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

Problem with recurring sock puppetry.

• Huntdowntheconpiracists (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Cs32en (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• IrFactor (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Counteraction (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Redandgraychips (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• No Time Toulouse (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Locewtus (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ynda20 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Kameelyun (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ScholarTruthJustice (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (and another — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both accounts are part of the same SUL account,[1] so it looks like they are the same person. Redandgraychips (talk · contribs) looks like a sockpuppet. Hut 8.5 18:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I've found a few Truther websites which have recently posted criticism of the article: [2] [3] (note the latter is trying to get people to add some text to an article). I think we're dealing with a load of people who read this and decided to edit the articles, which means this is meatpuppetry not sockpuppetry. Hut 8.5 16:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi. It's also been covered in the News in New Zealand: [4]. However, Editor Jehochmann has stated that the story may not be considered reliable, until it appears in the New York Times first. Such a high personal standard of reliability as he claims authority to dictate, is utterly unprecedented for wikipedia, also ignoring the fact that there could be any number of other reasons why the NYT won't print it without even addressing or rebutting any of the scientific methods used. No Time Toulouse (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Two groups of sock puppets have been identified at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Huntdowntheconspiracists and blocked indefinitely. A master account has been found to be canvassing for meat puppets. On that page I have requested an indefinite topic ban for the master account and its meat puppets. We need more administrators to watch Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories as that seems to be the main focus of disruption attempts. Jehochman ^Talk 16:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me for interrupting the discussion, but it appears as if the sock/meat poppets are now targetting other Wikipedia articles. A user at 67.95.193.122 edited our article on Metastable intermolecular composite to include the material on "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe". [5] I reverted the change. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears that another possible meat puppet at IP address 222.225.181.137 is targeting other articles [6] [7] [8] [9]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The IP is using the same Japanese ISP as the previous IP, so it's probably the same user. Semi-protection in place. Acroterion _(talk) 02:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Dropping by to report a new IP: 222.225.225.56, who just added the report to World Trade Center, which hasn't been protected yet. Should this site be blacklisted? ThemFromSpace 02:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that would be detrimental to World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories, where it's actually germane. I'll semi-protect. Acroterion _(talk) 02:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I am that particular user - just created an account now. I added a brief summary of the article as suggested by Themfromspace: "if this is so related, you should write it into the article and cite it as a source, this isn't appropriate in the external links section". As a result my ip has been blocked. I want to contribute to Wikipedia and don't hope my edit has been seen as vandalism. Please let's discuss which changes are necessary to my existing explation to be accepted in the WTC artice.

Long-term, very slow vandalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• My Teeth Itch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the newest incarnation. See also User talk:63.164.47.2, which My Teeth Itch has edited. Powers ^T 11:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

My Teeth Itch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) = Blocked indef. Cirt (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Is WP:LTA the most appropriate place to compile information on this vandal? Powers ^T 13:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Update. I've created a LTA entry for this vandal, under "Palace Station vandal". I've also just been contacted by Those Kids (talk · contribs), who has in the past, and is again, claiming to be a non-vandalizing coworker of the vandal who is concerned about what we might do. He has asked for my assistance but I think an admin would be more helpful. If an admin could engage this user and try to determine what's up, I'd appreciate it. Powers ^T 14:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Alastair Haines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

yeah - I'm very glad to see material removed which was causing offense - I think the important issue of the block remains - clearly you were able to help out before, Durova, and Alistair posted this following that help. Quite why Alistair was subsequently blocked for an email someone else sent to someone else a couple of days before that diff is the remaining question mark.... Privatemusings (talk) 03:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)oh, and I think this is being discussed by the arbcom, but I could be wrong

It appears that the problem was this: having been warned and blocked numerous times for legal threats,rather than using something other than legal threats he engaged a colleague to make the threats on his behalf. It's rather like the difference between requesting an unblock and creating a sockpuppet: the former is acceptable, the latter not. Guy (Help!) 07:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"A couple of days" is inaccurate; try a couple of hours, namely 8 of them. Daniel (talk) 09:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The unblock request containing the cut-and-paste of Durova's statement was on April 8th. Was User:Daniel the OTRS agent who dealt with the ticket on April 3rd? Mathsci (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

NYB's suggestion of a username change plus a strict agreement by User:Alastair Haines not to use the words "defamation", "slander", etc, even when baited, might be one way forward. Mathsci (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Huzzah?! Daniel (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Mais oui, exactement !! That is an unresolved left-over from the Alistair Haines ArbCom case, one of the loose threads that I think Cailil has been talking about. But Newyorkbrad's idea of a change of username and the anonymity that comes with it is the key here - insults, trolling or baiting then just become water off a duck's back (or should that be duck-billed platypus?) Mathsci (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The final determination of the OTRS email and its significance belongs to other people: I am not on the queue that grants access. About the best that's possible is to organize the other issues and attempt to clarify them:

1. Courtesy blanking things outside of article space that give Mr. Haines particular distress should be easy to do. People who know where and what that is are urged to do it.
2. Multiple factors contributed to the recent unblock of another editor. That unblock was fully justified without a consensus answer to the question of whether the OTRS email constituted a threat.
3. The rationale for the current block on Mr. Haines appears to be a belief that Mr. Haines renewed problematic behavior by proxy, by having a third party send an email on his behalf after his most recent disavowal of legal threats.
4. Although both blocks derived from the same OTRS ticket, the blocking rationales were different and the blocked editors' disavowals of legal threat intentions occurred at different times: one before the email and one afterward. Crucially, the blocking administrator acknowledged with apologies that the second editor had been mistakenly identified as the sender of the email. So it does not necessarily follow that both editors should be unblocked at this time.

The core concept of WP:NLT is to prevent behaviors that stifle open discussion. So it might be arguable that a statement in legalese made by (or proxied on behalf of) an editor who has a long history of legal threats, should be read and understood differently than an equivalent statement by someone who does not have such a history. The reasoning for this interpretation parallels the discretionary latitude in the WP:3RR policy: habitual edit warriors who game policy by going right up to (but not over) the 'electric fence' may nonetheless be blocked because their actions were intentionally disruptive. Although this is conjecture based in part upon material to which I have no firsthand access, this seems to be the outstanding problem? Durova^Charge! 17:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The chronology in point 3 doesn't seem right. The third party sent the email on April 3rd; the disavowal of legal threats in the 2nd unblock request was posted on April 8th. Mathsci (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

yeah - the alleged proxy threatening email seems to be several days before alistair's explicit disavowal of legal action (I'm not sure where Daneil gets '8 hours' from, but I think he's agreeing it's before regardless). Oh, and I just had a moan at the blocking admin about this. We're slipping below par in clearing this up, and it's not that hard. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. Bowing out in deference to people who are sysops on the right project and have access to the right OTRS queue. This certainly gets confusing! Durova^Charge! 23:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This is where I got 8 hours from: "I think the important issue of the block remains - clearly you were able to help out before, Durova, and Alistair posted this following that help. Quite why Alistair was subsequently blocked for an email someone else sent to someone else a couple of days before that diff [ie presumably referring to the diff previously linked in the sentence] is the remaining question mark.... " - given the email was sent April 3 18:00 UTC and the diff you linked to was posted April 4 02:00 UTC, that's by my reckoning 8 hours, not "a couple of days". Daniel (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

