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

Current issues

Does a corporate logo count as a non-free image on a user page?

User:Lex94/Signatures contains Image:Wwelogo.png, the World Wrestling Entertainment logo. I was under the impression that fair-use images can't be used on user subpages, and I asked the author about it, but he asserted that it's OK to use a corporate logo because it's free content and it provides publicity to WWE. He said, "With all due respect, do not try to argue with these points, because I know what I am talking about."

So, is it actually fair use to use a corporate logo in user space? I guess I should figure out what I'm talking about here.

By the way, I'm working up a rant about whether guestbooks (with all the fancy signatures) and hidden pages (e.g. "Find my hidden page and win a barnstar!") are actually helping the encyclopedia or not. It's sort of the same socializing mess that doomed Esperanza, but less centralized. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No, fair-use images cannot be used in userspace. --Yamla 22:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yamla is right, the relevant policy is WP:NFCC#9. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Lex94 seems to misunderstand that a copyrighted logo is not free content in the sense of freedom. Free content in the context of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation projects refers to the freedom to use, copy, modify, and re-distribute. Although the logo is widely distributed free of charge for publicity purposes, it remains under a rights-reserved copyright, and is thus subject to WP:NFCC. — TKD::Talk 23:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

As a point of clarification, many corporate logos tagged as non-free are in fact not subject to copyright because they are mere typesetting of words, or are older logos that lost their copyright from being published without copyright notices. Nevertheless, I wouldn't encourage anyone to use them on their user page - among other things that even raises some trademark concerns. Also, this particular logo is clearly copyrighted and thus non-free. Wikidemo 01:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

So, you are saying if I used an older WWE logo, it would be fine? Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Signatures} 01:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If it was published before 1923. (Unlikely, as the WWE was founded in 1952.) Maybe possibly if it was published before 1978, but it'll be very difficult to prove the necessary conditions. —Cryptic 01:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I still dont understand the problems for logos. Logos are commercial images/signs. So, if I give publicity to it on my user page (Ex. I add: World Wrestling Entertainment's site link to the page), it will be completely ok for me to use the image. And also, many users have images of different wrestlers on their user pages. (Hybrid, Zenlax, etc.) Companies normally give out free caps or bands with their logos on them for free, so obviously its publicity stunt, that I am attribuing to when I add the logo to my page. Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Signatures} 01:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If you read Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, you will see that number nine (Restrictions on location.) restricts the use of non-free images. Per this policy, non-free images, including logos, may only be used within articles. This is official policy regardless of whether or not you provide a link to the company. The images (for the mostpart) are the copyright of the company, and while I doubt they'd sue over an image on a userpage, you still don't have the legal right to use a company's logo however you wish. - auburnpilot talk 01:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If this is true, how can it be used in the article World Wrestling Entertainment? Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Signatures} 02:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Because that page meets the criteria. If you read the criteria it will explain. 1 != 2 02:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

More directly it is because its being used to illustrate a subject relevant to the article, its being used under the Non-free content criteria and its use is justified by a explanation provided by the fair use rationale. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think that this issue is as clear as some make it out to be. Some trademarks are "free content", as in they are unencumbered by copyright restrictions. Many are even on Wikimedia Commons. I uploaded one last week. They are not, however, "Free Cultural Works", as they are encumbered by trademark restrictions. At the same time, however, I don't think that we should allow trademarks on pages unrelated to the product or trade. That could constitute trademark infringement, or the tort of passing off. Note, however, that I am not a lawyer and that that legal information is not legal advice. --Iamunknown 04:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It get's even messier. Wikipedia hosts several languages on the server farm in the netherlands, including the de site. In most german-ish speaking countries, The Netherlands and Germany in particular, The standard of originality is vastly higher then in the US. So things like the Star Wars logo, being simply stylized text, dont meet that threshold, and over there have trademark protection in the fields related to the star wars franchise, but no valid copyright there, which is how the de article can have the logo in their article about the film, but still completely disallow copyrighted images in favor of free content. -M^ask? 18:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Both trademark law and copyright law apply to logos with sufficient uniqueness. In this case our copyright policy forbids the use of this logo. I think it would be fairly difficult to prove any kind of trademark infringement however. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia barely addresses trademark concerns. However, companies notice and occasionally make legal threats when they see others using their logo on the web in a fannish way. You're definitely on shaky ground if you use other people's logos for logo wear, fan sites, and the like. Their legal theory might be that the trademark is broad and applies to interactive services; another theory woudl be trademark tarnishment / dilution. I don't know whether or how it's in the rules but I don't think we want to go down the path of letting people use logos on their use pages, even if not copyrighted. One of the problems, illustrated here, is that it's hard to be clear whether a logo is copyrighted or not. In article space we want to err on the side of caution and simply assume it is and apply the non-free logo principles. We should do the same in user space too rather than getting into a case by case difficult analysis of whether to treat a logo as copyrighted. Wikidemo 14:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism of Wikipedia in news article

Hi guys, I really don't know what's done in a situation like this, so I thought I might as well describe it here. Just a few minutes ago I found an article written by a Gil Zohar in the European Jewish Press (EJP) entitled Nativ seeks Russian Jews in Montreal to immigrate to Israel. In any case, as I began to read on I realized that a majority of the article was nearly a copy/paste from the article Lishkat Hakesher, which I wrote about a year ago. Here are some sample instances of plagiarism:

EJP:

The semi-covert immigration encouragement organization Lishkat Hakesher or the Liaison Bureau, codenamed Nativ (Hebrew for path), maintained contact with Jews living in the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War and encouraged aliyah, or immigration to Israel.

Wikpedia:

Lishkat Hakesher or The Liaison Bureau, codenamed Nativ (נתיב-path), is an Israeli liaison organization that maintained contact with Jews living in the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War and encouraged aliyah, or immigration to Israel.

EJP:

Founded as part of the Prime Minister’s Office by Prime Minister Moshe Sharett in 1952 and headquartered in Tel Aviv, Nativ was designed to function covertly, making contacts, fostering Jewish education, and aiding immigration to Israel.

Nativ was not the first organization to do this. Mossad l’Aliyah Bet, part of the Haganah, brought Jews to Israel in defiance of the British Mandate during the 1930s and 1940 , but this ended with the creation of Israel in 1948.

Nativ was to continue that mission, except now in defiance of the Soviet Union.

Although it operated in a clandestine manner, the official policy was never to break Soviet laws.

This did not stop the KGB from suspecting that it was spying, in fact, as recently as 1998 Nativ was accused of conducting espionage operations.

