reason for deleting page iff the page meets the criteria. But that doesn't preclude other types of deletions.... --MZMcBride (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

From my mind. :) My point was that we have the speedy deletion criteria for a reason: Everything that does not fall under these criteria should not be speedily (which means without any kind of consensus or consultation from anyone) deleted. We have various processes for everything that's not a candidate for speedy deletion, and I think one of them should have been used. --Conti|✉ 22:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the past discussions, especially the past MFD (referenced above) indicated to me a consensus to delete these pages. Being a slave to process sounds like a rather unfavorable role. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a batch deletion like you undertook but on a case-by-case basis. To me it seems as though you have violated the admonishment that ArbCom gave you and you should loose your mop. But we'll let ArbCom handle that since I don't see this going anywhere but an express-lane to RFAR. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

@MBK004: Are you going to initiate a RFAR? — Aitias // discussion 23:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Not in the next couple of hours, I'm about to step out. If one hasn't in about 4 hours, I most likely will. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems we interpret the closure of that MfD differently. What about "the rest of those pages should be on a case on case basis"? Acting as if one is above the rules isn't a very ideal thing to do, either. :) --Conti|✉ 23:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I went through each page individually, though.... --MZMcBride (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Your deletion of this: User:Mjpresson/secretpage points to the contrary since the content of the page isn't what one would expect for a secret page, and isn't deletable under any deletion policy. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Good to know. How come you deleted User:Mjpresson/secretpage, then (which I undeleted at the user's request)? --Conti|✉ 23:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

At the time of deletion the page was blank - [10] - well actually all hidden text, but would've appeared blank. Black Kite 23:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

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

And that would make it a CSD G7? --Conti|✉ 23:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Actually, it might. "If the author blanks the page (outside user space), this can be taken as a deletion request." Huh, never noticed that line before. --Conti|✉ 23:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Still not technically a G7 ("outside user space"), just pointing out that the current useful content would not have been there. Black Kite 23:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I just noticed that, too. I need a pause, brain's not working, apparently. :) So my question remains after all. --Conti|✉ 23:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• IAR deletions are fine when applied to shite in user space, though best not tried against articles, except exceptionally. RMHED. 23:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• The real question is why the hell do so many people give a crap about what other people have in their user space? If someone is editing the encyclopedia and does something a little myspacey to their user space, how does that bring down our little project? There are plenty of other things to do here than go around slapping editors who are doing something goofy but otherwise harmless. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I can only speak for myself. As for me: it's because they are inherently violations of WP:NOT#WEBHOST; they have no purpose within the context of Wikipedia (unlike userboxexn, which give fair warning of ideological and other biases). --Orange Mike | Talk 23:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that with everything we do, we should ask ourselves "does this help the encyclopedia?" The obvious answer to having "something a little myspacey [in] their user space" is that it does not, in any way, help build the encyclopedia. I'm a cantankerous old fool, so this is just my opinion. --Ali'i 23:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

My general opinion on the matter is that aggravating hundreds of editors with little justification does not help the encyclopedia. Deleting these userpages, with no more justification than the deliberate misinterpretation of an MFD that did not close with a consensus, is likely to do this. If they were so bad then someone should have run another MFD. They weren't going to burn down the encyclopedia in the time that would have taken.--Dycedarg ж 00:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I doubt more than half a dozen were mildly pissed off, serves 'em right for having the shite in their user space. RMHED. 00:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Process for the sake of process for the sake of process for the sake of process for the sake of process for the sake of process for the sake of process for the sake of process for the sake of process never helped anyone.

This issue should be over, someone took the initiative to take out the trash, everyone agrees that the trash is trash and I see no need to bring the trash back inside and make a mess just because someone thinks the trash was taken out improperly (enough metaphor for you?). John Reaves 00:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Real constructive. Thanks for that insight. Just for the record, had I voted in the MFD, and were I to vote in a future one, I would vote to delete the pages. I also don't think MZMcBride deserves to be blocked. My point is that this isn't worth pissing people off. The RMHED comment takes the cake, and just makes us look like a bunch of spoiled brats who are acting pissy because we didn't get what we want in a disaster of an MFD. Think of all those wierdos who have crap like Jimbo's head floating around their user page. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Artist's impression

How dare you call Jimbo's head "crap". The Godhead should be shown due deference, I for one would welcome its addition to every Wikipedia page. RMHED. 00:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you crazy?! You'll wear it out! Do you want Jimbo to have to go to conferences looking like this? -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 00:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(did not read whole thread) I'm right on the fence on this one. I don't believe these pages should be restored en masse, or that MZMcBride should be sanctioned for an activity that did not injure article space, and that he believed to be a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia. However, I would not have deleted any of them without community consensus, given the wide allowances given to users to have a little fun in user space, particularly users who make legitimate contributions; I myself would have !voted to keep them, in light of them doing no harm (I don't believe they would significantly affect contributions to articles one way or the other). I move that all the affected users be informed on their talk page, that any such page be restored on request and afterwards eligible for MfD if anyone is interested. Dcoetzee 00:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow. This has expanded slightly since I started it...And yes, I did just read all of it.

I am in total accordance with Dcoetzee. I still want to see where this "consensus" is, though. A MfD case from April 2008 that resulted in "no consensus" is MZM's so-classed consensus for deleting these...

And what happens if speedy deletion of stuff in user space is allowed after this? Are signature collections next? Award pages after that? Userboxes last? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

And am I missing something, or is he still deleting secret pages, while this is ongoing? (with the deletion summary "made extra secret") —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

All finished now. As I said earlier, fair treatment seems best here. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

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

If consensus on how to interpret that page with regards to this issue was as clear as you make it out to be, then the last MFD for these things would have ended in delete, and this thread would not exist. But fine, I don't really care either way. My whole point was that MZM should not have deleted them in that manner, because out of process deletions generally cause more trouble than they solve. Now that they're gone, they can stay that way. If the issuse dies with the closure of this thread, I will be happily surprised.--Dycedarg ж 06:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean violating policy is good as long as the violating admin stops after he completed what he set out to do? Even if he completes it while his actions are still under discussion? Somehow this whole thread was completely useless if the outcome is "Who cares? They are gone now". I think the problem is not the kind of pages deleted but the way it was done. Next someone will delete articles like Wikipedia because they think we don't need an article about the project itself and the AN discussion will result it "Ah well, it's deleted now, let's move on". Am I the only one who is dissatisfied when legitimate complaints about policy violations end in such a result? SoWhy 07:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I personally am extremely annoyed by the manner in which the deletions were carried out. It was a gross abuse of administrative powers, and a deliberate subversion of consensus. What I meant with the above statement was that since I think the pages should have been deleted (albeit properly), if no one else cares enough to file a DRV I am certainly not going to do so and will be quite happy to avoid the ridiculously long discussion that would have resulted.--Dycedarg ж 08:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

While I see no benefit of keeping the pages concerned, I see a lot more harm in deleting them (and annoying/alienating contributors to the project) than leaving them there. I think

• they should not have been deleted out of process (the quoted MfD does not give the authority);
• they should all be undeleted promptly;
• the manner in which these deletions were carried out (and continued to be carried out while discussions took place here) is appalling and shows disrespect for the community. (Deletions continued for nearly 18 hours after the first complaint on his talk page, and 12 hours after being informed of the thread here.) Martin^msgj 10:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Power without responsibility - the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages. DuncanHill (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Have a cup of tea

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

Stop trying to drag out the drama for the sake of creating drama. seicer | talk | contribs 12:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not creating drama, i asked some simple questions and also stated that this project should not be made to be serious all the time. Simply south is this a buffet? 13:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really dragging it out since over 40 pages have been created again (none by me)... Hiberniantears (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, all this this "hidden page" retardedness really doesn't seem to have much of a justification. If people want to play games, then they can go load up a facebook app, as this isn't the place for it. So for what its worth, I heartily endorse the deletions...MfD 's are not needed for blatant gibberish...and hope that they continue. Tarc (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Although in this case, it just created more work, and either annoyed people, or gave people the opportunity to make fun of people who were annoyed. None of which contributed to building the encyclopedia. That's been my point all along. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, bad example, life isn't worth living if you can't take a break from the task at hand. Well those that don't contribute should be warned but I'm sorry; just coming along and saying, oh this doesn't contribute to WP and deleting is worse than not helping WP. A Userpage isn't contributable to the WP. Why not delete them?