ah - got ya! (this time I'm the boob ;-) - so we can see clearly now that 8 hours after the email from a third party, Alastair began disavowing legal action clearly, and has continued to do so since that time, despite being blocked, t'would seem. That's clearer now - but why is he blocked? Privatemusings (talk) 04:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(uindent) On the other hand the correct chronology has already been pointed out more than once, here and in the RfAr. User:Daniel, as the OTRS agent who apparently dealt with the ticket and discussed it later with Coren (when?), was aware more than anybody else of the timing. Although I did not request it, I have been forwarded a copy of Daniel's email reply to the person who submitted the ticket: in the email Daniel refers to User:Alastair Haines as a "banned user" because of repeated and continual complaints about being being defamed. [Note: the email has also been discussed and passed on to ArbCom.] How so? Mathsci (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

We need to consider that

1. the OTRS was on April 3(?),
2. Alastair's unequivocal legal waiver was April 8,
3. Coren's block was on April 9, and
4. the OTRS emailer then thanked Coren!

If the emailer thanked Coren after blocking Alastair, how in the world can Coren argue with a straight face that they are in cahoots? Apparently the emailer doesn't want the personal attacks to sit, but doesn't seem to care whether or not Alastair gets to edit.

I've asked a number of times for any specific threat (i.e. an "or else" statement) in the email, and no one has supplied any.

Even more to the point, how in the world can Coren claim that either Alastair's legal waiver or the emailer's "thank you" constitutes legal posturing? And how can a third party "thank you" prohibit Coren from undoing the block?

This just needs to be fixed, asap. But my greatest concern is in Daniel's response to the OTRS posted on my talk page. It seems apparent that Daniel regards personal attacks on a talkpage to be encyclopedic content that can't be removed. The problem doesn't appear to be Alastair, but instead a willingness to let him be treated as a punching bag on his own talkpage, and gagging him when he complains about it. That's the true injury here; gagging him after his legal waiver only adds insult to that injury.

This is an easy fix. Why we are waiting is beyond me.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What needs to be fixed? The user's consistent recourse to legalese whenever he runs into any kind of opposition? We fixed that. Or do you mean renaming the account? That's not an easy fix, but it can be done, albeit not usually without the user's consent. Guy (Help!) 17:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps someone can email him and convince him to request for a name change? Would that resolve the issue here...or is there something else that we're meant to discuss? :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This block on April 9 was after a legal waiver on April 8. Neither Alastair nor anyone else seemed to do anything between April 8 and April 9. The block just needs to be lifted. If you want to negotiate with Alastair about a name change, why not open him to his own talkpage so he can negotiate in the open?SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

JzG appears to be saying that he has no faith in this user's explicit withdrawal of legal threats. Is that correct? Durova^Charge! 19:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's please not confuse no faith on Jz's part with bad faith on Alastair's. Alastair did nothing between his unblock on April 8 and his reblock on April 9. We've demonstrated a total willingness to burn Alastair's bridges, talkpage, and privileges. We've flexed our muscles. Can any administrator here say with a straight face that they wouldn't immediately reblock Alastair if he breathed wrong? Well -- there's no loss in giving Alastair the April 8th chance he never violated. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A glance at Alastair's contributions according to Soxred93's tool shows that he's been an extremely productive user. Alastair has committed to not engaging in further legal threats. If he does so we can always block him again. As long as he steers clear of legal issues I see no reason to not unblock him now. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Durova^Charge! 23:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Mathsci (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

me four. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_to_take_a_look_at_:_The_Alastair_Haines_situation and User_talk:Coren#G.27day_Coren for full background, but it's my view that either an appropriate rationale for the current block needs to be forthcoming urgently, or we should unblock. Privatemusings (talk) 01:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Five. Synergy 01:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

well, six if you count SkyWriter (Tim) too :-) Privatemusings (talk) 23:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

As a historically-involved editor, I'd like to ask: Do we even have a list of Haines' demands? Precisely which criticisms does he want to see censored? Ilkali (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

well interestingly, the deletion of Alastiar's talk page seems to have removed all problematic material in one foul swoop! Perhaps there's no extant problem here?

Oh, and I've discussed this several times now in the 'unblock' IRC channel - the admin.s present were great in taking time to have a look and see what's what - but the general feeling seems to be that the OTRS, and 'arbcom' nature of this problem means they don't feel they can take action (I've also asked them to pop in here if they feel ok with that, and they'll probably clarify and explain far better than I) - I think this is a great shame, because too many folk are sitting on their hands when the resolution of this situation seems to be so bloomin' easy! Privatemusings (talk) 23:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I did a quick run through of the Gender of God discussion page and couldn't find anything obvious. I could have missed something. There were some things in the last arbcom discussion, but those were handled with civility warnings to the people involved. Privatemusings may be right -- it may be taken care of. Alastair could say otherwise, if he was unblocked. Again, he very clearly stated there were no and would be no legal threats. Absolutely nothing happened between that statement and the April 9 block. The OTRS comments were that the emailer was thanking and praising Wikipedia... no threat there either, unless people don't like to be thanked and praised. I'm starting to log in from time to time out of morbid curiosity to see just how long this is going to take...SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Gay nigger Association of america

I've just salted Gay nigger Association of america per the precedent at Gay Nigger Association of America. It's been created and deleted as A7 twice by me today. Bringing it here for transparency and discussion. Hiding T 12:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I have indef blocked the former article creator so might be considered as having a bias, but I don't think there is much likelihood of there being an encylopedic article of under these titles. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, having looked I can see that the articles do refer to an organisation - having briefly looked at the articles and AfD discussion on the latter title I consider that HidingT is following consensus, since the two titles have much the same content. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Were there any new sources in the latest version? The topic has been deemed borderline notable, so we ought not be prejudiced against recreation if the glove fits. Skomorokh 18:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not so much new, as none. It is, however, very similar to the last version that I could find of the original article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand how one might speedy an article about a troll org which has done harm to Wikipedia and other websites but I must say, the topic may be notable. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) There are no sources whatsoever. Disclosure: I deleted Gay nigger association of america two days ago. The contents of that one were a logo, a section title and a link so a straightforward speedy deletion in my view. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, no worries about the speedy. I was only thinking, if a sourced article ever showed up, it might be helpful to some readers. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

A "self-aggrandizing troll organization" as per one of the mentions here with, so far as I can see, not even any appearance of real world notability, although it does have articles in Encyclopedia Dramatica and the like. Maybe this sounds bad, but I really hope that even the laziest, most dimwitted reporter out there can find some subject more worthy than this one to write a puff piece about. Maybe if the group actually does anything it might be notable, but to date all it seems to do is troll around and say how wonderful they are. We've still got some salt left for any subsequent creations, right? John Carter (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like most politicians :) Gwen Gale (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