Wikipedia:

Founded as part of the Prime Minister's office by Prime Minister Moshe Sharett in 1952-1953, Nativ was designed to function covertly, making contacts, fostering Jewish education, and aiding immigration to Israel. Nativ was not the first organization to do this; Mossad Le'aliyah Bet, part of the Haganah, had brought Jews to Israel in defiance of the British Mandate, but this ended with the creation of Israel. Nativ was to continue that mission, except now in defiance of the Soviet Union. Although it operated in a clandestine manner, the official policy was never to break Soviet laws. This did not stop the KGB from suspecting that it was spying, in fact, as recently as 1998 Nativ was accused of conducting espionage operations.

This almost word-to-word copy goes on for most of the article, and the only real deviation is some slightly new information at the beginning. Obviously I understand that Wikipedia can be copied, but this seems to be a case of journalist malpractice. EJP itself claims on their About page:

The agency is today recognised by the major media organisations, EU institutions and the general public as an important source of reliable and accurate information and the undisputed reference on European Jewish issues.

I'm flattered that they liked my writing, but this seemed to be going way too far. Anyway, I wasn't sure if anything should be done - you guys can take it from here ; ) Joshdboz 19:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no it can't be copied unless they are fully compliant with the terms of the GFDL (which, at a quick glance, they certainly are not). They have a list of editors on their "Contact" page, if someone would like to drop them a quick note. I would do it, but I'm heading out in a few minutes. If it hasn't been done when I get back, I can do it then. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I've got some time before I need to go, I'll do it. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If they're a reputable news organization, they will probably fall all over themselves to apologize, and chastize the reporter in question rather harshly, if you send them an email with this evidence at http://www.ejpress.org/contact/ If they don't, they will be hung out to dry by the reputable news organizations. This sort of thing has happened before, see:

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-05-09/Brockhaus plagiarism suspected
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-01-02/Reporter plagiarizes Wikipedia and followup:
  • Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-01-16/Tim Ryan dismissed
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-01-08/Press plagiarism (resigned)
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-07-09/Japanese plagiarism

and possibly other times --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

(EC) A similar incident came up a few weeks ago. Our goal on-site is to prevent Wikipedia from having copyright violations and plagiarism of other sources. This case goes in the opposite direction: another source apparently plagiarizing Wikipedia. If you want to pursue a copyright claim individually, or just contact the publisher to ask that they credit you and other contributors for the text, you can do that. But there's not much that we can do about this as administrators. Your contributions are still your own intellectual property, licensed under the GFDL, which requires attribution to you; I suggest you inform them of that. Since Bbatsell is doing this, I leave my comment here for future situations.--chaser - t 19:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Just for further clarification, I believe this to be the website of the journalist in question. He seems to be a freelancer named Gil Kezwer who publishes under Gil Zohar, and has had some articles in The Jerusalem Post. Thanks for sending a note, Bbatsell. Joshdboz 19:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Gil Kezwer (SEWilco 20:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC))

Just confirming that I did send a message to the news editor, cc'ing the managing editor and the generic news@ address. I don't expect a response soon, as it is 10:30 P.M. at EJP. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you actually direct them to this thread, or merely explain the situation? Dragons flight 20:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I explained the situation. At the time I sent the e-mail, the other discoveries hadn't been made. I'll link them to the evidence here when I get a response. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Blnguyen/Times_of_India: My favorites. The Times of India doesn't even try. Keegan^talk 02:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well the article's still up so they seem to be in no hurry to react...or read their inbox. Joshdboz 18:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

To confirm, no response yet. It is the weekend, and it appears that no new articles have been posted to the website since Thursday, so they might have limited hours. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if you don't get any response by Tuesday I'd be happy to call their office. Joshdboz 17:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I wonder... does this little investigation qualify for inclusion in the Gil Kezwer stub, or is it a BLP taboo? I'll bet he's never seen this noticeboard, but he probably checks the article about him four times a week. I'm neutral about it, but I'd like to hear other opinions. KrakatoaKatie 20:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not as well wiki-policy versed as many but I would assume that that would qualify as OR; however, I don't think there's much harm in leaving a link on the talk page. Joshdboz 22:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Gil's Other Plagarism

Reaffirming that a writer is never caught for their first act of plagarism. Dragons flight 20:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Gil Zohar: Supreme Court Orders NIS 100,000 Fine for Illegal Building - January, 13 2007
• Yuval Yoaz and Akiva Eldar: Court orders NIS 100,000 fine for companies building in W. Bank - January 11, 2007

I suspected that might be the case, but I didn't want to smear this guy for what could have been a one-time screw-up. Joshdboz 20:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, is it OR to include information on a subject's, ahem, "quoting" other sources in articles about the subject him/herself? I was thinking, if we truly wanted to discourage stuff like this, maybe creating a stub on the subject, if s/he's notable enough, and then including such info on paraphrasing (or whatever) wikipedia on the talk page. John Carter 20:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would be OR. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

More from Wikipedia. Dragons flight 21:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Gil Zohar Lebanon – the morass gets muddier, November 8, 2006
• Wikipedia, Demographics of Lebanon Lebanese Civil War: Two paragraphs beginning "Constitutionally guaranteed Christian control..."
• Wikipedia, Lebanese Civil War: One paragraph beginning "Since the end of..."
• Wikipedia, Lebanon (as appeared October 2006): Several paragraphs beginning "The population of Lebanon is composed..."

I'm not seeing "Constitutionally guaranteed Christian control..." in Demographics of Lebanon; try History of Lebanon or Lebanese Civil War. (SEWilco 21:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC))

I meant Lebanese Civil War but must have copied the wrong link. Dragons flight 21:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Diffs would help date the Wikipedia phrasing. (SEWilco 22:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC))

Unblock of Dereks1x?

The editor was community banned in April per this discussion. He's waited half a year and asked me for reinstatement. I'm ready to give him a fresh start; any objections? Durova^Charge! 19:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Has he tried to evade ban lately? --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 20:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Support if (and only if) he promises no more sockpuppeteering, false credentials, and if he behaves himself on democratic party biographies (and elsewhere, of course). Really, if he understands what he did was wrong and agrees not to do it again. Easy enough to reblock if necessary. This is on the assumption that he has not tried to avoid his ban in the past three months or so (and hopefully, not at all). --Yamla 20:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't one of his socks caught out just over a week ago? [[WP:NOTANADMIN]], but that would certainly make me question his intentions. What rationale has he offered for an unblock? Tony Fox (arf!) 20:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be the case. The account was blocked on October 10, 2007. As such, I firmly oppose unblocking Dereks1x. He has clearly not learnt his lesson. Maybe in a year, if he avoids any further sockpuppetry in the meanwhile. --Yamla 20:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

7F (talk · contribs) as well. I seriously doubt these are the only two. --Yamla 20:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