Well, once the pages are gone, there won't be any more need for some to bitch about it. I'd gladly trade a little consternation and drama now in order for it to be done with. Tarc (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of the pages should help maintain a focus on creating a good encyclopedia. There should be no sanction for deleting them and no mass re-creation of them. Edison (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

So, you feel we should just tacitly approve of blatant policy violation, misuse of administrative power, utter disregard for consensus, and the alienation/aggravation of over a hundred editors many of whom were longstanding editors with lots of mainspace edits under their belts, because we agree with the end result? What about when something happens like this in the future, except to a page you like? You'll argue that policy should only be violated when you happen to agree with the outcome? The whole problem with this is that the community is supposed to decide these things, consensus is supposed to reign supreme, and instead we get one administrator deleting over a hundred pages with no consensus, discussion, or warning, and falsely justifying it to those who complain by saying that it was approved by discussion when it was most certainly not. This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work, this is not how administrators are supposed to act. They are not supposed to be a police force able to arbitrarily force their will on an unwilling community because they feel like it's justified by policy.--Dycedarg ж 18:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT is also policy, and these secret pages were/are a violation of this policy. Count me in the group that has no issue with MzMcBride taking out the trash. Resolute 18:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

And policy is clear that "Reasons derived from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" are not grounds for a unilateral/speedy deletion by an admin. Davewild (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, however lets not step up on our pulpit and cast down one "policy violating heathen" in suport of other policy violating heathens. McMcBride probably should have MfDed them, however his only failure here was that he circumvented process to get to the proper outcome. Resolute 19:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus that these pages were/are a violation of this policy. The reason deletion policy exists is so admins can't arbitrarily delete things based on their interpretation of policy as opposed to the community's (except in the narrowly defined set of cases in the CSD categories). The belief that it's OK to blatantly disregard policy and consensus because WP:IDONTLIKEIT is, in my opinion, completely ridiculous and completely contrary to the manner in which the project is supposed to operate.--Dycedarg ж 19:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

And creating these pages under WP:NOHARM is any better? Resolute 19:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Creating the pages was not an explicit policy violation, and there's no consensus against them. Deleting them was an explicit policy violation. Quite frankly, they needed no justification in policy to create them whatsoever.--Dycedarg ж 19:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

"His only failure was that he didn't follow policy." Yeah, can't fault him for that. Oh, wait.. --Conti|✉ 19:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:IAR is policy, and that seems to be his rationale. Regardless of the drama surrounding his methods, the end result was right. All that is really left is for people to form up on either side of the trenches and argue ineffectively for a while. Resolute 19:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That is your opinion. Others have different opinions. There is no consensus on this matter. But most of this thread was not about whether such pages are acceptable or not but whether an admin can go ahead and delete them outside policy. I think some people missed this and are still debating the nature of the pages when the problem is the way these deletions were done. Regards SoWhy 18:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I have read this entire thread and I still can't understand what all this bollocks is about. Yes, I agree that creating secret pages is time unused improving/upgrading articles, but so is creating such a fuss about a load of rubbish. Just quit your bullshit and consider using your time more constructively instead of wasting your time.--O'DELAQUATIQUE (talk) (contributions) (e-mail) 19:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Er, this reading of that past MfD is rather faulty. It did not close with a finding of "no consensus", it closed on a matter of process; the closing admin did not believe that a mass AfD on the concept itself of secret pages was proper. They should be evaluated case-by-case. Perhaps this is one of the few times where I'd see a valid WP:IAR invocation, in that bypassing MfD to delete dozens upon dozens of cruft userpsace pages for the sake of the betterment of the Wikipedia is actually a good thing. Tarc (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus on that page, and the closing admin says as much. He doesn't say that the mass MFD was not proper. He said that the only consensus that existed was to get rid of the worst of the pages, and that the mass MFD was not going to accomplish that, so individual mfds should be conducted for those pages. Not that he expected individual MFDs for every single secret page out there.--Dycedarg ж 19:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You have a very odd and selective reading of that closure, then, as it in no way prohibits MZMcBride from looking at each page, and deleting them as a speedy. There's just no collective policy for "secret pages" to wipe them in one fell swoop, unfortunately. Tarc (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually while personally I would not/have not created such pages I don't see the difference between these pages and signature books or this sort of thing (or is there a difference when it is primarily admins who are doing it?). I agree with this view (expressed when someone said that signing signature books did not contibute to the encyclopedia) - "Sure it does, if it contributes to a collegial atmosphere of friendliness. Snapping at people who are just being friendly doesn't improve the encyclopedia at all, as far as I can tell". So long as those who have created these pages remain primarily focused on building the encyclopedia then this sort of thing helps keep editors instead of just driving them off by unilaterally speedy deleting their pages while implying that they do not contribute to the encyclopedia. Davewild (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Nicely put. I keep a handful of quotes on my user page, this among them: "Community is built by allowing the free activity and interaction of members, not by blocking harmless behavior even if many or even most think it "useless." If something is useful to my neighbor, it's useful even if I have no need of it at all." I support what I believe to be the traditional, prevailing view: that these pages are a problem only when they are the main or sole focus of an editor. When an editor is predominantly occupied with article editing, these auxiliary pages serve to help him de-stress and like editing at Wikipedia a bit more. Such functions are valuable. Now that we've past the easy part of creating the largest reference work in all of history, Wikipedia's stability and success depends on creating a respectful, pleasant community entirely online. If that doesn't scare you, it should. Treat each other with tolerance and goodwill. --Kizor 19:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me split the comment... there. I should add that a few of the arguments about the harm of secret pages seem troublesome. First is the idea that non-article-writing-related editing is harmful in and of itself by taking effort away from writing the encyclopedia. Volunteer workers donate their labor to us, and its amount is not fixed. I have trouble accepting the notion that removing and forbidding things considered fun would cause volunteers to funnel the same effort (or, indeed, more effort at all) into more productive things.
Second is the performance effect. Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance has no formal status, all it has are arguments from a developer and the ultimate authority on Wikimedia servers and software. 'As a technical matter, it's our responsibility to keep the system running well enough for what the sites require. In other words: it's not a policy issue. If and when we need to restrict certain things, we'll do so with technical measures.' ..." '"Policy" shouldn't really concern itself with server load except in the most extreme of cases.'
Hope that helps. --Kizor 20:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• If I may interject, as a thusfar uninvolved observer, I think that we should step away from arguing the merits of the pages themselves and focus on MZMcBride's actions. There is clearly some merit to the view that this individual improperly deleted these pages outside of process. What action is going to be taken in this regard? Given prior history, I submit that this incident should be brought to the attention of the Arbitration Committee for disposition. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• This is just about flexing admin muscle... completely pointless. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • And here come the "admin abuse" cries. Sigh. Tarc (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
    • What would you call deleting pages in defiance of both policy and consensus?--Dycedarg ж 20:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Since there was neither consensus nor policy preventing it, I probably wouldn't say much. Tarc (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Since an arbitrator has already accepted opening a case on the basis of this affair, you might want to consider giving the benefit of the doubt. ;-) --Kizor 20:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
    • It isn't a cry of admin abuse. I am an admin, and thus seek to protect my ability to slap around the serfs as I see fit. Also, I'm just running up my edit count so that nobody calls me a dormant admin. It is about showing contributing editors a little respect. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh goody goody!!

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

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

Arbitration

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

Thank you for taking that initiative. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur. This action seems appropriate considering the situation. --.:Alex:. 20:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've noted my opposition there. Discussion is still taking place, arbitration seems premature. --Ali'i 21:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

MBK004, who left the request, does point out that has no opinion on secret pages and focuses entirely on the appropriateness of taken administrator actions. His request and other edits support that statement, as does the arbitrator who's accepted the case. Again, hope that helps. --Kizor 21:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The appropriateness of the secret pages bears directly on the appropriateness of MZMcBride's actions. If the pages were inappropriate, then his actions were appropriate and vice-versa. So making a judgement on the one requires making a judgement on the other. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The request for arbitration is not about the secret pages. It is about the actions of MZMcBride. If there still needs to be a discussion of secret pages, I submit that this is not the appropriate forum. Miscellany for deletion seems to be a more appropriate forum; for those who feel that MZMcBride acted legitimately in his decision to speedily delete the pages, perhaps a discussion at Criteria for Speedy Deletion to explicitely incorporate such language in the guidelines would be in order. Nutiketaiel (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I feel that this "Hidden page game" section here is the appropriate forum. We have a discussion going. Assuming that MfD is not fundamentally unlike AfD, it is - alas - not a place for productive discussion, just a tool of last resort. The raised stakes make it far more polarized and less civil than WP:AN.

There is another matter. In my nerve-hit opinion, a serious one. If the secret pages go to MfD while most of them are - or just were - deleted, it is going to affect the situation, and it will be an effect achieved not by its merits but by the use of force. That is obscene. --Kizor 21:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The RFArb was a knee-jerk reaction by people who prefer a witch hunt to following dispute resolution. How ironic that the people complaining about MZMcbride bypassing policy and guidelines completely side stepped WP:DR and ran straight to "the last resort" rather than follow any of the other potential steps outlined in that policy first. How even more sad that Arbcom accepted it. Resolute 06:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Data

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

I grepped the deletion log for "secret" and "sekrit" in the log_comment field. Here's what I found:

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DCFan101/Secret Page Challenge
• User:HJH Lady Renegade/Secret Page
• BB_Pacifica/realsecreatpage/myrealsecretpagenumber2/myrealsecretpagenumber3/yeahyoudidit/myrealspecialsecretpage/youwin/iamgivingyouahint/xyz/vxy/myuserpage/youronfire/stopdropandroll/Igiveup
• User:Tyw7/73f&
• User:Earthbendingmaster/Super_Secret_Page
• User:Earthbendingmaster/Secret_Page
• User:Skittlesrgood4u/Super_Secret_Page
• User talk:Skittlesrgood4u/Super_Secret_Page
• User:IXella007/Templates/Hidden_Link_Barnstar
• User talk:Sandro67/The_Secret_Page
• User:Little_Mountain_5/Secret
• User:Pokemon_Buffy_Titan/Fake-Out_Secret
• User:Meldshal42/SSSSP123
• User:Meisfunny/Ultimate Secret Page

Note: This list is in no way conclusive. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Secret go bye-bye