And yet it amazingly managed to garner 18 Articles for Deletion discussions. Skomorokh 19:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift response, no issues with speedy. Skomorokh 19:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There's literally no chance that any article on the subject would survive 72 hours without someone deleting it in anger, so I don't see the harm. If someone wants to make a real argument as to its creation we've got a process for that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

While not assuming bad faith necessarily, there must be a suspicion that using process was considered and rejected when the article is created with a change of capitalisation to avoid the creation protection on the correctly titled article... Plus the fact the creator happily edit warred and vandalised other pages during their brief existence. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Spot on, I was only thinking aloud about the topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Look, if reliable sources showed up, a long time regular editor of Wikipedia would create the article. Heck, give me the sources, and I will create the article. The problem is that a) the sources do not appear to exist and b) Its always some new account which shows up and either demands that the article be created, or makes some half-assed attempt at creating it themselves. Based on that alone, all of these creations quack quite loudly as disruptive attempts to create the article. Until we get some concrete stuff to work with here, I see no reason to not stay the course on this situation, and continue to thwart all attempts at disruption. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Right. We haven't yet seen a re-created article that addresses the reasons for deletion. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Hiding, but please please please do not ever make me remember that this article existed again. It's for my sanity's sake. Keegan^talk 06:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

To suppress or not to suppress: that is the question

I've hacked together WP:SUPPRESS to help explain when one should suppress redirects, and when one should not. Additions, tweaks, comments, invited. –xeno (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You just got reverted. Unlucky, I thought it made perfect sense myself. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "suppressing" a redirect. I move a lot of pages, but I've never used that term. What is it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not leaving a redirect behind, I believe. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If anyone has a better word than "suppress", then feel free to edit it. –xeno (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I have. Why didn't you clarify the language, when it became clear that it was the problem? Making the same edit repeatedly against opposition is called "edit warring". Please don't do it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page, I have no patience for someone without a basic grasp of the English language preventing useful information from being conveyed. imo "Suppress" is not a difficult word to understand. Rather than removing the information outright, the editor could have asked for clarification, or edited it himself, rather than simply removing it. Had he given me time, I would have copy edited, but you beat me to it. –xeno (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I certainly understand the word suppress. It comes from Latin. I've just never seen it applied to redirects, where it clearly has a specific technical meaning. WP:JARGON, eh? At any rate, it's all settled now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Suppress is a term frequently used by POV-pushers to describe removal of text they want included, it is not a helpful term in this context I think. Guy (Help!) 21:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Whereas "POV-pusher" is a term used by some to describe editors who wish to include text that those who use the term don't. Another just as helpful term, in any context. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Though I can't find it just now, Xeno told me elsewhere that it's actually the term used in the software documentation. None of us in this discussion was responsible for writing that, I suspect. Nevertheless, I think the text at WP:REDIRECT is clear now, after a few rounds of edits. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I may have been wrong on this (you are probably talking about my edit summary here). I believe I picked up the word up from the VPP discussion: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 57#On moving a page.2C whether or not to leave a redirect behind. I do see Guy's point about negative connotations, but I am having trouble coming up with a better word than "suppress". –xeno (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

"Clear" the redirect? Resolute 00:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

LHvU, do you deny that POV-pushers exist, or are you asserting that people other than POV-pushers use heavily loaded words like "suppression" to describe removal of text they don't like? I have seen it very many times in WP:BLP disputes where crap from polemical sources is the subject of edit wars. I don't recall an example of a good faith user describing the removal of genuinely and unambiguously significant text as "suppression" - the use of such terms is generally restricted to trolls and troublemakers, in my experience. Guy (Help!) 08:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

All editors are POV pushers; hopefully most of them subscribe to the neutral POV, though some will push for a "popularist" POV and a few for an unpopular or fringe POV (and one or two will push for a POV that is simply incomprehensible to anyone else). Generally, the NPOV that the majority work toward incorporate all POV's of significant aspect per WP:Due weight - but there are those whose views are not represented, or only poorly, and they may agitate for their appropriate inclusion. Pushing that POV may not be disruptive, if it is found that it is better sourced than previously and may allow for a better NPOV article. Persons whose legitimate efforts to be allowed to engage in discussion may very well feel suppressed when they are summarily ignored, and simply cast as POV pushers. Of course, examining every POV presented means that matters get complicated, and involves much hard work and can be frustrating that as soon as a balance of viewpoints is agreed a new (or an old one again) POV is "pushed" forward. Nobody, however, ever said that building an encylopedia with an editing staff of potentially millions was going to be easy. While trolls and troublemakers may push POV's for their own ends, it does not make POV pushers trolls of themselves. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

True, but the use of the term "suppression" is a pretty reliable marker for trolls and troublemakers in my experience. Guy (Help!) 16:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Pretty far off-topic by now, isn't it? Guy, you already know my thoughts on the idea of "reliable markers" for "trolls and troublemakers" - it's often a quick path to Drama!. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

← since the term is used in the interface, do you still object to its use in describing it? –xeno ^talk 17:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Suppress is the term used in the interface for "not leaving a redirect"

(Unindent) Xeno's initial understanding is correct, "suppression" is the term that shows up on the screen when one, erm, suppresses a redirect or prevents it from creation. It is also, to confuse matters, the name of the log that identifies when someone with Hide Revision permission locks admins out of a particular revision when removing its content/editor/edit summary from public view. (Translation: it's the name of the "new oversight" log.) Plus of course, what Guy and LHvU said. Risker (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I could've sworn I saw it in the interface somewhere... I used it below to move a userpage to the proper user, and leave no redirect behind. –xeno (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

11:33, 16 April 2009 Xeno (talk | contribs | block) moved User:Ammar to User:Mrammaraskar [redirect suppressed] ‎ (histmerge to proper username) (revert)

I think part of the problem - at least what kept me from understanding you at first, Xeno - is that when the box is ticked, which is its default state, the word suppress appears nowhere on the page. Until you suppress a redirect, you don't find out what it's called. Now I've tried it with my sandbox, and I see that it is the term used by the software itself. Any time I've not wanted to leave a redirect behind previously, I've just deleted it manually after the move. I don't believe the option to suppress has been there that long, has it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is fairly new - I would gather not much older than that VPP thread... –xeno (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the option was called "suppress" when it first appeared, and people complained that it was confusing? --NE2 21:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Move-redirect-suppressed changed to "without redirect" Agathoclea (talk) 06:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that... Someone will have to do the needful and update the guideline pages. –xeno ^talk 06:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I always thought [redirect suppressed] was fine. –xeno ^talk 07:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The Pirate Bay... (and related)

Whatever the legal arguments, it's seems that it would be reasonable to consider reviewing links to that site from English Wikipedia.

Owing to past differences of opinions on policy, It would be appreciated if the administrators could develop a clear policy on whether sites like TPB which link but do-not host material that's copyright and not under 'fair-use' are acceptable to link to from enwiki, or uasable as WP:RS.