(e/c) I'm not familiar with the history of User:Dereks1x, but I remembered seeing the name a few days ago on ANI. The following accounts have been tagged as Dereks1x socks just in October:

• User:EIJ initials (tagged by WJBscribe, blocked by N H Nick)
• User:UTAFA (tagged by Moe E, blocked by Jersyko)
• USer:7F (tagged and blocked by Jersyko)

A random click on a name in Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Dereks1x also shows User:Oprahwasontv (tagged by Bobblehead, blocked by Angusmclellan) edited in August. I didn't bother to look at any other names in that Cat. Seems like lots of people think he's still socking. --barneca (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If he has been using socks that recently, I am opposed to overturning the community ban. It shouldn't even be considered until he has shown a willingness to accept community standards and decisions. I would support a second chance, though, if he stops creating socks and abides by the ban. Sarah 23:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

My standard offer is to support reinstatement if a banned editor does three things:

• Wait six months (and respect WP:SOCK.
• Don't bash Wikipedia offsite.
• Promise not to repeat the same behavior that led to the ban.

I'm still willing to discuss this, but since the sock blocks weren't contested at the time I'll let the burden rest with these accounts to explain why they aren't socks. Mistaken IDs have occasionally happned before. I'm willing to be persuaded. Durova^Charge! 23:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have arbitrary criteria, but in most cases I don't object to reviewing bans after a reasonable period of time has passed with the person behaving themselves. I do agree about mistaken identities, which is why I prefaced my opposition with, "if he has been using socks that recently..." Maybe it would be worth asking Lar or someone to fire up the checkuser. Sarah 00:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Durova^Charge! 01:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, 43 socks in the category? Whew. Durova^Charge! 01:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And one more: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Another Dereks1x sock. Mr.Z-man 02:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Is Dereks1x still using socks to evade his ban? More than ever. We uncovered three socks disruptively editing in one day last week - 7F (talk · contribs), MD12752 (talk · contribs) (again pretending to be a doctor, for the third time), and UTAFA (talk · contribs). Then yesterday there was Polounit (talk · contribs) and greenwinged (talk · contribs). And this is just from memory of the last week. There have been many others throughout the months since the ban was instituted; he has contacted several administrators on their talk pages or by email recently complaining about one or another sock having been blocked (see User talk:MatthewUND for one), asking for Dereks1x to be reinstated. He doesn't admit that he is Dereks1x, yet asks under a different persona for Dereks1x to be reinstated - doesn't even make any sense. These socks have all been apparent because of their disruptive editing - I wouldn't venture a guess about other socks he has out there more quietly evading the ban. I'm sure there are many. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not out there looking for him - I have better things to do here - but he brings it right to my door in his edit choices. These and many other socks have become apparent very quickly because of the way he edits, the topics he edits, the language he uses, his unflinching support of other Dereks1x socks, his use of various fora to complain about blocks, his persistent claims and false RFCUs saying that Bobblehead, Jersyko and I are socks of one another - and occasionally throwing in one or another editor for good measure - I could go on. There is no mistaken identity here, Durova - this is a recidivist sockfarmer who has shown no remorse, no admission of his behavior or sign of changing his behavior, and who continues to waste the time and resources of good faith editors. I am all for giving people second chances, but to my mind he has lost that right. That he could ask you to rescind his block right at the same time that he was busily disrupting from multiple sock accounts boggles the mind. Tvoz |talk 04:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

you fuckin' idiots need to get it right. you idiots are blocking everyone. there's someone at work who is fuckin laughing at you keystone cops. The last straw is when you goons blocked me because of him. He's User:Prontoself. He's the sockmaster. Even his name says it all (Quick + self, self being a sock reference). I'm not sure whether he's derek1x or just took on agitating people pretending to be derek1x but let's stop this nonsense. Block the right people, like derek1x and prontoself. I know you goons better, your going to block me for speaking out so i'll give you a reason.....I'm going to sue you a million times over.Gettherightuser 18:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal closing

Can an admin look at the List of the Day Proposal. Debate was opened seven days ago. It may be time to close debate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

CAN I GET AN IMPARTIAL ADMIN HERE???? I should have requested an impartial admin. The admin who has reviewed the proposal that had 43 interested respondents is the same one who started the The proposal, as it stands, is a massive waste of time section, and he just wrote over the proposal with his own idea. Can someone impartial look at the responses to the original proposal who does not have a preconception about the proposal? --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem here lies in your definition of an IMPARTIAL ADMIN, which as far as I can tell equates to "an admin who agrees with me". There is an alternative proposal, your proposal has not been deleted, there is nothing to fix. And in any case, the Village Pump is the place for suggesting structural changes. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Complaints about a member

Hello, I would like to file a complaint about Angel David (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He edits in a POV way, which favors Christians. (Examples [1] [2] [3]) and also violates WP:NOTCENSORED and wants to delete perfectly good things (Examples: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

It is quite annoying, and Maxim also has problems with him . I would like an administrator opinion on this. Thank you for your time. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Lol OK but putting articles about religion in "category: fictitious" something, isn't really the way forward. Try putting God in Category:fictional characters and see what happens. Religion may be fiction for some people, it's no point trying to prove religion is fictitious you will never manage to convince people. Have you seen the kind of wars that are in Category:Fictional wars ? It's all stuff like Star Wars and story books. Please don't treat religion like fiction even if you are atheist, look here is the graph, only 2.35% of the world population consider religion to be fiction. Christians, Muslims and Jews believe that article is not fiction, that's more than half the world's population. He is quite right to remove this tag. There is a fundamental difference in between religion and fiction, and it is that many people believe religion to be true. Please just categorise religious articles as "religion" not fiction it will help avoid conflicts, and everyone is still free to believe it is fiction is they so choose to. Jackaranga 03:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

He has clearly made many inappropriate edits though. Hard to know what to do about people who are probably not bad faith editors but can simply not get used to practices such as not tagging long lasting pages as db-nonsense for example. Also he says he is a child, which makes things more difficult, as many wikipedians are adult/teenage men, and often do not know how to communicate with children, I know I'm pretty bad at it ! Jackaranga 03:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You need to take this to requests for comment as part of dispute resolution. These sorts of POV issues are what RFC is meant for, administrative opinions carry relatively little weight since we are janitors and not moderators of discussion. Keegan^talk 05:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Several of his edits appear to be based on a very profound religious believe wich can be trouble and end up in several POV additions, some of them even being influenced by what's morally correct [10], a request for comment is more appropiate step for finding a civil discussion here, I can't see how we as admins can help here. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

In addition to what Keegan says, whenever you are talking about somebody, it's a good idea to invite them to join the discussion, because that helps build trust instead of animosity. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I am making an RFC. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 20:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed identity