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

• If anyone has links to similar "not MySpace"-type MfDs, that would also be appreciated (in the same vein as bainer's request above). So far I've found the following:
  • Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Chess championship
  • Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Masky/Quests/Quest1Index
  • Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DoomsDay349/WikiPlomacy
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chess championship
  • Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza/Coffee Lounge/Games
  • Also of interest: meta:Wikicommunity
• I'd hazard a guess that a search for terms like "games", "WP:USER", "WP:NOT" and so on would find others. Probably too many to list here, but a couple more examples might be instructive. Carcharoth (talk) 07:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • You forgot the entire BJADON mess, see the template at Wikipedia talk:Silly Things for a list. --Conti|✉ 11:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
    • That was fundamentally a copyright problem, I think/hope. --Kizor 14:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, it was. BJAODN was not compliant with the GFDL. I fixed some of the entries so that they were, as I recall. Uncle G (talk) 10:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Part of the time wasted is spent here, complaining about them. The actual time wasted by editors looking for, making, and logging into these pages is probably minimal. But fine. If you guys think it is best that these folks "just do games like that on some facebook app", then people will follow your lead. People who might have made some reasonably constructive contributions (remember that these are the folks we are discussing, not the "20 edits and they are all to a secret page crowd") might just leave if we come along and break up their fun because people think they should be editing articles. This is purely a social convention. We allow barnstars, elaborate userpages, user essays, user chess games, wiki-smiles, etc. We just happen to think that the "secret pages" are less desirable. We don't like them, so why should anyone else? This is fundamentally the same as far as the encyclopedia is concerned--mainspace doesn't care if your non-article edits are to a user essay about how much you like WP:AFC or a template to send cups of tea to people or on a secret page so that people will try to find it. The articles don't care. The only variable here is us. Can we step back and think that maybe we are being too intrusive? Or maybe (if that doesn't bother anyone), the lowest energy route is to do nothing for anything but the most egregious cases. This isn't a law and order problem. We won't get "more offenders" if we don't "crack down" on the misdemeanors. It's a community of human beings who all have their own kick. They all have something that keeps them here, helping us. We (as external observers) can't determine what, specifically, that is for each person. so we can't just say User:Bob doesn't like his secret page enough to leave or help us less wholeheartedly if we delete it but User:Jane does--delete bob's but not Jane's. We just have to guess. And wouldn't we rather just leave things up to Bob and Jane? Isn't that more in line with the wiki way? Protonk (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Call me jaded if you must, but honestly, I can't really fathom any user coming here for the "secret page games", or any user leaving solely due to the removal of said games, possessing the modicum of maturity required for worthwhile, well-written contributions. It's a tantalizing hypothetical, but in the end, it's rather like owning a car dealership and debating over whether or not to include pre-recorded loudspeaker announcements on behalf of blind people who'd be otherwise unaware of your excellent signage. Badger Drink (talk) 08:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, we tend to find it difficult to visualize other points of view. I'm not saying that as a diss, just that it is hard for you or I to imagine someone who is sort of interested in the wiki (say, ~20 contribs a month), but also has fun w/ userspace (say, 20-30% of contribs). It's hard for me to imagine because I have ~500 edits/month, among other reasons. But the whole basis of the wiki is that we try to draw in as many disparate views and sources of effort and expertise as possible. For many people, if the barriers to participation are even a trifle, they won't do it (hence why we are successful and why citizendium is not). My point is not that those folks with secret pages are all on the margin, ready to leave at the drop of a hat. But that some probably are, and that the self-righteous feeling we gain from knowing that people aren't mucking about in userspace isn't worth a fixed typo, IMO (I guess that's where my bias comes in...). Protonk (talk) 10:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Protonk. We also need to delete barnstars, elaborate userpages, user essays, user chess games, wiki-smiles, etc. Clearly, all of those things are demonstrations that people aren't doing their job when they come here. They were hired to write articles, and if they want to get paid, that's what they'd better do. For the same reason, I'd like to see the removal of our 'E-water Cooler', the Village Pump. That's nothing but a place for people to stand around gabbing. There's facebook for that, or they can go to the local bar after work. If editors want to get paid, they'd better be on here eight hours a day writing and nothing else. I notice raul654 was one of those wasting corporate resources in the Chess Championship linked above, and now he's an admin, so perhaps HR should reassess his file. ThuranX (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, back it up! The things you're talking about getting rid of is things that help civility getting rid of barnstars and wiki-smiles would destroy wiki-love. I hope you were being sarcastic because that's a terrible idea. The Cool Kat (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think he was being sarcastic. If not, can I get paid monthly? I find it easier to pay the bills that way, especially on part time wages. Jack forbes (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I've never had a "secret page" and never will, but I have to say I do wish certain Gradgrindish editors would concentrate on building an encyclopædia instead of spending their time hunting them out to delete them and then wasting everybody's time with the "omg people are having a bit of fun we must stop it!" antics. Editors are (mostly) human beings, and human beings need sometimes to let off steam. Some do it by playing little games of hide and seek, some by writing snide and bitey little essays with redirects from WP space, some do it by rambling off at a tangent on the refdesks. One size does not fit all, and if we start making too big a deal about these odd little bits of userspace we actively undermine encyclopædia-building by preventing editors from having their little bits of stress-relief and "getting to know you" pages. DuncanHill (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

In my day we used to go outdoors and play sports etc to let off steam. Yours grumpily, Jack forbes (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

And we walked to school. Forty miles. Uphill. Both Ways. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Walked to school? In my day we didn't even have have legs, we had to drag ourselves there on our bellies over hot coals and broken glass. DuncanHill (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Walked to school? No legs? Young people today don't know when they are well off. Now, when I was in the war..... Jack forbes (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

And stay off my lawn, you kids! *shaking fist while holding on to my walker* --Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

• We shouldn't make a habit of deleting pages because a collection of users doesn't think that other users would be helped by it. I'm not joking when I say that as regards the mainspace, there isn't a lick of difference between "secret pages" and all the other crap that we do on our userpages. The difference is that the editors who congregate here have a particular view of the type of person who would have a secret page. It isn't hard to see that. Read some of the comments above. Thuran was being sarcastic above, but the VP is practically useless and it consumes more time an effort than these secret pages do by at least an order of magnitude. I don't see what is so hard about leaving things be. Protonk (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

All you bastards need to stop assuming I'm being sarcastic. I'm just here for the 401(k), and Payroll's had me in the queue for sixteen months for a meeting on establishing my withholding amount. (/sarcasm.)

This is a stupid abuse of time and editors. I agree fully that Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and I fully support elimination of such users. But this 'don't waste our time and bandwidth meme is idiotic. You may as well say 'Registered Editors who are currently logged in cannot browse random pages and read', because they're equally wasting bandwidth and shirking some apparent burden of writing/editing required of them. What's to stop me from randomly ramping up bandwidth use by picking a random article, then clicking the first blue link I see as fast as I can over and over? or better, writing a program that does it for me, even faster than I could? And then running that program on every computer in my house? that would eat up more bandwidth, from one user, than all users engaged in pagehunting at any given time. There's a reason donations are made to the foundation; and if things get so tight that pagehunting is a real dent in bandwidth, this project has already been over for a month. Protonk's right. You're assuming that everyone 'wasting' time on these other things is a 14 year old popularity contest nimrod. EVEN if that's true, that's not foundation for alienating them just because you're older and think you're better. Really, beyond a skimpy NOT and a lot of IDONTLIKEIT, there's no good argument yet. ThuranX (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for reading my mind. However, I don't congregate here, if by here you mean W:AN. I can't even usually find it. And, since I'm nowhere in the vicinity with my thinking that gives me any clues what you are talking about, please do tell me what I am thinking so I know.

Your continued freak out on the issue of bandwidth and children and other time wasting simply is not the issue in its entirety.

Oh, and I know they're not really secret. Duh.

What's hard about leaving things be is it requires that it be a formal leave it be. Because, without a formal give in, this issue will arise again and again. Some dopey admin will mistakenly delete a pure garbage page, and some owner of said page will freak out, then the whole community will freak out about singular points, "Oh, my gawd, it does NOT waste band width, which is essentially free" "Oh, mercy me, it will cause users to quit," "Oh, they're evil, they must be deleted," "Oh, they waste bandwidth which is precious,"

ArbComs will be raised, RfCs promised, names called, incivility will abound, bullshit will be passed around, hostility will abound2. People will get pissed off at editors who support it, or editors who don't want to allow it.

Editors will not only think they can read others' minds, but boldly assert the thoughts of other editors.

Where precisely do you draw the lines of allowing things? This is a good point. The pages assert that they are for an extra-Wiki purpose, and a community of members with extra-Wiki purposes. None of the other pages and vices mentioned assert this. The users of said "secret pages" have allowed that they have done everything necessary to get their pages deleted. Delete them. --KP Botany (talk) 08:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my mind is pained from all that being read. --KP Botany (talk) 08:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well what about pretty much everything in Category:Wikipedia humour then? WP:EUI? Frivolous userboxen? The upages that directly clone Facebook? (I forget whose that is, it's awesome) It's all about letting off a bit of steam in the face of serius biznes of editing. It's not just unproductive kids, and it manifests in lots of ways. I like reading through the RefDesks and maybe answering a few at the end of a long session of editing. Other people like hunting for sekrit pages. Some take pictures of themselves in bathrobes. Whatever. Really, the only determinant should be whether the editors are making a net positive contribution and not causing harm. Franamax (talk) 08:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If we are discussing, at the moment, the pages themselves, rather than MZM's actions, I'd like to chime in for a moment. Many of you have cited that these pages are a "waste of time" and thet people could be doing more constructive things with that time. It's not a zero-sum game here: banning this sort of activity will not promote more constructive editing. In fact, it does quite the opposite: admins will have to waste time cleaning them up and enforcing such a rule... Just look at the length of this discussion! It should be quite clear that there are many differing opinions here, and many different interpretations of policy and the last MfD discussion, so it is logical to say that many admins would take different actions and respond differently in any given scenario. This is why we have the consensus building policy.