Ideally, such a policy should have an associated compliance project, which respected users could assist with. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Why should we not have a link to that site? The article tells the whole story and it would be illogical not to include the link to the website in question. I believe this should not be problematic, WP does not link directly to torrents anyway. --Tone 22:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't imagine it being a problem, but since none of us are lawyers, it may be worth emailing Mike Godwin. – Toon^(talk) 22:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm also unclear why we wouldn't link to the official site. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The lack of clarity may concern the question asked: it's fairly clear that Sfan is referring not the link at the article Pirate Bay but the 160 external links found throughout WP (mostly though not all on Talk pages, it appears). --CalendarWatcher (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not even all those 160. It's the small number of links that link to torrents for 'copyright material' where the torrent/tracker whatever isn't authorised by the rights holder. As has been pointed out there are 'legal' torrents for

some things (like PG texts, like Linux distros, Like Creative Commons media... etc) so not all torrents links are inherently bad. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Tone, Linking TPB from the article about TPB is one thing. Agreed that Wikipedia should not be linking torrents, But has anyone checked? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

..Checked that we're not linking to torrents? Ironholds (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Certainly the spirit of WP:ELNEVER is violated by linking to such materials. However, I wouldn't have thought torrents themselves were linked from Wikipedia anyway. It seems like rather a non-issue, to be honest. Ironholds (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Well, there are certainly legal torrents out there. Not all torrents are of a copyright infringing nature. Not saying that we should necessarily even be linking to those, but I can imagine a scenario were it wouldn't be out of the question. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There is at least one - NIST hash function competition#External links has a (non-infringing) torrent link. There may be others, but that example came to mind. It's a bit of an open question whether such things amount to encouraging copyright violations, apart from the question of whether any individual link is itself a link to copyright-violating material. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think US law has held torrents that allow someone to download copyrighted material are the "copyrighted material" themselves, but thats for Mike to work on. I'd suggest removing the torrents just because there is no need to have them here, PD or otherwise. We don't link to download sites for software, there's no need to do the same for other things. Ironholds (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with Ironholds. Linking to the official site is one thing, but we aren't a repository for links to suspect material. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Suspect material? What? -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Wikipedia was required to roll over for Swedish courts. Jtrainor (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It isn't, and Shakespearefan's argument isn't valid. His point, however, is; why tolerate torrent download links? We don't have direct download links, legal or not, and it doesn't seem like there is any reason to allow torrents (or any reason why they'd be useful). Ironholds (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Diff. I just removed one. Synergy 01:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree we shouldn't link directly to torrents. However, I see no reason why we shouldn't link to TBP, isohunt, et cetera, especially in articles about them. That's what I mean. Jtrainor (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Torrent links themselves should not be banned outright. Uses such as this and this are legitimate. Tothwolf (talk) 06:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue is NOT the sites themselves, it's about a hopefully small number of links directly to torrents, rather than say an information page about the sites, or containing information on the rights holder for the material. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Can there be any torrents? Yes, there can be torrent links.
• Can there be torrents to copyrighted material? No.
• Can there be torrents to public domain material? Yes.
• Can there be torrents to public domain material at sites that are generally ignoring copyrights of other material? I think yes, but only if there is no other available torrent link.

For example torrent from public domain Children of Hiroshima was removed few times. The torreent is only in The Piracy Bay. How should the link look like: ALT 1:

• download the whole film through BitTorrent (details)

ALT 2:

• download the whole film through BitTorrent

The version 2 has no link to the site which contans a lot of advertisement, but without the detailed link it is difficult to get infomation about files. Any other possibilities? --Snek01 (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Snek01, If you can show that film is PD in the US, say so otherwise it will keep getting removed..

PD in Japan does not automatically equal PD in US. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Japan-film see also Japanese copyright law#Length of protection. Yes, you are right, because Japanese law do not know term "public domain", but it is as much as possible close translation and widely accepted translation. But certainly it is free. How appropriatelly to write discussed torrent links? And how to prevent their removing of 1) unknowing users and of 2) users that do not like links to sites, where is much advertisements? --Snek01 (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems that ALT 1 is against Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming, because it contains advertisement (links to commercail sites). But ALT 2 is not against any wikipedia policy. Is it possible to use torrent links to public domain films as it is written in version 2 (above)? --Snek01 (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There is also an important thing: if it is the only link where is the possibility to get the free film, so we need it to be able to improve articles. There is also goal of Wikimedia Foundation to ...spreading the word of Wikimedia, free content.... How it is possible to spread free content if there are some wikipedians (include administrators) that can not recognize free content from non-free content? And how it is possible to spread free content if links to free content could be prohibited by wikipedians themselves? --Snek01 (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll see if I can come up with a template in the next few days or so to help with linking to legitimate files. I'll follow up with you on your talk page so it will be easier to keep track of. Tothwolf (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There would be necessary to get concensus and then possibly to change guideline Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming to put an exeption there. After that then there will be possible to make a template, but a simple guideline is better than difficult template. Hopefully both can help. --Snek01 (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Pointless without Mike

Mike would have to weigh in (has anyone mailed him? I'll shoot him a link to this thread). Linking to any number of sites/projects is one thing if they have articles, but it seems the consensus is linking to torrents would be a no-no, and that makes sense. Even in the article on torrents themselves, you can just put a technical code example of a typical torrent with fake hostnames, et al. But as I understand it, even if Sweden or whomever said "This URL, of http://piratebay.org" or wherever is illegal, that's meaningless for us unless a United States court says so, and good luck with that one. If we even try to do this by policy on en.wp it's an absurdly slippery slope. What if China says a Taiwan government link, or a dissident group's site is illegal? What if Saudi Arabia says links to some sacrilicious site (to them) is illegal? And so on. I'll ping him. rootology (C)(T) 06:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Nobody other than Shakespearefan is saying we need to roll over for Swedish courts, but there is an excellent question here; are they needed, or indeed useful? My instinctive response is "no". Regarding the above examples where they've been linked as evidence that something is available via torrent sites; why is that needed or helpful? How difficult would it be, for example, to find a site saying that Ghosts I-IV is available on torrent sites? We don't post download links for software, there's no need to post other methods of download for other things either. Ironholds (talk) 08:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The examples I provided above are used as inline citations, not download links. There are many others but it seemed like two examples would be more than sufficient. The problem in enforcing an outright ban on a particular link pattern is it makes it impossible to use links matching that pattern for citations and appropriate uses. Tothwolf (talk) 09:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Tothwolf makes a valid point, This cannot be done as a 'blind-bot' task, which is why the spam filter shouldn't be used for one. There had been talk on IRC, about amending one of the filters to issue a generic 'advisory' when someone tried to add torrents links, but as has been stated there are legitimate ones, including those officaly generated by the rights holders (Thanks on the Ghosts example BTW) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm. There won't be many inline citations to torrents which don't violate WP:NOR, I suspect. Guy (Help!) 18:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ghosts I–IV is certainly not OR and is a valid citation. See News.com.au: Nine Inch Nails share album on Pirate Bay Tothwolf (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

And that's exactly the kind of misunderstanding I mean. We say it's the first album to be made available as a torrent, and cite that to the torrent download. Which is a novel synthesis. You need to cite independent reliable sources which say that. "Foo is available on Amazon<ref>Amazon link</ref>" - that kind of thing. See WP:ATT. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

Guy, I believe you are the one misinterpreting something here. I can't see the citation in any way claiming "it's the first album to be made available as a torrent".