Where are the instructions whereby you can register your proven identity and also keep in secure? If you have used this, what do you think of the program? Rlevse 15:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

{{User_committed_identity}}, I like it, you provide a string containing your claims, and some sort of secret content(so it cannot be guessed), and build a SHA512 checksum and publish it. It is currently well beyond our technology to create a phony string that matches the checksum, or do derive the original string from the checksum. 1 != 2 15:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a great concept in my opinion. Even if you don't have access to a SHA512 encryption, you an use SHA128 with a fair level of confidence. Have your key include some way outside of wikipedia to contact you so even if it does get broken you can recover your account prove your ownership of the account. Oh, also, make sure you publish your ID somewhere obvious. You can see mine (003c0f88bcf96e70e26e7ec4890d2f573c3f994f) on my user page. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Do read the talk page before doing anything, though... it appears there are some concerns about the security of the hash concept itself, but someone with more experience in cryptanalysis should probably answer that instead. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

a) while there may be a string that gives the exact same SHA-512 value as the one I have chosen, it most likely will be random gibberish, whereas my string has my wikipedia name, my email address, and my real name and phone number, making it easier to prove I'm me in case someone else break my hash.

b) if someone really cares enough to break my hash function just so he can put Goatse on the main page, he deserves his moment of glory. Thatcher131 20:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The hashes, including 512, are available here. Rlevse 23:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Broken edit compare tool

Admins have access to a very useful tool that allows us to compare the edits of two users. It's part of the "admin rollback and deletion tools" in Voice of All's package. In the past few days this tool seems to be broken. I don't know the first thing about Javascript, so I'm wondering if someone can advise. Thanks. - Raymond Arritt 16:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Ive got one on the toolserver that Ill run if anyone wants. β^_command 04:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

A modest proposal

How about if we protect every page outside of mainspace for a few weeks and see what happens? It might kick off a new round of encyclopedia editing, and free us from pointless meta-bickering. On the downside, some of our most prolific contributors to arbcom workshops, policy pages, and noticeboards might leave for another forum. Thoughts? Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Bickering can be healthy, provided that disputes are sorted. I can understand what you're getting at, but we need some people here to do those tasks, it keeps it organised and helps to highlight people that are editing disruptively. See it as a football team, the article writers are the players and they do the job that everyone see's - but the team would be nothing without the backroom staff keeping everything in check. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of No email Fridays, perhaps we could have one "Mainspace-only" day a week. Or at the least, perhaps every January 15th. Neil ☎ 18:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Negative, seeing that protecting every page outside of mainspace would include closing pages with a frecuent or advanced level of backlog like WP:GAC, not to mention more important pages such as WP:AIV. Most of these pages require edits from users that are not admins to actually work, not to mention that closing the noticeboards or AIV will end up with a huge vandalism party. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The place would just go to hell, no way of reporting vandalism, new users can't ask for help, nowhere to discuss changes to articles, unending revert wars etc. I know what you mean though, thanks for saying this it makes me think a bit, maybe I will stop trying to get stuff deleted for a while. Jackaranga 18:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I see several problems. First, the number of such pages is very large. We'd need at least on 'bot to protect and unprotect the pages. That bot would have to have admin priveleges, but to my knowledge only one adminbot has ever been approved, and that one does the terribly simple job of deleting redirects to nowhere. It has maybe 12 lines of code. The page protection and unprotection bot would be much more complex. I just don't think it would gain enough support to pass RFA. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Nah, with no need to be selective, we could just get the devs to turn all other namespaces off for 24 hours. Neil ☎ 18:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Fabulous idea, with a little tweaking it'd work...remind everyone what we're doing here and get work done on some of the backlogs. RxS 18:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This proposal stops people from using talk pages, which will make resolving disputes very hard. Discussion via edit summary is inefficient and inadequate. And what about vandalism, spam, personal attacks, and so on? How will they be dealt with? Back to the drawing board, this won't work. Picaroon (t) 19:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Assuming a protect-o-bot can work at 1 second a page and assuming 1 million pages needed to be protected were talking about 3 weeks to protect/unprotect. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That can be bypassed via MediaWiki's user groups settings. However, try proposing this to a developer... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, is this being taken seriously? I work on articles when I have time to go the library; I do admin work at other times. Why would the community want to prevent any of us from doing valuable work whenever we have free time to do it? The assumption that most of what goes on at non-article pages is "bickering" is ridiculous--we have to decide what gets deleted, who gets blocked, etc. etc., and we need a place to do it. Chick Bowen 02:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Great idea. Moreover, why don't we announce this to everyone! I'm sure that GNAA, for one, would love such a holiday, what with WP:AIV being down and all. If only we had a clear distinction between maintenancespace and the bitchspace... ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds like a great idea ... for the trolls and vandals. Can't come to the WP:AN/x pages, can't discuss BLP violations, can't propose articles for deletion or undeletion, can't use Talk pages, can't use AIV ... this cannot be a serious proposal. Corvus cornix 16:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

For when you get discouraged

Cary Bass asks here for help on this page that contains comments people made when they donated money. I highly recommend bookmarking that page for anytime you guys get discouraged. It'll give you your second wind. Consensus is we rock. WAS 4.250 19:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow – it really does make me feel better. My personal favorite: "Even though you keep reverting my edits on the Penis page, you do a wonderful job and deserve the cash." - KrakatoaKatie 21:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for community watchlist and archive related to editing restrictions

Some editors who commented at the CSN MfD suggested

• that, because of the scope of the discussions, AN/I would be more appropriate
• that editing restrictions be discussed there

A significant problem, I think, is that AN/I is high-traffic and discussion may be archived rather quickly. At least for me, these and other similar issues preclude my willingness to wade through AN/I to see if there are any discussions in which I could help to generate a consensus.

My suggestion, then, is

• that we maintain a community watchlist where editors may put links to a section on AN/I (or elsewhere) where editing restrictions are being discussed
• that we maintain a list of editors with editing restrictions discussed through this process

One example: "Another hotspot of ethnic warfare..." which originally started as one admin asking others to keep an eye of an article, and now could be discussing what some (including me) might think as very legitimate and necessary editing restrictions. I barely found it, and I am sure that I have missed many others.