I'll use myself for an example. I've been editing for quite some time, and I'd like to think I'm in good standing with five digits of edits, most of them to the article namespace. I discovered secret pages a while ago and spent a few hours blazing through it. I wrote an essay about them, and then moved on. That's it, a few hours of my life were spent and then I went on to "productive things" without any needling from anyone else. Had I been forcibly (and quite possibly sarcastically) prohibited from doing this, there would have been some hard feelings. I'm not such a dramatc person that I would have huffed up and left, but I can surely say that Wikipedia would have recieved far less constructive edits from me. I edit for the enjoyment of sharing knowledge with others, and while I'm usually not prolific in the project spaces, I do enjoy the interation with other editors.

What would be gained from banning this practice? Nothing, in essence. You cannot legislate behavior and attitude... people will not do "productive things" by disallowing a certain practice. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

My whole view on the situation is that deleting "secret" pages would set a dangerous precedent on Wikipedia. Has anyone thought about Wikimeet ups that are organised on wikipedia? What about the cabal pages? Arn't they also "social" in nature? Im just thinking that your going to piss of alot of people if you go around deleting a harmless page that helps users establish relationships. Wikipedia is a community, this is largly because of the social aspect which in actual fact makes the other users seem less forign to one another, and more likely to work together for the common goal. The latest generation of editors are very social by nature and I fear that making Wikipedia stictly on-topic will actually push users away because it's largly the friends you make here that make you stay during tough times. Its the same as "Blocking all non-work related sites will make my users more productive" in schools and companies, We all know that is a myth and a farce because users will waste even more time circumventing blocks or inventing new ways to bend the rules. Besides, if people are really pationate about secret pages they will throw a small draft article on the secret pages and claim that it serves 2 purposes, which would supposedly "waste" more diskspace and negate any deletion criteria. I also note that Diskspace is REALLY REALLY REALLY cheep and bandwidth generated by secret pages is no where near that of which has been generated by self perpetulating drama on AN. Neverloan the process of deleting secret pages would be a clusterfuck, a huge waste of time and would chew up more immediate space (Revisions are kept + deletion log entry's) than if they were left alone. add on top of that several people leaving because "Wikipedia has become a Bureaucratic cesspool". </rant > :)   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

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

It seems that those who support allowing these pages rather than delete them cannot argue for their support without making things up about those whose opinion differs. Who said that any editors were disposable? The pages are. What is ridiculous is all this unsupported talk, "oh, they'll throw fits and leave if they have to follow the rules." Good golly miss molly, get a grip. If they're going to throw fits and leave because they have to follow the rules and want independent rules just to accommodate their behaviour, they'll find something else to throw fits and leave about.

To contend that one must design an encyclopedia user space around the possibility that rules enforcement, designed to keep the primary focus of this online space in line with its purpose, could send editors packing is absurd. Communities have rules. Good, bad, indifferent. This is an encyclopedia. For enforcing that idea, an editor is being threatened with arbcom to supposedly prevent editors playing games here from leaving.

And Wikipedia keeps saying they want experts contributing. That's the real laugh. --KP Botany (talk) 04:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Communities have rules, true, but both communities and rules can evolve. A significant part of the discussion above is about what the rule should be. Furthermore, all communities, explicitly or implicitly, prioritize rules. The rules about civility, verifiability, proper sourcing, etc. are important for building an encyclopedia, and need to be vigorously enforced -- maybe the rules about secret pages and game playing, as long as the "misdemeanors" are at an overall low level, perhaps don't need to be enforced as strongly. BTW, how exactly do secret pages keep experts away? -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I find this response to be insulting and condescending, enough to be wholly inappropriate. I would prefer it if those without a personal stake went through the argument. --Kizor 14:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Kizor - can you just clarify exactly which response to be insulting and condescending? Because I cannot see anything in ArglebargleIV's comment that could reasonably be construed as either. DuncanHill (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

By the indentation, Kizor's responding to KP Botany, whose comments are far more potentially insulting and condescending. WilyD 15:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice indirection there KP. Do you have a response to the first sentence Kizor posted? The one mentioning the arbitrator? The one wasting something-or-other playing games with secret pages? Should we have an RFC on NYB? Any comments at all on that sentence? Franamax (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You can have an RFC on NYB if you want to, or you can try to. I won't block you--well, I can't block you, but I won't do anything to try to stop you. I'm not interested. --KP Botany (talk) 02:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, the edit summary for that last comment caught my attention.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

So can we agree then that you're unwilling to comment on Kizor's quotations of Newyorkbrad? Specifically, you wish to discuss everything but the outlook and practices of a sitting arbitrator, which appear to run counter to your own position? I'm looking here for just comments on that first sentence. It appears that there are widely divergent views on the "secret page" practice. Franamax (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Except that NYB never said that he has a secret page or guestbook. Rlendog (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I just really continue to have no idea why I should comment on New York Brad or start an RFC on him. Please feel free to let me know on my talk page or collude with me in secret to get his ass fired or whatever it is you think I should do to him. Sorry, NYB, something must be terribly wrong with you as hard as I am being pushed to start an RFC about you..... --KP Botany (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Closure please?

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

I tried to close it a few days ago after the arb got filed but someone thought there might be useful discussion still to come. I think that useful discussion has run its course and agree this thread should be closed. –xeno (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Before closing, can this loooong debatebe be summarized so that we can use the conslusions for later debates? (I read some of it and decided it was too long to read it all and then gave up so I would like to see if any conclusions were drawn.) Thanks. --Tone 20:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Please, please, close it, as I am now being badgered into starting an RFC against a user I'm pretty sure I've never interacted with. There is really no point in continuing to allow this space to be used for a weird and unexplained tangent. --KP Botany (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Just don't edit it and the thread will be archived automatically. So long as everyone resists the temptation to have the last word, manually archiving the discussion is unnecessary. Besides, that big blue box never stopped anyone really interested in continuing a discussion anyways. Protonk (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Several sock accounts used for vandalizing

I recently tried to report some of Am6212 (talk · contribs) socks, as can be seen here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Am6212#Report_date_February_4_2009.2C_20:12_.28UTC.29. As you also can see the obvious wasn't "enough", even though the socks had been blocked previously. Anyway, all of them are used only for creating edit-wars and for vandalizing, most recently there were also this user which shows the exact same pattern, Chcoc (talk · contribs). They obviously haven't done anything constructively, so all of his socks deserves to be blocked for the good of Wikipedia, and also if the user Choc's edits could all be auto-reverted, that would save some time. The TriZ (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be appreciated if someone could take a look as soon as possible. The TriZ (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Problems with WWE Alumni Page

Resolved

 – User blocked indefinitely.

There's a user who has been drastically editing the WWE Alumni Page, but gave no heads up on the discussion board about it, so he's basically vandalizing it. Now the new edit is making it hard for the page to load up because he has numerous images on the page that separates the table of contents from the article. Please restore it to where it was much easier to navigate the page.Cena Jr (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It helps if you link to the article you are referring to. JPG-GR (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

He is referring to me and the article List of World Wrestling Entertainment alumni article. Of course I remove violations of WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BLP, add content, add 350 references and images, get called a Nazi in the process and somehow I am at fault. — Moe ε 22:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to guess List of World Wrestling Entertainment alumni. From the talk page, It looks like it is being worked towards a Featured List. I don't see any TOC on the article page, so I don't understand the issue. I don't see any admin action at this point; rather issues over content and organization. Some of the stuff on the talk page is pretty childish including some comment blanking. It appears to me that User:Moe Epsilon is acting in good faith here. I am a bit concerned over the comments about consensus at User:Cena Jr. These guys really need to cool down and go through Wikipedia:Dispute resolution if they have to. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 22:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Opposition to marking this resolved? iMatthew // talk // 01:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Note, I did not call him a Nazi. However, he's childish for blanking comments. So I guess it's ok to bastardize articles and alter them without consensus agreement first? What a very loose rule. And you wonder why Wikipedia is unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cena Jr (talk • contribs) 03:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Yes its damnable what I have done to the article! I added references! Block me now, I'm obviously out of control.. </sarcasm> — Moe ε 03:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh YES, let's go change articles from a simple format to something ridiculous just because I have too much time.Cena Jr (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Cena Jr

It is apparent that this user is a WP:SPA account. He continues to disrupt the creation of the WWE alumni article by blanking portions of it claiming that it is slowing down the load time or that portions of it is copyrighted, which is nonsense. In addition, his userpage seems to indicate he came to Wikipedia to push that fact is more important than consensus [11] and he is soapboxing on his talk page about some kind of RPG. [12] — Moe ε 06:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I left a note on his talk page that this thread has been posted as well, hopefully this can be moved over to another area of WP:DR, and resolved at perhaps WP:RFC before it escalates any further. I'm personally not involved, but just wanted to make sure that procedure was followed when posting a new thread about a user. Best of luck folks. ;) — Ched (talk) 12:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no. I had stumbled onto the WWE Alumni page to check something out, and truth be told, this guy went and bastardized it. I've been reading that page for ages, and what he has done to it makes the page too slow. And then he has about 25 images separated from the article at the top that are in no sequential order, have no purpose, and are possibly copyrighted. Cry me a river Moe.Cena Jr (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are concerned about copyrights, you can always check the image's talk page. You would see that they are all free-use pictures (including some I took myself). GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to understand something about the image problem. It really helps if you separate issues and don't lump them together with a lot of emotionalism. I will leave some feedback on the article talk page. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Important thing though is that the images do not need to be stacked up like that in the article as it only causes confusion and it's causing problems for the page to load up.Cena Jr (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