The citation you just removed here, [10] which was used for this text:

Contains the first nine tracks, available for free online from either the official Nine Inch Nails website or officially from various BitTorrent trackers, including The Pirate Bay. (citation link)

...and the citation link you removed [11] (which is not a direct download link to the torrent file) contains:

Uploaded: 2008-03-03 03:28:59 GMT
By: NINOfficial
Nine Inch Nails: Ghosts I (2008)
Hello from Nine Inch Nails.
We're very proud to present a new collection of instrumental music, Ghosts I-IV. Almost two hours of music recorded over an intense ten week period last fall, Ghosts I-IV sprawls Nine Inch Nails across a variety of new terrain.
Now that we're no longer constrained by a record label, we've decided to personally upload Ghosts I, the first of the four volumes, to various torrent sites, because we believe BitTorrent is a revolutionary digital distribution method, and we believe in finding ways to utilize new technologies instead of fighting them.
We encourage you to share the music of Ghosts I with your friends, post it on your website, play it on your podcast, use it for video projects, etc. It's licensed for all non-commercial use under Creative Commons.
We've also made a 40 page PDF book to accompany the album. If you'd like to download it for free, visit http://ghosts.nin.com/main/pdf
Ghosts I is the first part of the 36 track collection Ghosts I-IV. Undoubtedly you'll be able to find the complete collection on the same torrent network you found this file, but if you're interested in the release, we encourage you to check it out at ghosts.nin.com, where the complete Ghosts I-IV is available directly from us in a variety of DRM-free digital formats, including FLAC lossless, for only $5. You can also order it on CD, or as a deluxe package with multitrack audio files, high definition audio on Blu-ray disc, and a large hard-bound book.
We genuinely appreciate your support, and hope you enjoy the new music. Thanks for listening.

This certainly looks like a valid citation to me and I plan to undo your removal of this citation unless someone can come up with something that can somehow show that the cited text does not say what it says. Tothwolf (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it;s not a citation to support the text. It's a link to the download. The text makes claims the torrent does not support, other than by drawing inferences from its existence and your reading of who NINOfficial is. You should use independent sources, music press and so on - it should be trivially easy. Guy (Help!) 22:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a novel interpretation. No, that link is not a direct download, that link goes to the release notes file. Considering the fact that the torrent file itself is linked from the official website and considering the username you mentioned can be found with Google, I'm going to assume you've not dug into this too much. I'm also going to point out that the material downloadable via the torrent file is also under the Creative Commons license. Rather than argue with you ad nauseum, I'm simply going to move the original link to the External links section and be done with this. Someone from WP:WP MUSIC can revert and argue with you later. Tothwolf (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• If there si a widespread problem of abuse, and given that TPB is well-known for its failure to police copyright, then it would be reasonable to blacklist TPB and then whitelist any particular items for which there is consensus that the use is both appropriate and within policy. Assuming good faith, well-meaning users can still expose the project to risk. I've alerted Mike and Jimbo to this discussion. Guy (Help!) 10:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• There doesn't appear to have been a widespread pattern of abuse, just a few questionable links here and there. So far less than a dozen links have been spotted and removed, I removed one earlier (which was a 404 anyway). IMO a blanket ban for something that has legitimate purposes is a very bad idea. TPB also isn't the only site that hosts torrents and torrent files don't have to be named "foo.torrent" anyway. Tothwolf (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• I'd already notified Mike; it's not a Jimbo decision but his input as a user is fine. I'd strongly recommend no one blacklist TPB (or any similar site) without wide consensus or Mike/Foundation public authorization. rootology (C)(T) 15:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• The answer is as expected: it's up to the community how to handle it, unless and until it results in some formal complaint to the Foundation. This is SOP, since the Foundation's main defence against legal action is the fact that it is the community and individual editors who write content. So we're back to square one, and I would suggest the way to resolve it is to consider the following question: what proportion of links to TPB are likely to be valid sources per WP:RS and WP:NOR, and what proportion are likely to be copyright violations. If both are small then we don't need to do anything. If the former is small and the latter large then we can blacklist it and use whitelisting for verified valid sources. Guy (Help!) 20:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't we rather ask ourselves how often links to TPB are added on Wikipedia that are in turn links to copyrighted material? Or, in other words: Is there an actual problem, or are we just making one up? --Conti|✉ 20:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• That was my point. But see above; one of the supposedly legitimate uses was to reference "Contains the first nine tracks, available for free online from either the official Nine Inch Nails website or officially from various BitTorrent trackers, including The Pirate Bay." To cite that from the torrent is a novel synthesis from primary sources. It should not be at all difficult to source it from the music press. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• All the links are here, I see a couple that should go, but for such a prominent site, the number of links overall are tiny. rootology (C)(T) 20:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• This is what should go. Most of the links at a glance look fine. rootology (C)(T) 20:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• There were a handful of questionable links on User pages, but the discussion earlier had focused on Article space. I was actually surprised at the low numbers myself when I ran searches against links for the top 5-6 tracker sites. The other issue here is The Pirate Bay is not the only tracker site. There are 100s, if not 1000s of them. Torrent files are not always named "*.torrent" either. IMO this whole thing has been a knee-jerk overreaction to the media hype over a first level court ruling in Sweden. The sky isn't falling, lets just remove the obvious links that should not be and not panic so much? For what its worth, torrent metadata files themselves do not contain any copyrighted material, are not illegal, and cannot download material on their own. They have to be loaded into a separate program before anything can be done with them. Tothwolf (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Mashkin threat on my Talkpage

Resolved

 – As an incident: resolved. As a pattern by Mashkin: will return. -DePiep (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Mashkin (talk) wrote on my Talk-page:

• Misleading comment in ...
• Do you really want to join him?