I think that it will be very beneficial because

• it will be less discouraging to editors to participate in these discussions, because there will be a central list
• non-admins may request administrator action in relation to the editing restrictions and provide a link to the archive

I considered creating a template and then advertising it here, but then decided that, because of what happened to WP:DE/N, I should first write a proposal. What do you think? Thanks for your time, Iamunknown 23:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Something along these lines would be very important and positive. Thanks very much for the proposal. Durova^Charge! 01:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Could we also use the watchlist to connect the dots on issues that come to ANI multiple times, even before sanctions are placed? If something is a recurring problem, we need links to all the reports in the archive so we can present a pattern of behavior when requesting community sanctions. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This is sound in principle, but might be much more complicated than you might imagine to implement. Consider by comparison the history of a "list of users on probation" that until recently was found in Wikipedia:Probation. The list was created when the Arbitration Committee first began applying "probation" as a remedy against parties to cases, but became out-of-date almost immediately, and was found to be difficult if not impossible to maintain, both in terms of adding users newly placed on probation as well as deleting or updating the records of users whose probation had expired. (Even Wikipedia:List of banned users, which is certainly a shorter and more readily characterized group of users, falls behind sometimes.) Editors and admins needing to check whether an editor on probation frequently found needed information missing, and were generally counselled to do a word-search on the list of completed arbitration cases to see if the user about whom they had a question appeared on it. After discussion on Wikipedia talk:Probation, the list of probationers was recently dropped. Care would need to be taken to avoid the same sort of outcome here. Newyorkbrad 03:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but the result of neglecting this would be far worse: any community based sanction that didn't make its presence obvious in a block log (as an indefinite block) would be essentially unknown to all but the specific editors who had taken place in some discussion. That would render lesser sanctions so ineffective that we'd likely fall back to the fester...fester...siteban approach. That generates a lot of frustration and resentment on all sides. Durova^Charge! 03:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What if we implement a filing system based on username? If a user is reported at ANI for a serious issue that needs monitoring (e.g. ban, probation, long term disruption), we could create a subpage with the user's name as a key (i.e. Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents/Jehochman. These subpages could be transcluded that into WP:ANI, as suggested by Jpgordon at the WP:CSN deletion discussion. Each time a user on the watchlist returned to ANI, their entire record would be transcluded so everyone would see the full history. Likewise, if anybody wanted to check whether a user was on probation, banned or whatever, they could just pull up the page, the same way we look for people's RFAs, which are also filed by username. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

In the event that a formerly or currently restricted editor attempts to improve and it is visible to the community, maintaining lists of restrictions, incidents, discussions, etc. would seem to me to not be in a collegial spirit. I suppose that the pages could be deleted, but then I fear lots of wikilawyering would come into play as to under what parameters they could be deleted. While lists of restrictions, discussions, etc. organized by editor would be convenient, I would tentatively prefer that we not maintain them.

Note, however, that other technical solutions may be in order, such as a better search mechanism that would index relevant project-space pages, such as WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:RFAR, etc. (I know that Eagle_101 has developed one such search engine, and that it is available at the top of the page.) --Iamunknown 05:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

For every one who does there are ten to twenty who don't, and the community has other ways of recognizing these positive turnarounds. I hand out the Resilient Barnstar on a semi-regular basis and I've created the Valiant Return Triple Crown for them. It's far more important to the project that we maintain an organized database so that sanctions that fall short of sitebanning are practical and effective. Durova^Charge! 14:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

A questionable copyrighter

Resolved

Could someone check the image uploads of User:Serendipity15? I've checked most of them and find that a LARGE number of them are copyright violations. It's been a while since I've done this and wish to check my work. 68.39.174.238 03:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This is clearly a derivative work and a false claim of originality, although the editor may not understand the mistake. Here is a GDFL claim with a link to a source site that makes no GDFL statement, same here. Based upon this example where the editor clearly strips away the photographer's watermark to make a false licensure claim, I'd support speedying all uploads prophylactically and I'll put an indef on this account. This editor has been getting unfree image warnings since April and has never responded. Despite the shortage of recent activity I don't think the project should be taking these risks. If he or she wants to continue editing then the user can make an appeal and get a good healthy lecture first. Durova^Charge! 04:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Never understood people who upload an image under a PD or GFDL license and then give the source which is copyrighted. I mean if they are going to pretend they took the photo, why provide a source link ? Jackaranga 04:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Some of them don't realize they claim to own the copyright by uploading an image to Wikipedia under a free license. In those instances, a clear source is a welcome (albeit unintended) courtesy. All of Serendipity15's images have been deleted, thanks for the notice, 68.39.174.238. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

In other cases, they don't realize that making modifications to an image (or copying it from one medium to another) doesn't give them copyright. --Carnildo 05:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT/Noticeboard

Since we have noticeboards for most of the other policies, wouldn't it make sense to create a noticeboard for the application of WP:NOT? Yahel Guhan 07:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear god no. We have to many as it is. And they're being pruned right about now (CSN and Son of CSN {DE/N}) -M^ask? 14:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

what I meant was we need a place to discuss whether certian articles, sections, images, additions, etc. meet policy. I think we need a better place for this than the policy talk page or afd. Prehaps a WP:NOT noticeboard was a bad suggestion; I just thought of it, since we seem to have a board for almost all other policies.Yahel Guhan 01:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't that sort of discussion just naturally come out through the AFD process? Creating a board will create a separation between the AFD discussions and the board. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If it is on AFD, discuss it there, otherwise use the article's talkpage. If you need outside input, start an RFC or link to the talk page discussion on WP:VPP. Mr.Z-man 02:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. We do not need this; that's why XFD is there to deal with WP:NOT stuff, hence why it's not a criteria for speedy deletion. O₂ (息 • 吹) 02:26, 21 October 2007 (GMT)

Well xfd isn't a good idea if it is just a section of an article if the rest of the article is good. Especially when the editors can't reach a consensus as to whether or not it is a good idea to include it. There just has to be a better solution than bringing the issue to the policy talk page. Yahel Guhan 19:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do a speedy close on this AFD

This AFD should be speedy closed since the previous nomination was closed 4 days ago and was made by the same editor who is making this one. Assuming good faith, the problem is that the editor didn't realize that it's really the same article despite the fact that another editor renamed the article after the last AFD closed.

BTW, I can't find the appropriate policy or guideline that suggests that articles should not be renominated for deletion shortly after they have survived an AFD. Can you point me in the right direction? Thanx.

--Richard 08:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It is too soon. I might suggest a month or two later. I cannot find anything that says you must wait a certain time, but that is generally what happens by "default." I suggest the AFD should be closed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Got it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin attention please

Resolved

 – Protected, then unprotected, but resolved nonetheless. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Albus Dumbledore. Seems like admins that pay attention to Requests for page protection aren't around and vandals are killing the Albus Dumbledore article since the media has reported of his outting as gay by author JK Rowling. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 09:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems the protector didn't agree with the people at RFPP-;)Rlevse 16:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

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

---

Can we de-escalate this?