User who started thread has been blocked as sock of Cheatum Jr (talk · contribs). Tagging thread as resolved. D.M.N. (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Obama article probation

If a vandal violates the Obama article probation, do they get summarily blocked, or do they go through the normal warning pyramid? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Case by case basis after warning by only uninvolved admins. If it's apparent good-faith editing and not an egregious vandalism attack or nasty BLP violation, why would anyone be summarily blocked anyway right off the bat? rootology (C)(T) 02:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

My concern was over a pretty egregious vandalistic edit, but the ip got blocked quickly. Thanks. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Might Be Nothing, But Figured I'd Mention It

Duffbeerforme (talk · contribs) has been around for for a day or two, but has been proposing several articles for deletion with a fairly consistent tone towards deletionism. I certainly hope i'm wrong and this is nothing, but I found it curious and I was wondering if this account was from another user who was just looking for a sock for deletions. Would a sock check be warranted? Spinach Monster (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

: No, he hasn't been around "for a day or two", his first edit was more than a year ago. I've reviewed a bunch of his edits, and I don't see him breaking any policy, and while he is nominating quite a few articles for deletion, that appears to be in the context of an apparently good-faith cleanup effort. If you have specific allegations of this user breaking policy, you need to present specific diff evidence, not merely make vague allegations of one "ism" or another. 87.113.105.126 (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I saw the contribs wrong, as did another user who skewed me as well. However, please don't misconstrue my my good faith mistake as an attempt against this editors' good faith clean up effort. If I had seen the contribs correctly at first, I wouldn't have made this comment. Being concerned is nothing to be ashamed of if you think there's a reason to be concerned. Spinach Monster (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

While you're here, why not start an account? Spinach Monster (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with my statement? Once a week = one day every week? February 27, 20, 13, 7...

I'd like him to be a sock (obviously), but I doubt he is (see [13]). He just seems to be frustrated over lots of his own articles being deleted (see his talkpage), some of them speedy (see [14]).--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 16:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

We all made good faith mistakes here, IMO. Hopefully a way can be found to help him when he feels his work has been treated wrong. I know how frustrating it can be. Spinach Monster (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know, those nominations were as part of a good faith cleanup effort, which I have done before and will continue to do. It has nothing to do with the suggestions of some that articles I started (not my own articles) be deleted. Only one of those articles have been deleted and that was an incorrect use of a CSD, the rest remain (eg the mentioned Trevor Adamson) so there is no frustration from that. Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Zamora (pianist) needs attention

The talk page [[15]] was forgotten and Zamora (pianist) is still awaiting admin revision for his disambiguation, protection, and publication in the main space.

So, please I would be glad for any attention from the sysops.

Thanks. --Fandezamora (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The next step is to list the page at WP:Deletion review, following the instructions there. Given that there is a valid deletion debate, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alejandro Zamora, the necessity of overturning it needs to be clearly established. Furthermore, since there is history of sockpuppetry and conflict of interest regarding this subject, I think care is advisable. Chick Bowen 18:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Fandezamora is a sock puppet of Alejandrozamora, who has also created Zfans and Luisadelvalle, all of them already blocked in eswiki. Locos ~ epraix Beastepraix 18:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Zamorafan too Locos ~ epraix Beastepraix 19:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I thought that was quite clear. Was attempting to be polite about it. . . Chick Bowen 19:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This comment is insulting and false.

I come here to discuss politely his publication in the main space following the policies and guidelines, because it is impossible to have a polite discussion in the eswiki.

The page was moved here by the same admins to a secure editing place by fear of being deleted, and it is being updated and maintained for the same admins of enwiki.

Additionally, how I've said previously, I come here to discuss politely his publication in the main space following the right policies and guidelines, so I ask you a polite treatment too.

Thanks- --Fandezamora (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't assume good faith, also the subpage shows no relevance and i suposse is a autobiography. The eswiki administrators erased zamora under that argument and the others before mentionated. See this link in the spanish village pump http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:C/M#Zamora Locos ~ epraix Beastepraix 19:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Politely: Your pages are protected because you keep making sockpuppet accounts to recreate them or ask for undeletion. Creating another sockpuppet account to ask for undeletion, as you have done here, only makes it more likely that administrators will keep those page protected. Likewise, if you create more sockpuppet accounts in the future, this will not help you get those pages back; rather, it will make it much more difficult, since Wikipedia will have to take your past actions into account. It's best if you stop sockpuppeting, because it does nothing to advance your interests. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You are making false accusations, so I will like to request again polite treatment and focus the discussion in a cronstructive matter.

Thanks. --Fandezamora (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• You have already been told of the only possible next step, which is to list the article at deletion review. Instructions on how to do this are here. If you are still not sure, ask me on my talk page and I'll create the review for you. Thanks, Black Kite 20:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Another sokpuppet (User:Fandezamora2). Locos ~ epraix Beastepraix 20:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

dont you get tired of this? (User:Fandezamora3). Locos ~ epraix Beastepraix 20:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, your accusations are falses. If you read the spanish discussions, you can see that I am recognizing the ownership of these accounts because you block every account that tries to discuss anything about Zamora. So, I request again a polite treatment here and if you have any other comment, please do it of a constructive way.

Thanks. --Fandezamora (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'll say this again, because you're clearly not reading it - the only thing that you can do here is to list the article at deletion review. Instructions on how to do this are here. If you are still not sure, ask me on my talk page and I'll create the review for you. Creating multiple accounts to keep trying to restore the article is utterly pointless, they will merely be blocked. Thanks, Black Kite 12:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The fair use image and categories at User:Fandezamora/Zamora (pianist) should probably be nowiki'd out. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Black Kite 12:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Books

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

To prevent indexing is a good idea for now. The community needs some time to develop guidelines and rules for stored books. But I would not impose premature restrictions until the community had a chance to catch up with this new feature. I'd propose to discuss this topic on the tool's feedback page. --He!ko (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If we don't impose restrictions quickly, we'll have thousands of those pages and it'll be harder to detect inappropriate pages such as User:Pooblahtest/Books/Mrs. Wishin and User:Bobby1773/Books/robsmith. On the other hand, we can loosen the restrictions later if we want to. Also, what should be done of this kind of things: User:Janime6/Books/Boobism, User:Therealtomgowner/Books/Tomg.synthasite.com, Wikipedia:Books/new stadiums in Bulgaria, Wikipedia:Books/FATHER OF SAIYANS (has been nominated for deletion, see here), Wikipedia:Books/Graal, Wikipedia:Books/Kuwait, Wikipedia:Books/sabina wantoch, Wikipedia:Books/yeah. See for example Wikipedia:Books/HCDF for blatant advertising. Many users save those pages as their first action: 1, 2, 3, with only a help/intro page as content. Guidelines can be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Books, but I think we need to take action swiftly if we don't want to be overrun. Cenarium (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this is only gonna get worse. I'd suggest we disable the project-space sharing (whatever it takes to do that) until we have both a useful set of standards and a way to enforce them. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, yeah, what does this have to do with Wikipedia? That MediaWiki can do this functionality does not seem to me to mean that its usage on this specific Wiki is useful towards its goals, which is to build an encyclopedia. Why is this not a completely seperate Wiki rather than enabled here?!? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I misunderstood how this worked. This doesn't seem all that bad now that I have researched it a bit more. Nevermind any objections from me. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

How is this not useful? Some people don't want to have to print out dozens of articles; this offers a useful way of organization and transmission of certain article revisions. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

God forbid editors should make and share assemblies of articles with others! While I do accept that this feature, as with every other feature of Wikipedia, may be abused by some, I find claims that the book extension has nothing to do with building an encyclopædia to be bizarre at the very least. Readers of Wikipedia (who are in fact much more important than editors) are very likely to want to be able to assemble collections of articles, and to be able to export them or have them printed - indeed, as readers of the various help desks and village pumps will know it is a feature which has been regularly requested over the years. DuncanHill (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Any reader can create a book in Special:Book, then export or print it (and also order it). It's not about that, it's about storing books in user or project space (only available for registered users since it involves creating pages).