These I read as excplicitly uncivil and threatonous texts. I invited h/h to change or react, but received an explicit negative on h/h Talkpage talk). After invitations and a decline I now declare these an explicit threat. -DePiep (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Taken in full context, it's nothing [12]. He asked you to clarify a statement, and then asked you if you wanted to "join" a user who broke 3RR and accused him of vandalism. Join him as in...also make accusations against Mashkin? Or join him in a block...Regardless, there's nothing for an admin to do here, as far as I can tell. And for future reference, it's good to provide entire diffs of offending edits. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Not actionable - well, none said so. It's called Noticeboard here. Notable yes. I'll throw him off my Talk as I like, of course. 2. I am not familiar with providing correct diffs in these (dirty) matters. I do trust yours here, so OK with me. 3. The sectiontitle h/s entered is a judgement a priori: 'misleading' (h/h word). 4. H/s did 'ask me to clarify' on itself seems OK, but in full context it can only be read as an, eh, obligation. 5. You copywrite Or join him in a block...: that's the threat! -DePiep (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, which we are all supposed to do btw, the comment seems harmless enough to me. Looks to me like this is a "storm in a teacup" situation. Mashkin (talk · contribs) has made the comment politely (Which is commendable btw, considering that you have accused him of violating 3RR. A lot of people fly off the handle for lesser things.) asking you to clarify what you meant. He is simply asking if you are accusing him of violating 3RR or not. The other part of his comment obviously refers to the editor about whom the earlier discussion was on. He is saying that that user has accused him of vandalism and has violated 3RR, and is asking you if you want to join him. In other words, something like "are you sure you want to take his side?". I see nothing uncivil or threatening about this comment, and I see no reason for you to refuse to reply to it (though that should be your own decision). Chamal ^talk 03:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, making 3 reverts is not a violation of 3RR, what is not allowed is more than 3 reverts. The word "misleading" doesn't seem to be an accusation, but he simply says that your comment may be understood as saying that he has violated 3RR. He does not say that you comment is misleading, but just that it may be misunderstood and that what you meant there was not clear. Chamal ^talk 03:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

RE Chamal_N: If the post was in good faith, why then title it "misleading"? You write 'does not seem...' (why using our tolerance here, when the writer explicitly does not want to rephrase?). I did _not_ accuse h/h of 3RR-violation. I clearly stated the fact on this page. No more, no less. Only afterwards did eh someone give it qualifications. (What about h/h assuming good faith then?). The user did not ask me to clarify, the user wrote "I hope you do not mean" etc. (AGF, again?). Well, I dumped the unwanted 'communication' on the Talk of the original poster. There were already two more sections on AGF. Interesting. As an incident: consider closed. As a pattern from that user: will return. -DePiep (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Spammy signature (not username, but signature)

I've never seen this one before. User:Dansgalaxy has set his preferences so that when he signs a post, what appears is a short ad for his website - "XDnet.co.uk Putting the personal touch back into the web!" Seems to me this is blockable spamming, but I don't know just how to deal with it, since his username is unremarkable. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you write a gentle note to the user about his signature and how it goes against policy. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The editor in question hasn't used the inappropriate signature (or edited) since you warned him. If he does, block him. If he doesn't, then the problem is already solved. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Simple enough. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The editor in question hasn't done anything at all for more than a month. Not sure why this is coming up now. – iridescent 00:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, I don't particularly see anything wrong with the username in the slightest. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Certainly nothing wrong with the username; it's the little advertisement that appears everytime he signs that concerns me, with its hint of SEO-bait. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I added this link] to your post Mike, hope it wasn't overstepping anything. — Ched :  ?  16:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Rodney Lough Jr.

I'm an admin, but arguably am "involved" and unarguably am very busy in RL. So: As any of a number of IP numbers (see Talk:Rodney Lough Jr., passim), one Rodney Lough Jr. appears to be determined to revert Rodney Lough Jr. to a PR puff. If I had a lot more time, I'd send the sad affair to AfD; at least this would bring more critical eyeballs to it. There are also administrative options that I can think of, but they all have minuses of one kind or another. Anyway, having started as something of a combatant, I'm not the best choice among admins to do adminny things there. Over to somebody else. -- Hoary (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I've wandered in and requested some clarification from the subject as to what the problem is, and see if we can sort out how to settle the issue. We'll see how it goes. If the edit-warring continues, I have a protect button and know how to use it. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least they are honest...

Resolved

 – Some good ol' Engrish. :)

Okay, no admin action is necessary, but I just found these two edits really funny: [13] [14]. Obviously some off-wiki canvasing is going on where English is a second language. I already tagged the AfD, but just thought I would share a funny. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully this will start a trend, and we'll see some posts signed using Template:Vandal. Nick-D (talk) 08:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

My Rfa

Resolved

Is it possible this can be opened up again? I have to learn to deal with RL as well as Wiki Life. I wish it could go forward. ^Law _shoot! 09:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I relisted it. MBisanz ^talk 09:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Centrifugal Force

Could somebody please keep an eye on the the centrifugal force (rotating frame of reference) page. There is a discussion in progress about the radial planetary orbital equation,

${\ddot {r}}=-G(M+m)/r^{2}+l^{2}/r^{3}$

Editor FyzixFighter arrived on the page and tried to suggest that the inverse cube law term is a centripetal force. That is a very serious error. He was however caught out by two other editors (other than myself). It should be noted that since I opened this account, FyzixFighter has never once edited a physics article other than to undermine one of my edits. I was trying to explain the meaning of this equation when FyzixFighter arrived again and tried to turn the meaning upside down.

He is now currently engaging in obfuscating the equation. Somebody needs to keep an eye on the situation. David Tombe (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

AN is not for content disputes. The article talk page remains the appropriate venue. Acroterion _(talk) 14:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it's solely a content dispute though, if there's an editor causing trouble for the hell of it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Not so; the article's been a debating society among a particular group of editors for years. They would rather debate each other than cite sources. Tombe has asked me separately to look for malicious activity by other editors: I've seen none, and I have no opinion on the content. Acroterion _(talk) 15:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

One thing you could consider is making a Talk:Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame)/Arguments page. This has been used in a number of maths topics Talk:Monty Hall problem/Arguments, Talk:0.999.../Arguments as a way of diverting endless discussions away from the main talk page. Most editor can simply ignore the subpage. It has proved to be quite an effective tactic.--Salix (talk): 16:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue was that FyzixFighter has only ever come to physics articles to undermine the edits which I make. That is of course since I opened my account last April 2008. I haven't looked back before that. In this latest case, FyzixFighter entered the arena, and using a source which I had introduced (Goldstein), he then proceeded to turn the meaning upside down, totally contrary to what it says in that source. In that source, it says that the term in question is the centrifugal force, whereas FyzixFighter tried to tell us that it is the centripetal force. Two other editors pointed out FyzixFighter's error and he has since done a U-turn. This is not technically a content dispute. David Tombe (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Author(s) of "Warehouse Cooperative School"

Resolved

I was pleasantly surprised to find the Warehouse Cooperative School written up (extremely well, by the way) in Wikipedia. In that write-up, the author identified him/herself as an alumnus. I am very interested in letting that person know how much I appreciated his/her article. If he or she wishes, I would be delighted to hear from him/her. Sincerely, Knowles Dougherty, founder (long with my wife, the late Darlene Dougherty) of Warehouse Cooperative School. (address redacted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.162.48.51 (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I have emailed the original author, Herostratus. Guy (Help!) 15:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Shared account?