There is no doubt in my mind that a ban of Angela Kennedy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is entirely appropriate; she set out her stall, and her aim here was to promote her offsite campaign. We don't need that.

Unfortunately, Kennedy's nonsense has also impacted MEagenda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who up until now has been one of the few people on that side of the debate who is prepared to register, participate and actually try to state their case in a way which is anything close to acceptable by policy. I suspect she has been inflamed by Kennedy, and certainly the dispute involving Kennedy has dragged her in. I don't think she's made inappropriate edits to the Wessely article, and as I say her comments to know have indicated to me that she's at least willing to have a shot at doing it the Wikipedia way.

Can anyone think of a good way of de-escalating this? Guy (Help!) 14:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Both of them were indef blocked by others admins. Rlevse 16:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I know. I think MEagenda may with care be unblocked. Guy (Help!) 18:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That username is inappropriate. It matches a website used to promote the cause, and it's not her personal name or moniker. If she is allowed to return, she should register a new account or request a new username. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

A rename would be fine, we can talk with her about that, but I don't think we should lose her history by making her re-register. Username blocking at this stage would seem a bit petty, she's been around for some time. Guy (Help!) 20:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Nope. I have an email from Jimbo, Angela Kennedy and MEagenda and anybody else associated with them are permanently and irrevocably banned. I can't pretend I'm not relieved, even while slightly disappointed that I couldn't fix the problem. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Chinese in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War

I'm having trouble with one editor who keeps Reverting my work in the above. He makes no effort to discuss my p-roposals on the Talk page, but unilaterally follows his own judgment regarding the need to revert my work as not keeping with his own personal judgment as to worthiness. Can some please help bring some civility to the varticle above?

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 17:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

If I jump into this, I'd block both of you for 3RR violation. Maybe page protection is the answer here. Rlevse 18:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Page protected by another admin. Rlevse 13:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ludvikus, you might wish to follow the dispute resolution procedure. Go through WP:RFC and, if necessary, WP:RFARB. However, understand that you do not come off looking good in this dispute right now. You have been uncivil. You have engaged in revert wars with the other editor over this article. I haven't counted the reverts in each 24 hour period but it would seem that both of you have probably violated WP:3RR.

To strengthen your position, clean up your act. Stop edit warring and work on forming consensus on the Talk Page. Be civil in edit summaries and on the Talk Page. Be patient. If there is a consensus on the Talk Page that excludes one editor, then other editors are will jump in and help make the article reflect that consensus. Without a consensus, you are out on your own and the rest of will stand by until we can figure out what the consensus should be.

Wikipedia articles change a lot while they are being written. With a few exceptions like violations of WP:BLP, it's not so important what the article says in the interim as what it says in its stable form. What I mean is that it's not a disaster if the article says something incorrect for a few hours or a few days. What matters is that we can find a way to support the "correct" text and make it "bullet proof".

Edit wars don't accomplish what you want. Discussion does.

--Richard 16:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Richard, much appreciated. Will think about your advice carefully.

In the mean time, please note that that "Chinese shadows" quote comes from that p. 373

of the acclaimed biographer of Trotsky, Isaac Deutscher.

You must know by now, since you and I often agreed in the editing above, that I act in Good Faith.

The contribution was not an act of Vandalism.

At the same time, don't you see the irony involved:

that the most important authorities on the role

of the Chinese discuss an encounter with "Chinese shadows?"

That is funny, no? But it is also true.

Please read carefully the quote I provided.

You are an editor I particularly respect since we could rather easily talk things over.

So I'm very curious what think about the chief military officer

whose job allegedly involve the use of Chinese regiment

in the Russian Revolution and Civil war turns out reporting that it was

"Chinese shadows" who had been didpersed.

So maybe the title sould be:

Chinese regiments vs. Chinese shadows in the Russian Revolution and Civil War (just kidding).

Best regards to you, Richard, --Ludvikus 17:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Revert, Block, Ignore

I have an extension to propose to policy on handling harassment and banned editors. See User:JzG/Harassment links. Guy (Help!) 18:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's

The above-linked arbitration case has closed. Giovanni33 and John Smith's are subject to identical editing restrictions for one year. They are limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should they exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, they may be blocked. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 20:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ohio University

We seem to have an interesting case at:

Ohio University

There is:

• Vandalism
• POV
• COI
• 3RR
• Suspected Sockpuppetry
• Possible legal issue with Wikipedia

If you scroll through the revision history, you will see that there is an edit war going on. And the article mentions a third party source citing the edits on Wikipedia as a conflict between the students and the university.

Background: Back in January the university announced the cancellation of four sports:

"Ohio Athletics announces change to sport offerings"

"ATHENS, Ohio (Jan. 25, 2007) -- The Ohio Department of Athletics has announced that men's indoor and outdoor track and field, men's swimming and diving, and women's lacrosse will no longer be offered as varsity sport programs, effective at the conclusion of their respective 2007 seasons. The move will reduce the number of programs offered by Ohio from 20 to 16."

Since then, a group calling itself:

saveousports.org/

...have been fighting with the university and/or friends of the university in the media, and on Wikipedia over not only the loss of the sports, but the content of the Wikipedia article.

SaveOUsports has charged the university in general and Douglas Bolon, associate professor of Health Sciences and last year’s chairman of the Intercollegiate Athletic Committee, has removing material on Wikipedia. See deleted material: [11]

PROPOSAL: The article is put on FULL LOCK until a senior contributor can NPOV the article.

Thanks. IP4240207xx 21:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The removed section was inappropriate. Discussion belongs on the article talk page, not in the article itself. Edokter, a well-respected admin, and AlumniGal99 beat me to it – the POV rant was removed and a NPOV paragraph on the subject is in place. Keep your opinions on the talk page. KrakatoaKatie 22:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not add any material to the article, so don't tell me: "Keep your opinions on the talk page." My only contributions were to REVERT blanking (which in considered Vandalism) and adding the NPOV and COI tags. Get your facts straight before you accuse please. IP4240207xx 22:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yet another classic example of someone who asks the question but does not want to hear the answer. KrakatoaKatie 22:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Administrator User:KrakatoaKatie needs to be reminded of Wikipedia:Civility, abuse of admin position.IP4240207xx 23:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe impatient with you, but it don't think any admin functions have been abused in the slightest. He's right on the merits—the material is not appropriate. Cool Hand Luke 00:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks closed

The above arbitration case has closed, and Wikimachine (talk · contribs) has been banned from Wikipedia for one year. All parties are reminded that attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground may result in the summary imposition of additional sanctions, up to and including a ban from the project. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 21:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Restore "Q" on test.wiki