Sharing books, collections of articles, is not the purpose of an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not a social networking site. Creating a few books maintained by the community or wikiprojects for presentation and as examples to readers is one thing, and good, but allowing any user to store books in project space is looking for problems (see above) and distract from encyclopedia building (let's say that improving our lists is more important than creating books). So we should disable automatic creation of books in project space imo. As for books stored in userspace, I propose to restrict it to autoconfirmed users, because it'll limit the problematic books and books by new users are generally tests or drafts of new articles. User books can be found (and so shared) in Category:Wikipedia:Books. Cenarium (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, you're right. I propose we delete all userspace and project space as they are not the purpose of an encyclopædia. Encouraging editors to get to know each other, or to share interests, concerns etc should all be prohibited. Can you spot the sarcasm yet? DuncanHill (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm... go tell it to Mrs. Wishin. In a few weeks, we'll have thousands of books and who is going to check all of them ? Users can share their books through Category:Wikipedia:Books and subcategories already. But creating and having them in project space is a waste of resource and volunteer time, it has no purpose. Cenarium (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

We do what we already do when people turn up to edit the articles to ensure that the website they view reflects their opinion. DuncanHill (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Deceased Wikipedian

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

Seems okay to me, looks fine. As long as autoblock/ACB are off (which they are), it is pretty much just straightforward indeffing. — neuro^(talk) 02:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Indef in memoriam — someone who contributed so much to Scottish football articles. RIP. – Toon^(talk) 02:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I do agree that it is entirely appropriate to leave messages of sympathy and the rest (I did so myself), I beg of people to do it at the talk page, not here (wasn't going to mention it, but then I saw the above comment). — neuro^(talk) 03:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That was meant to be encouragement, not a message in itself, if it came across that way... – Toon^(talk) 03:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Neuro. It would be best if the page is indeffed. Chamal ^talk 12:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Which has already been done by Rockpocket (talk · contribs) on 28 Feb. Chamal ^talk 12:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:UAA

Resolved

 – Case is on the Daniel. — neuro^(talk) 04:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Bit of a backlog at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention if anyone has some spare time... – Toon^(talk) 03:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm on the tagging. — neuro^(talk) 03:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of them need blocking, actually, so that rules me out. — neuro^(talk) 03:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Case is on the Daniel. — neuro^(talk) 04:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal Union

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

Resolved

 – This is not an admin issue. Take up dispute resolution methods. The admin noticeboard is not a place to continue content disputes begun elsewhere at Wikipedia. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I am becoming really tired with disruptive account Bizso and needing help. This newly created SPA account has during last 15 days started massive rewriting of article from Croatian and Hungarian history. In beginning it has been possible to believe that he is good faith editor with thinking that he is knowing history better of everybody else, but now this is not possible. In article Croatia in personal union with Hungary it is possible to see that he is not disputing existence of personal union [16], but in articles about kings of this personal union he is removing title King of Croatia using like reason that title is not writen in article on Britannica [17] which is writing shorter title version in articles of for example Stanford university [18]

Maybe I am little paranoid, but it is weird that we are having user which is edit warring in articles related with history of Hungary, without that he lives in Hungary and without that he speak Hungarian. If we add to that that he is knowing history of blanked talk page which was edited by banned user from Washington metropolitan area and he is using puppets for edit warring [19] maybe is time for 1 nice banning ?

If this is not OK I and other involved users (my thinking) will accept mediation which will be enforced--Rjecina (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

OK Rjecina, you accused me last time of being a socket puppet. You could be banned for personal attacks alone. You can't accept it that there are so many users who can't put up with your nationalistic POV pushing and altering Wikipedia articles to suit your views. You falsify historical articles and remove Britannica and Encarta references!!

That banned user might have been a socketpuppet, however, he still made relevant and valubal comments on the talk page that you are censoring! I add also my comment here:

Rjecina, you state that I am an SPA account like you state many more things without reference. I do not introduce anything disputable, what I do is correct factual inaccuracy introduced into the articles. In a broader sense I revert the artcles to earlier versions (before the incorrect facts were introduced) and provide references. The articles about the rulers of Hungary were all correct and in accordence with Britannica and Encarta at the date of their creation, 2001/2002 and it wasn't until February 2007/August 2008 when they got changed by various IP addresses. Also, articles in other languages are correct as well, it's only the English and Croatian ones that have problems. So this is not a nationalistic dispute, what it is that it somehow hurts your patriotic emotions. That's different things. I would be glad if you you metnioned that I solely use verifyable english sources such as Britannica 2009 and Encarta and that I also discuss them on the talk page. So first I think you should answer those questions there on the talk pages.Talk:Croatia#Questions,Talk:Triune_Kingdom_of_Croatia,_Slavonia,_and_Dalmatia, Talk:Kingdom_of_Hungary_in_the_Middle_Ages, Talk:Croatia_in_personal_union_with_Hungary,

I do no edit warring, the one one who doesn't like historical facts is you because you somehow have a conflict of interest with the history of your country, Croatia. Furthermore, you do edit warring, and you revert my changes without discussion and remove Britannica and Encarta references. Please respond on the talk pages.

I would like to mention that I filed a report against Rjecina earlier that he has a conflict of interest due to his nationalistic feeling. He has been in Conflict with previous Hungarian and Serbian users. See a copy of the report on my talk page.--Bizso (talk) 08:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Rjecina, so I would like to ask you that read BRitannica and Encarta.

And Lands of the St Stephen were the official name for Kingdom of Hungary. It misght be worth stating that you introduced the factual inaccuracy there too. What you think Kingdom of Hungary was is called Hungary proper. Please consult to a historian!--Bizso (talk) 08:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Also I only remove other titles of rulers because they had like 150 and they should be listed in a separate section like the one I created called "Titles". I deleted king of Croatia among other, because King of Hungary includes king of Croatia as croatia was part of Hungary. However King of Hungary doesn't include king of Bohemia for example so I listed it in the lead. I do this based solely on Britannica 2009, and Encarta 2009 references.

From Hungarian regional admin board:

The title of the Hungarian rulers was King of Hungary, and not King of Hungary-Croatia. Croatia was governed by a ban. Please, check it on www.britannica.com All the articles are wrong. Most of the articles were changed in February 2007 by various IP addresses. the King of Hungary was not crowned separately as king of Croatia. He was king of the Croatian people as well as king of the Slovaks and king of the residents of Buda and so on, but these are not mentioned in the articles. Croatia was governed by a ban at that time.--Bizso (talk) 11:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

See below. The admin noticeboard is not the appropriate location to decide between two competing versions of an article. This content dispute is the purview of dispute resolution. Please take this elsewhere. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Rjecina

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

Resolved

 – This is not an admin issue. Take up dispute resolution methods. The admin noticeboard is not a place to continue content disputes begun elsewhere at Wikipedia. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Rjecina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• Reporting User:Rjecina: Censoring Wikipedia. Misleading Reader. Conscious and Intentional Violation of Wikipedia policy on Balance, POV forks Do not hide the facts,Characterizing people's opinon Biased statements and on the general concept of Wikipedia Neutral Point of View Policy. The issue is with regard to the Current Academic Level Dispute around the validity of Pacta Conventa and the circumstances of Hungarian-Croatian historical relations. He also seems to have a conflict showing an impartial attitude towards Croatian-Serbian relations, which results in edit warring between him and multiple other Wikipedian users. On the occasion I continue to insist on presenting all competing academic viewpoints and correct factual inaccuracies, He threatened to block me. He removes sourced, reliable, varifiable, third party english reference provided by various editors so that only one of the viewpoints that is supported by his/her patriotic or nationalistics feelings, are maintained in a double-edged academic level dispute. The issue is still disputed among historians to this day, and Wikipedia policy states to allow all significant viewpoints to exist in an article beside one another. In addition, He also changes historical facts in non-disputable areas, and refuses to be corrected by proper sourced reference. He "patrols" all relevant articles and intentionally maintains Factual Inaccuracy, Ambiguity and Biased Point of View.
  
  

Croatia was part of Kingdom of Hungary from 1102/1091-1918. It is disputed whether Croatia joined to Hungary by a personal union in 1102, or was conquered by Hungary in 1091. Croatia was given limited internal autonomy over some of her affairs; sometimes more, sometimes less. The Lands of St Stephen was the official name for Kingdom of Hungary. This is stated in virtually all reliable, verfiable sources and historical maps including Britannica 2009 and Encarta. Rjecina cannot accept this fact owing to his patriotic/nationatistic emotions, thus he alters history at least on Wikipedia. What user Rjecina presents is that Kingdom of Hungary and Kingdom of Croatia were two separate independent kingdoms and the only common between them was the ruler. This is in fact not true. Croatia was ruled by Hungarian kings and a ban was appointed to the administrative district that was Croatia. When he asserts these facts, he furthermore doesn't provide any references, or when he does so, the references he cites in fact support the contrary what he states or refer to enirely different historic periods (Kingdom of Croatia before the Hungarian rule). Hence, in fact he attempts to manipulate the reader hoping that she/he doesn't check the references. See.[20] and [21].

See some example sources, including Encyclopedia Britannica 2009 and Encyclopedia Encarta 2009 that state the academic level viewpoint that Croatia was in fact ruled by Hungary, Britannica 1911 especially stating the Croatia was a province of Hungary. Rjecina cannot accept this, thus he censors Wikipedia and engages into edit wars. See Talk:Croatia_in_personal_union_with_Hungary titled Croatia-Slavonia in the Kingdom of Hungary. but it appears he has removed other users relevant and valuable comments again for I don't know how many times now.[22] [23]. He deleted my comments too, removing circa 30 sources including Britannica and Encarta among other english academic sources [24] He is stating the Britannica and Encarta peddle Fringe theories Talk:Kingdom_of_Hungary_in_the_Middle_Ages The problem is that Rjecina cannot discuss nor edit these articles in an objective manner, beause he doesn't acknowledge all competing viewpoints. Although this is fair enough, because everyone is entitled to have an opinion regarding a matter. But Wikipedia should be objective on the other hand, and should not include personal reflections and assertions of the users who edit it, without any references.