This edit appears to show that Cs california (talk · contribs) is a shared account. Is this the right place to report it? GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 19:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Technical data indicates that the account is not being used from multiple locations. It is still possible that the account is being used by multiple people on the same computer. I recommend asking them what they meant by that edit. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 19:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

GEE, I have EXPLICITLY WARNED everyone NOT to create any more SOCKS...!!!! --Cs32en (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

"What harassment is not"

I went bold and injected what I thought to be some common sense into the harassment policy about twenty-one hours ago, to prevent the rampant abuse of this policy to excuse bad behaviour (specifically, the straws that broke the camel's back were A Nobody and ChildOfMidnight's screaming of "harassment!"). Seeing as I've not been reverted immediately, I thought I'd see what AN would think. Thoughts? Sceptre ^(talk) 20:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm content with it. No need to call wolf when there isn't a problem. Icestorm815 • Talk 20:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is helpful. I had a go at tweaking the wording. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually glad people are amenable to the creation of the section. I thought people would think that due to my history of "harassment" (read: one incident of genuine harassment three years ago that I regret sincerly, and one blown-up incident of vandalising the userpage of the Designated Dissenter) I'd have no right to talk, but... I have first hand and second hand experience of real harassment. It isn't pretty. It's pretty much soul-destroying. I mean, look at the shit Amorrow did. And Encyclopedist. It really really annoys me when people use the word to mean "Mister Administrator, this guy thinks I'm not God's gift to Wikipedia!" Sceptre ^(talk) 20:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Harassment has a narrow meaning on en.Wikipedia, as does vandalism. I see both words used as unsupported smears (mistakenly or otherwise) far too often. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems entirely reasonable. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Per above. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Julie Bindel

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is currently the subject of a thread at WP:ANI which the user below has commented on. Lets keep this in one place, shall we? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Please could we have some administrator intervention on Julie Bindel's article? A user is claiming sockpuppety on their user page, (Near the bottom) constantly editing Julie Bindel's article against the consensus when there is still a discussion going on and generally refusing to engage in rational debate. I'm not sure what action is appropriate here, nor given my involvement do I think it would be appropriate for me to propose anything but I believe at this point that anything I try to do in order to resolve the problem isn't going to be helpful - we've already had a questionable RfC which hasn't gone well for the user in question and I'm concerned it's going to descend even more into mudslinging and personal attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoeoconnell (talk • contribs) 22:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Creating a redirect

{{resolved}}
I want the page 赵Ｃ to be a created as a redirect to Naming laws in the People's Republic of China. The exact text should be

#REDIRECT [[Naming laws in the People's Republic of China#Zhao C]] {{r to section}}

赵Ｃ was a Chinese man whom the government ruled needed to change his name for legal and technical reasons. When I tried to create the page, an unauthorized message directed me here.

Also, please create the talk page with content

{{WPAFC|class=redirect}}

Thank you. -- kenb215 talk 02:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Done; see 赵C. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually meant the linked to page, 赵Ｃ (and Talk:赵Ｃ). It's the fullwidth form of the c that causes the system to demand an administrator. Thanks. -- kenb215 talk 04:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done –xeno ^talk 05:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Reporting myself for administrator abuse.

OK. I needed a catchy header because I have completely fucked up something, and I need to turn this over to the general community of administrators. After posting this, understand that I am no longer going to add any additional comments to this topic, as everything I have done to this point has only resulted in the clusterfuck we see before us. The relevent pages are:

• User talk:Grant.Alpaugh
• User talk:Spydy13
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grant.Alpaugh
• User talk:Jayron32

Other than directing others to look over the situation, and take any appropriate action they deem necessary, I am recusing myself from further comments on this situation. I do not see where any further action or comment by me could serve any purpose beyond obfuscating this even worse. Please, someone clean up my mess and decide where to proceed. I don't care what happens from this point forward, I just want the right thing to be done, and I doubt my own ability to judge that in this case. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to respond by noting that Jayron32 faced a difficult situation and strove to do what he believed was right. When I brought to his attention my opinion that he erred, he gave my viewpoint a great deal of consideration and issued a sincere and heartfelt apology. His willingness to acknowledge and learn from his mistakes is commendable. —David Levy 04:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• The SPI will likely not yield any results. They have admitted to using the same computer (how they can then edit at the same time, besides the point). If the story is true, and they aren't the same person, they're abusive meatpuppets hoping to sway consensus in their favor. Buy like David said in the SPI, Grant used the "roommate" excuse before. Grsz¹¹ 05:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
• This is just stupid. Look at these edits by these two 'seperate' accounts on the same exact topic and within a minute of each other. This situation is frustrating to all users involved and I propose this move forward. I propose indef blocks on both for disruptive editing and abusing multiple accounts. I urge experienced sock admins to review the contribs of the suspected master and sock and get back to us with your comments please. Nja²⁴⁷ 21:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Many editors have exhausted every patience to try and deal with Grant, but to no avail. He will simply not accept that consensus on many issues was against him, edit-warred, was blocked, and created another account to carry on the issue. Now that both were unblocked, he is using them to create a false sense of support. Grsz¹¹ 22:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

On the policy issues, I don't believe it should be considered wheel-warring in any way, shape, or form for a blocking admin to unblock even after other admins have declined the request. I may have been unwise -- in fact I think it was -- but it shouldn't be considered hostile or improper. Looie496 (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't belive it was wheel-warring, and nobody is faulting Jayron in this. All we want is that somebody takes care of the situation of the sock- or meat-puppetry. Grsz¹¹ 02:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Move protected pages

There seem to be a worrying amount of move protected articles which have been move protected for no discernable reason; over the past two days, I've had to request move unprotection for two articles that I wanted to move, because they were indef move protected for no reason. We should really sort these out. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

My guess would be that most of those are Grawp-related move-protections. Basically, whenever Grawp moves a page, it gets reverted and indefinitely move-protected. Grawp then moves on to the next unprotected article, moves it, gets reverted.. you get the idea. --Conti|✉ 13:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That really shouldn't be happening. J Milburn (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with J Milburn. WP:DENY... revert the move, delete and indef protect the redirect that was left behind, and block the sock account. Protecting the articles which were moved shows that we are paying attention to Grawp, and that he/they are causing difficulty for the project, which can only encourage more of the vandalism. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to move-protect such pages for up to a month (say), to stop attempts at repeatedly disrupting a juicy target. But it should be finite, rather than indefinite, so that the default behavior is for protection to lapse unless there's continued interest in it. I'd suggest a review of indefinite protections in article space - if there's no pressing reason for a given article to be move-protected, it shouldn't be. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

name change

Resolved

 – — Jake Wartenberg 16:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have uploaded a photo and got the name a little messy . Would someone please rename it for me to this :- "Sheela Birnstiel.jpg". the original file is here:- File:Sheila_Bernstein,_(Ma_Anand_Sheela..JPG (Off2riorob (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

Easier to re-upload under correct name and tag the original for deletion as a duplicate. Exxolon (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Done thanks. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

Templates for speedy deletion

Approximately a week ago, I nominated three templates for speedy deletion, but they have not been deleted. I assume that this is because they are not listed at Category:Templates for speedy deletion, although I do not understand how this can be the case. The category name appears at the bottom of two of the three pages corresponding to the three templates (one has not been in place for a full week yet). The three templates are Template:Energy policy in Europe, Template:European Union topic, and Template:Marriage by country. Have I incorrectly formatted the notices? Neelix (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Could it be something to do with the <noinclude> tags surrounding the templates? – Toon^(talk) 17:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Username blocks - can we clear this up once and for all?!