Please restore "Q" on [12]. I need it. --Nolanus 22:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nolanus. I'm afraid en.wikipedia admins do not have administrator rights on the Test Wiki. You need to ask at http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page. Neil ☎ 20:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobel prize Problems

I came here because I'm in over my head here. Shortly after I got the admin bit, I full-protected Nobel Prize because of edit-warring, unaware of what the warring was over. Earlier today (or yesterday, I can't remember exactly when), User:NYScholar talk to me on my TP and told me to remove the image per copyright concerns, which I did. However, just now I got another message asking me to restore the image per a thread at Fair use review. I didn't realize that when I protected that I would be thrust into a confusing war over copyright. NYScholar says that the image of the Prize is copyrighted by the Nobel Foundation, and thus needs a fair use rationale and permission. Jheald states that the image is PD under US law because its design was known a priori 1923,a nd thus needs no such rationale. Assist, please. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd ask them to use {{editprotected}} on the talk page which puts the edit requests at Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests. If it's not a clear edit request, other admins won't do it. That way, the talk page is used before edits are done and you are helping to force a discussion, which was the problem anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That isn't the problem. There's a dispute with the image itself; not whether it should be included on the page. Discussion has led to a fair-use review. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The above statement is helpful but not entirely accurate: Please note: I have raised both copyright/trademark violation issues about this image and questions about the accuracy of its image page license statement and I have also stated that the image does not belong in the infobox for Nobel Prize.[13] The image is of the Nobel Peace Prize, a registered trademark of the Nobel Foundation, the image is not in the public domain, as it is protected both by the registered trademark and by the copyright notices of that particular image (on the 1933 Nobel Peace Prize medal) and "everything" on the copyrighted Nobel Foundation website is protected by copyright (including trademarked images). A medal is not a publication [re: misinterpretation of copyright law/fair use of the Nobel Prize Medal images by some other users]. The Nobel Foundation claims "proprietary rights" to the images and the registered trademarked designs of its Nobel Prize Medals, including this one. As I've stated elsewhere, including in the talk page of the image and in the fair use discussion which I posted, use of this image is not relevant to Nobel Prize and it does not belong in its infobox. (Clarification: That particular image does not illustrate content currently in "Nobel Prize"; it is an image of the Nobel Peace Prize Medal; it relates only to the Nobel Peace Prize, and "fair use" concerns come into play relating to that article as well, which is why such images of the medals are not being used there or in any other of the articles on each individual Nobel Prize in Wikipedia; any such use would require detailed fair-use rationales.) --NYScholar 04:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC) [Added clarifications. --NYScholar 04:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)]

This is being discussed at length elsewhere (specifically, here, here and here). I don't think there's any problem with this image, but the other side (one person really) has been rather vociferous, so I'm ok with leaving it off until the discussion at WP:PUI is resolved. (I think the free/non-free determination has to be made we talk about it at WP:FUR). Thanks! -- But|seriously|folks  05:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

AFD Backlogged

Could any administrators that have some free time wander on over to WP:AFD and help clear the backlog? There's 21(!) articles from nine days ago that need closing. shoy 00:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Totally confusing set of double-redirects

Could someone please look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Nations_and_Organizations_of_Ace_Combat The redirects listed don't seem to match what's actually in the articles. Here's a partial list of what I see, but it's very confusing because some of the pages listed here don't redirect where the list indicates. For example Erusea actually redirects to Nations of Ace Combat#Erusea but here it's shown as redirecting to X-02 Wyvern. Thanks!

The following pages link to Nations and Organizations of Ace Combat
View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)
   * Independent State Allied Forces (redirect page) (links)
         o ISAF (links)
         o X-02 Wyvern (redirect page) (links)
               + Independent State Allied Forces (redirect page) (links)
               + Ustio (redirect page) (links)
               + XFA-27 (redirect page) (links)
               + Erusea (redirect page) (links)

Ewlyahoocom 01:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Basically, it appears that Rogue Commander (talk · contribs) did a whole bunch of article merges and left a big snarled mess. It seems someone should work with him/her to fix it or just undo the mess. Regardless, administrator intervention does not seem necessary at this point. Wikipedia:Help desk seems like a better choice at this point. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see... he left the articles text on the pages but added a redirect tag to the top. I didn't know that the "what links here" query could get so confused by something like that! Ewlyahoocom 06:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even notice that. Maybe he meant to use {{merge}} instead of #REDIRECT. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible Copyvio

There are a few short messages on the talk page for the article Hurst Castle that suggest the article may be ripped from a website, but I could not find out for sure. I am concerned about this, and was wondering if someone more experianced with this sort of thing could look into the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the article has been plagiarized from http://www.simplonpc.co.uk/HurstCastle.html , with copyvio sentences since 2005. (A google search of various sentences will do.) I have utilized the {{copyvio}} template to flag for further investigation. MER-C 04:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

MER-C, what version are you working off? I'm trying to find out if the growth of the wiki page was organic, and who's committing the copyvio. BTW, the message on the talk page was left by an anon four years ago and isn't relevant. east.718 at 04:27, 10/21/2007

This is where the plagiarism started and it has become worse since then (see, e.g. [14]). There's no one editor that is responsible for it, just a tendency to copy entire sentences from the above url. MER-C 05:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted way back to the 2005 version, weaving in the non-copyvio edits (which MER-C had thoughtfully preserved). If there's a non-copyvio version to revert to, that seems a good solution here. I made every effort to make sure the 2005 version was not at all copied from the URL in question. Problem resolved? --W.marsh 19:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Alpha Dog, User:GODFATHER and "Spoilers"

In the article for Alpha Dog the beginning goes "The film is based on the true story of the kidnapping and murder in 2000 in California of 15-year-old Nicholas Markowitz, and the alleged involvement of Jesse James Hollywood, a young drug dealer." User:GODFATHER wanted to remove "and murder" because it ruined the film for him.[15] I think this is pretty ridicilous considering its based on a true story. Look at the article for An American Crime, which states in the beginning, "It based on the true story of the torture and murder of Sylvia Likens by Indiana housewife Gertrude Baniszewski." Would that be considered a spoiler???--CyberGhostface 17:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute best handled by forming a consensus at the article talkpage... Although I would question why someone who is going to view the film would want to check the relevant article on WP anyway. LessHeard vanU 18:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Significant plot points to movies can be put in the lead. The Crying Game has the major, completely unknown till the end twist (the girls not a real girl, but transgendered) smack dab in the lead. We are an encyclopedia. We provide information. If you dont want information (spoilers) dont look up the film on an encyclopedia, but in a film review. This was all covered quite nicely when we tossed out spoiler warnings from article space. -M^ask? 18:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's based on a true story but it's still a movie. I'm not gonna put a spoiler warning in Murder of Nicholas Markowitz, but it's common to do so in movies articles.