He introduces false facts[25] and doesn't respond on the talk page Talk:Croatia#Questions and also fails to explain himself here when he removed references againTalk:Croatia#User:Rjecina. He cannot accept the validity of Britannica, nor the 1911 edition nor the 2009 edition, just because it says something else that he would like to hear. Hence, as he can't edit britannica or encarta, he changes articles on Wikipedia. see Talk:Triune_Kingdom_of_Croatia,_Slavonia,_and_Dalmatia As a result he removes Britannica 2009 refernces 1st time[26], 2nd time [27], 3rd time[28]. Now, he removes references from Encyclopedia Encarta.[29] He calls Academic refernces "Spam"[30] He deliberately maintains ambiguity and makes disruptive edits here[31], here [32], here again [33], again [34], he sometimes deletes it altogether [35] When I add the other competing academic viewpoint (that he personally supports) to an article to balance it out and include all significant viewpoints, he changes that too![36] Even the one that he supports, which suggests that he is simply stalking me now.

He maintains ambiguity although article is tagged for in need of Copy-Editing[37] However, he also engages in nationalistic conflicts with other users hereTalk:Jasenovac_concentration_camp#Removal_of_images and censors images that hurt his nationalistic feelings regarding history of Croatia and Serbia.[38]He not only deletes talk pages, but also censors articles by removing additional realibly sourced information because he can't take it. He removed sourced information from Encyclopedia of the Holocaust by Shelach[39]

He blanks talk pages that do not suit his personal view. He removed sourced references from talk page.[40] [41]Removed even more sourced references from talk page but left other viewpoint there. He deletes the competing academic level viewpoint and on top that removes references and replaces unreferenced tag and maintans a POV frok[42]. He removes citation needed tags and introduces inaccuracy to suit his views, removes other additional inforamtion thus maintaing biased sentences[43]

On top of all this, he is constantly accusing me of being a socketpuppet of other users that dare to question Rjecina's neutral point of view and of those who also oppose Rjecina's nationalistic POV pushing. He calls me Vandal[44], and my edits disruptive[45] without any basis.

He now has started reverting other users' edits too, because he believes that they are me.[46][47][48][49] [50] [51]

Some quotes:

You are facing with group of people coming from Croatia whose hurt nacionalistic pride cannot stand seeing these pictures here. These people want only to destroy this article - if not completely then just as much as they can. This is a consequence of Mr Wales' idea that everybody can contibute knowledge - which makes this and other articles unprotected against malice and ignorance.--71.252.55.101 (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Actually that groups of people only refer to Rjecina, as he simply patrols pages.

You deleted the truth. You didn't care about the sources, there were only 11 about the conquer of Croatia, but you deleted it Toroko (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Although the status of Croatia in the Kingdom of Hungary is still disputed; according to all sources here: Whether you call it conquer, annexation, addition or union; the important thing is that Hungary had control over Croatia, but gave her some extent of internal autonomy within the Kingdom of Hungary (Lands of St. Stephen) and in this relationship Hungary and Croatia were not equal parties--Bizso (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Related talk pages: Talk:Croatia#lol.2C_funny_-_Union_with_Hungary,Talk:Croatia#Congratulations.21, User:Bizso/Reporting_Rjecina#Discussion_2

Therefore I would like to Request the following: User:Rjecina has shown no sign of being capable of distancing himself from his nationalistic/patriotic emotions with regard to the issue on the Valditiy of Pacta Conventa and historical Croatian-Hungarian relations and history of Croatia-Serbia. Hence, User:Rjecina is unable to positively contribute to Wikipedia in an objective manner, which is required by Wikipedia's Policy on Netral Point of View. He is effectively censoring Wikipedia due to patriotic feelings for his recently independent country. He furthermore deliberatly prevents the improvement of Wikipedian articles with regard to these topics by engaging in edit wars and calling other users vandal and disruptive.

Therefore, I request that User:Rjecina be blocked or banned from English Wikipedia for an unspecified period of time.--Bizso (talk) 10:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• While patrolling Special:Recent changes I noted that User:Bizso is canvassing comment in respect of their complaint against Rjecina. I also note that Bizso has posted exactly the same content at the WP:AN/Geopolitical etc noticeboard (as have I). LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because Rjecina has posted his accusations twice already, here and on the other noticeboard. I'm sorry, I didn't know that informing other people about this thread is bad. All I wanted is that users who have conflict with Rjecina could express their opinions regarding this matter.--Bizso (talk) 12:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not an administrator issue. Please solve this on your own at the talk page of the article in question, or seek outside help/mediation as described at Dispute Resolution. Admins hold no power over content and do not use their admin powers to settle content disputes. We may block users who edit war, who harass other users, or who are otherwise disruptive, but we do not use our magical admin powers to decide whose version of an article is "better". Please seek dispute resolution, this discussion does not belong here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Need admin to move over redir

Resolved

We have Ilya Piatetski-Shapiro as a redirect to Ilya Pyatetskii-Shapiro. It should be the other way around. Please help. Thanks. McKay (talk) 11:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Done! ➲ redvers ^{see my arsenal} 11:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Merci! McKay (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Users: Juanacho and Decodet

In the main Ashley Tisdale article which I have been editing for 1-3 days now. The page in the past before my edits included fake awards, Tisdale was never nominated for a Nickelodeon Australian Kids' Choice Awards, the link provided to support this statement does not mention Tisdale nor does it list the nominees, here is the link: [52] Then another award which she supposedly got nominated for which was the Germany Jetix Awards. The links provided to support this statement ([53]) does not show in German that she got nominated for the award. I clicked this: [54] which is what these users posted and I found nothing mentioning the Jetix Awards. Another fake award nominated that got posted it the Nickelodeon Brazilian Kids' Choice Awards, the link posted to support this award (In Brazilian): [55] is a blog. The site's host is Word press and the site does not look reliable at all, the first link posted was an article in Brazilian that when I translated show the pre nominations for the award. The el superficial site was a blog, not just any blog a celebrity gossip blog which is hosted by Wordpress en Español. In the end of this page: [56] the copyright of the site is shown and the host.

Every time I edit on this page, these following users revert my work for no reason listed: Juanacho and Decodet. I put some of effort into fixing the spelling and pun caution errors (In January, 31, 2008, Forth, european etc. ), these children truly need education. And I have absolutely no idea how this article is a Good Article. I found 2 duplicate references, text that has references yet is repeated in another section with a brand new reference, trivial text (In her Music and Influences section, there was something about her singing a pop rock song in a TV movie. Well the song was a Shadows of the Night cover and was not released in any soundtrack nor was it over 2 minutes long. So why is it mentioned in her Music and Influences section?), over linking (over 3 links that are all reliable but are all of these references necessary? There was a very reliable reference from her official site that supported half of the text in her Early Life section that had dozens of references: [57].

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

In the career section there was a lot of references from blogs, celebrity blogs and fan sites etc. saying when Tisdale's promotional singles, real singles, re-releases, music video releases, re-releases for album and singles got released in Germany, The U.K, Brazil, Poland, The U.S. and on. Why list and reference all of the release dates for her album's deluxe edition and Radio Disney promo single? Since all of this is listed and referenced in Tisdale's music pages which include her album page, discography, and on.. There is a large amount of links from Just Jared and Just Jared Jr which is a gossip blog, the site is quite reliable but the site is a gossip, celebrity site that posts rumors as well. Since it would take time and space to list all of her minor television roles, I listed a few of them. Her most notable guest appearances. All of her guest appearances have been verified in the past (IMDB, her official site). So I don't see why two references were added to support her The Hughleys and Still Standing appearances: [58] Honestly I am so sick and tired of cleaning up that article. It gets reverted every time. Gimmetrow and Gprince007 have reverted Juanacho and Decodet's reverts to my trimmed version,but it seems that these multiple accounts are never going to stop reverting. I am so sick of this. Please can an admin please stop this.

Look at these:

• [59]
• [60]
• [61] Time order? Unnecessary coverage of a EP that did not chart
• [62]
• [63]
• [64]
• [65]
• [66]
• [67]
• [68]
• [69]
• [70]
• [71]
• [72]
• [73]

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

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

Is edit-warring the way we establish consensus?

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Is_edit-warring_the_way_we_establish_consensus.3F. Not an administrator-specific issue. Skomorokh 21:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem bot (CSDWarnBot)

One particular user, ST47, has a bot that has received several complaints about how it conducts speedy-delete warnings to page authors. For example, I placed a speedy delete on an article that had a clearly mis-spelled title: the newly created Zhao'an Country vs Zhao'an County the correctly spelled name where an article already existed.

After placing a speedy delete tag on the article, I went to the author's talk page (User talk:Isatcn) to notify him of the discrepancy and to request him to place a {{db-author}} tag in the article to avoid any confusion on why the article was tagged for speedy. Before I could finish typing my message, CSDWarnBot placed one of its own in his talk page. The user continued to edit the existing article, and attempted to place a {{hangon}} tag. This was likely because he failed to see my short, succinct message because due to the larger message by CSDWarnBot with all the bells and whistles (image graphic, bolding, 2 paragraphs, etc.) See here.

One administrator failed to see what the problem with the article was (not realizing the typo problem with the title) and left the article in tact, even fixing the malformed {{hangon}}.

I eventually left another message on the talk page of the article. The author finally realized what he had done and placed the appropriate {{hangon}} tag. However, a process that should have taken me less than 5 minutes ended up taking me 4-5 times that long.