Why would someone who havn't seen the film read this article? Maybe he heard about it and wants to know who's in the cast, or the release date or any other thing besides it's ending. Personally, I wanted to know if I can squeeze the movie in some free time I had, so I came here to see the running time. Godfather ♣ Talk ♣ 20:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is not common to do so in Wikipedia articles. We got rid of most of our spoiler warnings a while back. I think looking up a film im an encylopedia is bound to spoil any surprises, and i wouldn't advise anyone to do so. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In the future you'd be better off looking at IMDB if you want to know who's in the cast, how long the film is, or whatnot.--CyberGhostface 21:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Among the principles passed was At wit's end which states that necessary measures must be adopted by the Arbitration Committee in cases where repeated attempts to stop disruptive disputes have failed. As a result of the case, both Digwuren and Petri Krohn are banned for one year. There has also been a general restriction to all editors working on topis related to Eastern Europe and a warning to all those who may, in the future, attempt to use Wikipedia as a battleground that they may be banned when the matter is reported to the Committee. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 18:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"Seemingly draconian measures"? This should be interesting. I may have to do some background reading on this. Carcharoth 20:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That remedy refers to the fact that this same general group of editors on Eastern European topics has been involved in multiple arbitration cases with no resolution to the conflict. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus had no effect, so the committee decided these sanctions were necessary. Seems harsh, yes, but no one came up with any other reasonable ideas to address this longterm problem. Note that Cbrown included the mention of this principle per my request, as I thought it something important for the community to be aware of - we normally don't report on principles. Picaroon (t) 21:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting to note that we may apply civility supervision to users of Eastern European articles, but not revert limitations. Incivility usually stems from revert-warring, and not the other way around. I am a great fan of these sweeping arbitration remedies for problem areas of the encyclopedia, but am not sure this is entirely adequate. Moreschi ^Talk 22:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Jennifer Moore

I certainly don't care enough about the topic to take it to DRV, but could I ask someone to cast a second pair of eyes over this AFD? This looks to me like the most dubious "non-admin close as keep per consensus" I've yet seen (4 deletes, sole keep from the original author with no argument in favour). — iridescent 19:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree, non-admins shouldn't close such discusions, especially contrary to consensus. No point in dragging such violation of WP:DPR#NAC to DRV, so I just went ahead and deleted the article. MaxSem 20:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

My closure of this discussion was consistent with Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions, which permits non-administrators to close discussions, and requires that "Deletion discussions must be decided in accordance with consensus and taking account of Wikipedia policies and guidelines." The deletion of this article, purely on the basis of vote counting, without any explanation of a legitimate policy-based rationale for deletion, violates Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus, which expressly provides that "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." By contrast, my closure of the discussion fully explained why the retention of the article was consistent with Wikipedia policy. John254 20:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

As we are clearly Wikilawyering, non-admin closures are only acceptable when the result of the discussion is an uncontroversial and obvious keep. Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators is advice for administrators in assessing consensus when closing deletion discussions. This is not applicable, as you are not an administrator. Plus it was a really, really bad close (keep, really?), which probably didn't help. Neil ☎ 20:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions states that "If you are not familiar with deletion policy or the workings of deletion discussions, it is best that you only close discussions with unambiguous results." It does not support the contention that even experienced users who are not administrators, but are quite familiar with Wikipedia policy, may only close discussions whose results are "uncontroversial and obvious keep[s]". If, in practice, the policy is to be applied so that "non-admin closures are only acceptable when the result of the discussion is an uncontroversial and obvious keep", it might be worthwhile to modify the text of the policy to reflect this, so as to avoid misleading editors. John254 21:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Upon further research, it seems that as of January 2, 2007, the "Non-administrators closing discussions" section of the deletion process did state that "Non-administrators may only close decisions which are unambiguous "keep" decisions. Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator." [16], but at least by June 10, 2007, the policy had been changed to its current wording [17]. Does this change in the text of the policy reflect an actual shift in the policy itself? John254 21:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Also needing some eyes:

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ramona_Moore
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chanel Petro-Nixon
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justine Ezarik (second nomination)

shoy 21:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bharatveer

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision can be found at the link above. Bharatveer is subject to a comprehensive editing restriction for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. If he exceeds this limit, fails to discuss a content reversion, or makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked as set forth in the decision's enforcement provision. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 19:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

IPS causing problems.

On the GM minivan articles, there have been many IPs that have been causing problems. Mainly, adding blatant POV, then attacking anyone who removes it. I have reported this before, and the little administrative action I received had failed to stop these guys. I would like to state what action I want, as I know this will finally put an end to this. (I have been dealing with this all month.) I want the Chevrolet Lumina APV, Pontiac Trans Sport, Oldsmobile Silhouette, Chevrolet Venture, Pontiac Montana, Opel Sintra, Saturn Relay, Chevrolet Uplander, Buick Terraza pages indefinitely semi protected. They have been protected twice before, usually for only a couple of days, and these guys have just waited out the protection and started readding their POV. I am sorry if I sound blunt, but this is becoming a serious problem, and I have been dealing with this all month, and frankly, I want it to stop. I have brought this to administrative attention before, and the people who have helped me seemed to have been dragging their feet, not realizing how serious of a problem that this has become. So, PLEASE help me and fulfill my request. The only option to stop this is to INDEFINITELY semi protect the GM minivan pages. After a month or two, then we could try opening them back up again, but we can't do them for a day or a few weeks, as the IPs will simply wait the protection out. Please, I am begging you, this is the only option. Karrmann 20:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What sort of POV are they adding, and have you done a reverse DNS lookup to identify the source of the IPs? Can you show me a handful of diffs showing blatant POV pushing? - Jehochman ^Talk 21:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I am having problems with my browser that will prevent me from showing diffs. but, if you look in the history of any of any of the articles, you will see what I am talking about, especially on that of Pontiac Montana. Plus, can you educate me on a DNS? I am unfamiliar with what that is. Karrmann 21:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You can go to dnstools.com, enter the IP address, and you'll see who owns it. This information is sometimes helpful. One of the pesky IPs has been blocked. Perhaps revert, block, ignore could be used until they get tired? - Jehochman ^Talk 22:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Aight, I ran the IPs through that service, and the 216 Ips originate from Ashburn, Virginia, with MCI/Verizon as their provider. They are all the same person. The 99 Ip is a different person, and he originates from Toronto. Karrmann 22:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I don't think that RBI will be useful here. These guys aren't doing it for attention, they are doing it as they are GM minivan lovers, and want to gloss up their pages to make these minivans seem much better then they actually are. Some of their edits borderline on being advertisements. Karrmann 22:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)