I also filed a complaint on the ST47's talk page here. It was then that I learned there have been several other complaints about the very same behavior over the last few months, as well as other disruptive/problematic actions by the bot (see User_talk:CSDWarnBot). While I understand that bots can serve a beneficial purpose, the usefulness of a bot is negated by the extra effort and confusing communication to authors of pages who are tagged for speedy delete, many of whom are new users. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

In this particular case, just redirect them. I agree, the bot-message is way too large and obnoxious and should be refactored to use fifty words or fewer. Anything that needing further explanation can be found by following some of the links. I don't think the lightning-fast reflexes do the bot much good as in most cases the page will be deleted by the time anyone reads the message. — CharlotteWebb 18:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I do like the speed--otherwise, one never knows if the bot is working at all. I too have run into problems with conflicts, but this is etter than it going too slowly. Asfor the length of the warning, yes, it definitely needs to be shortened. DGG (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well if the bot's reflexes are so instant as to infallibly cause an edit conflict for the user who would otherwise be leaving a similar, less patronizing message (and indeed, a visual conflict for the person expected to read all that crap) one could argue that it's doing more harm than good. — CharlotteWebb 02:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

User: 68.39.239.92

I could use a hand reminding 68.39.239.92 (talk · contribs) to be a bit more civil. A disagreement over whether an edit should be labeled as vandalism or not has taken a personal turn on my talk page and Clark89's talk page as well.--Rtphokie (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Changing community ban of Dereks1x and Tvoz problem

Resolved

 – Quack quack. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
'Background of proposal: I am proposing an end to the community ban of Dereks1x after a 45 day trial period. Several months ago, Dereks1x's possible sockpuppetmaster, Seattlehawk94, ran a checkuser on me but was discovered to be a sock of Dereks1x himself. He managed to talk his way out of it. Seattlehawk94 accused me of being a sock. Since then, I have looked at Dereks1x and it's clear to me why the community has handled the situation wrongly resulting in a lot of drama. The unban is justified and would end years of drama. Seattlehawk94 is not a nice guy but his Dereks1x ban desires looking into again. I think Seattlehawk94 is just one of several people, all of which have been falsely labelled as Derek except one person. We just don't know which one. I investigated this months ago and even wrote to a few of the users and put away the findings. I've only decided to bring them in the open because there was another mention of Dereks1x a few days ago. Involved editors: Original opponents of Dereks1x (Tvoz trio): Tvoz, Bobblehead, Jersyko Users the trio were opposed to: Dereks1x, Doc United States Events that happened 3 years ago, the Tvoz trio were in dispute over trivial matters related to politicians, such as how much to write about John Edwards' wife's cancer, if Barack Obama should be called Barack Obama or Barack Obama, Jr., if Barack Obama did not take his lawsuits to trial or if he wrote briefs. These are all things that can be discussed. According to what I've learned, Dereks1x asked his doctor his medical opinion about Mrs. Edwards' cancer (his doctor would naturally live and edit in the same city). In response, the doctor wrote a medical opinion in the talk pages, a rather bland and neutral opinion which was supported by other doctors on Wikipedia. Trying to gain advantage in a content dispute, the Tvoz trio sought ban of Dereks1x. Instead of just sockpuppetry, they sought the most outrageous accusation in order to win their quest for a ban. They accused Doc United States of impersonating a doctor. When the doctor proved his degree, the Tvoz trio reverted the proof. A another user VK35 (I assume Doc United States=VK35) later proved that he was a doctor and Jimbo Wales unblocked him but a few week later, another administrator blocked VK35 for the same reason even though he was not privy to the proof. Jimbo Wales had access to objective proof that he has kept private because of privacy reasons. See Jimbo Wales' reasoning here [74] Since then, there have been many users accused of being socks, many of them quite innocent looking and good contributors, like Polounit, VK35. It's possible that some of them were socks but if the ban was wrong to begin with, anyone would be unhappy if they were banned. One user, Chergles (the one that caught my attention a few days ago) was declared to be the sock of banned user Anacapa and Archtransit and maybe Dereks1x. This shows the unreliability of the checkuser's secret conclusion because Chergles is from a different part of the country than Anacapa (various posts mention it but I won't for privacy reasons). Looking at the temperment of Chergles and it's very much different from Dereks1x or Anacapa. I have looked at the original ban and see that it was flawed to begin with. I also see that the Tvoz trio created quite a bit of drama advocating bad editing. In essence, if there is a positive spin to politicians that Tvoz supports, Tvoz will be for it. If there is some not so favorable information, Tvoz will advocate suppressing it. Even when Todd Palin got an article, Tvoz opposed it and blamed it on a Dereks1x sock. The community disagreed with Tvoz and forced withdrawal but not before Tvoz accused enemies of being a sock. This is not the Wikipedia way which advocates neutrality. Evidence of Tvoz and Bobblehead stalking others The Tvoz trio have probably been laughing their teeth out at the Wikipedia community for going along with their plot for 3 years. It's not fun for me when I'm being accused. One instance of stalking by the Tvoz trio (Tvoz and Bobblehead) is when one of the accused Dereks1x socks started writing an article called the Astronaut Hall of Fame. Tvoz and Bobblehead followed this person around and started to make all kinds of changes in the article just for harrassment. You can see that they don't edit that article anymore. That shows their lack of good faith and use of WP to harrass. Proposal Because the basic reason for ban, i.e. Dereks1x's accused sock Doc United States/VK35 is really a doctor and did not impersonate a doctor, the reasoning is flawed. Therefore, the ban must end. Collaborating editors who concur with the main facts: Funpika, Jimbo Wales. Funpika says it IS relevant if VK35 is a doctor. Jimbo Wales also wrote that it is relevant. So while they haven't been asked their opinion about the ban removal, they have supported important points in this discussion. Unban proposal specifics 1. Dereks1x is unbanned. Dereks1x must refrain from editing any American politician's article 45 days. 2. Tvoz, Bobblehead, and Jersyko must refrain from editing any American politician's article for 45 days. 3. Dereks1x, Tvoz, Bobblehead, and Jersyko must not have any contact with each other for 45 days. They must not edit any article among themselves. If they discover that another is editing, they must withdraw. (this prevents harrassment like Tvoz/Bobblehead did in the Astronaut Hall of Fame and other articles) 4. If there is a controversial edit by any of the above, the community should discuss it with the above users with respect and the above users must reply with respect. 5. At the end of 45 days, any of the above users will be banned if they violate terms of the proposal. If they comply, the ban will be completely lifted. By having this unban, innocent people like me will not have to endure the stigma of being accused of being a sock. Some of the accused users have been very productive (such as VK35 and Polounit) and have not been in conflict with the Tvoz trio. This suggests that they may be innocent users who have been wrongly tagged as socks and leading the trail in completely the wrong direction. Advantages for Wikipedia to accept the proposal Opponents of this proposal should be prepared to explain why a doctor can be banned for falsely claiming to be a doctor when they are really a doctor. This has the possibility of becoming bad publicity for Wikipedia if the public learns that people are being banned for false reasons. A graduated unban is the correct and safest way to proceed. The advantages to Wikipedia are that some very good article writing editors were accused of Dereks1x socks. I suspect that at least one of the socks was not a sock and the checkuser trail has gone on a tangent chasing a non-sock. Another advantage is that there is irrefutable proof that some collateral damage has happened. Collateral damage is actually a Bush-type mind control term because such damage actually hurts innocent people. It's like if someone murdered your mother and said it was just "collaterl damage". Likely reception at WP:AN: Some people will try to attack me, just like Dereks1x sock, Seattlehawk94 The likely reception is that administrators and checkusers will not like to hear that there was a wrong ban so they will accuse me of being a sock, most likely Dereks1x's sock. This is just bad behavior. I'm just mentioning it because I was picked on by a Dereks1x sock (Seattlehawk94) but I think he is just one person of several who are accused of being Derek and I'm also mentioning it because Dereks1x was just discussed on AN 2 days ago.Klemm2 (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC) NOTE: I have done some investigation and there is proof that all of the above users, Tvoz, Dereks1x, Jimbo Wales, etc. are not in Texas. I am at the University of Texas. Klemm2 (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Don't pretend you are not a sock of Dereks1x. D.M.N. (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC) There is little value to discussing this here in view of the Archtransit debacle and the recent Chergles block. If there is any new evidence to be submitted, please forward it to the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Community ban lifts are discussed at AN or ANI. The trouble is that several people have been blocked or accused as socks. By discussing it here and not writing to AC, AC cannot ignore it as easily. This is a big problem that needs to be solved since Dereks1x is picking on me and you are picking on others whom you wrongly suspect to be Derek. I will leave it at that. As I said, I think this will end up nowhere because of WP culture. Klemm2 (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC) @ Klemm2 - and you gained all this knowledge after one day on wiki? Also per NYB. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Any objection to closing this nonsense? Should a CU confirm that Klemm2 is Dereks1x before doing so? //roux   22:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC) I will help you with the CU. I do not want my main account blocked since I have been editing for 5 years. Here is my work IP.129.111.56.199 (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Closed. This is obviously a sock trolling AN. Sceptre (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Septre, You are just a child. Please don't hide this thread.Klemm2 (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC) I usually work at work and not edit. Also note that I don't like Dereks1x because at least one sock has picked on me. However, sorting out the mess is the right thing to do and the way to do it is a trial unblock of all involved. I see there is no uproar about Tvoz' bad behavior. Good bye. I will not argue this any more. Klemm2 (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate title for a Redirect

Discussion moved to Talk:Nigger lover — Gavia immer (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)