Can we please come to a consensus on username blocks? I am so confused. Jcbowman2i (talk · contribs) created an account where the last two characters are apparently the name of a company. He made one edit to create a spammy article for that company. *BAM*, he's permablocked. On the contrary, the discussion at WT:U is trending towards accounts with blatant company names being allowed, let alone one where the company name can barely be discerned. And certainly a single spam edit doesn't warrant a block.

Discussions at WT:U and WT:UAA keep giving different results and are taking place on multiple pages so I am trying to consolidate. Let's get a final answer here please.

BTW, I'm not picking on the Jcbowman2i block. I am seeing similar blocks happening quite often at WP:UAA. Reporters and admins alike are clearly very confused there. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Under normal circumstances, I'd agree with Wknight94 ... one spammy edit doesn't merit a block. But since his username was a match to a company, and his first edit was promotional--to my mind that's a blockable offense. I've always been of the mind that we should take a hard line on spamming, especially given how popular Wikipedia has become. Blueboy96 17:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

To clarify (since I didn't mention above), the name of the company is "2i", not "J. C. Bowman 2i". If he hadn't made the edit he did, none of us would know that the company name appeared in his username. Therefore I'm assuming the hard-block was for the single edit of spam and was without warning. The warning-less block is a bit of a secondary issue, but I prefer to stick with the WP:UAA question. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this thread. This has been an issue that has been eating me a LONG time, as it clogs up WP:UAA and really creates more problems than it fixes. For the record, I never block anyone for a "spam username" and never deal with unblock requests for such; I find this particular category a clusterfuck, and I wouldn't mind seeing teh category removed from UAA-instablock offenses, and perhaps moved to WP:RFCN "Let's talk it out and try to reach an agreement to change your name" kinds of offenses. It is by FAR the bitey-est thing we do at Wikipedia, and many new users, like the one you cite above, find themselves blocked without even being given a chance to learn the ropes here. Look, if a user is spamming, then warn them to stop and if they don't, THEN block them. Regardless of the username. Take the username issue as a seperate one. If the name kinda sorta matches a company, but they aren't spamming, then refer to WP:RFCN instead. This has got to stop, its a big mess, and it takes up WAY too much of admins time with what I think is really a trivial issue. Plus, when you tell a user that the problem is their "username" and not their edits, it makes it seem as though they could just create an unrelated username and just keep spamming away. At least if the username is related, their COI is clearly evident, and we can keep an eye on problems. Really, this is something that has been frustrating me for a LONG time, and I am glad to see someone else is feeling similarly. We really need to discuss possibly changing this policy. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Jayron has it exactly right. We block good faith editors who have nothing to hide in favor of encouraging disguise. It makes absolutely no sense. If a name itself is spammy, then suggesting a change is reasonable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really for administrators to decide; I suggest you take the matter up at WP:VPP. Sincerely, Skomorokh 18:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Since it was discussed five days ago on the policy talk page there has been no comments opposing the comments wanting to remove the spamname part of the username policy, and per the generally supportive comments above I've boldly removed the policy justification for instant spamname blocks. If nothing else, it may trigger the BRD cycle. :) Feel free to give your input on the change and/or improve/revert it. henrik•talk 19:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Deceased editor - User:Teenly

Editor Teenly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has died from leukemia. I first found this out from User talk:Download, which is on my watchlist. --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 21:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Condolences to those who knew her. This is not meant to sound harsh, and apologies in advance if anyone takes it that way, but I've now blocked the account per standard practice. – iridescent 21:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What standard practice is that exactly? Pedro :  Chat  21:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Teenly's now unblocked, but I agree with Pedro. Users shouldn't be blocked because they are deceased. MC10 | Sign here! 23:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

My condolences go out to family and friends. I've also semi'd the userpage to deter any vandalism. Best wishes, Icestorm815 • Talk 21:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

My condolences as well. Don't forget to add the person to WP:OBIT. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 19, 2009 @ 22:07

Everyone seemed to agree that indefing was standard practice the last time something like this happened. — Jake Wartenberg 23:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

To avoid duplication, see also the conversation on my talk regarding this. – iridescent 23:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Indef in memoriam, preferably by someone who knew her. I'd like something a bit more gracious than what our standard practice appears to be.--Tznkai (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There has been some discussion at WP:RIP on this topic. — Ched :  ?  02:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's not entirely accurate, the discussion is on that talk page at: Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians. I've seen several admins add a hat to the user page when protecting, I've seen kind words left on talk pages, I've seen memorial pages done, and I've seen where the family of the individual preferred that privacy be protected, and nothing done. — Ched :  ?  02:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Block review please

I blocked 76.29.36.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for three months following some deceptive edits to Cilla Black and a torrent of abuse directed at me. Perhaps I should not have done that, but having received representations on behalf of the Arbitration Commitee, I have reduced this to two weeks; it would have been less but on my talk page, he claimed to have evaded his block and vandalised to the tune of some 300 edits. Indeed, he returned as 71.201.16.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to the same article and my Talk page, for which I blocked for another week. Today, one day after that block expired, the latter IP has returned to the same article, and I have blocked for a further week for block evasion. A look at the first IP's edit summaries alone should give some flavour of what we are dealing with. Review requested, but please leave any ArbCom matters to them. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 21:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Unblock declined by User:Fisher Queen Rodhullandemu 23:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Blatant abuse of rollback

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This isn't a decision for which a consensus is necessary, unless administrators disagree. The decision's been made and implemented, and there's no dissent, so this is resolved. Thanks, everybody.--chaser - t 02:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Sherurcij previously had his rollback privileges removed for abuse, though they were subsequently restored [15]. Today, Sherurcij engaged in more abuse of the rollback feature to revert good-faith edits without explanation. He obstructed the enforcement of the biographies of living persons policy by rolling back my legitimate request for the speedy deletion of Arno Funke [16] (articles about living people of the form "X is a criminal" are absolutely unacceptable per WP:BLP, and are subject to immediate speedy deletion per CSD G10). Also, he used the rollback feature nine times to revert Sillyfolkboy's good-faith content edit to templates [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]. Given the extent of Sherurcij's misconduct, and the previous revocation of his rollback privileges for abuse, I ask that his rollback privileges once again be removed. Erik9 (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Definitely seems to be misuse to me. The removal of the reflists confuses me as to why they were taken out, especially through rollback. Since I see no discussion regarding any of these edits by him to justify the rollback, I have removed the rollback tool. either way (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The templates are used in-article space, and it was wrong to add the reflist to them since it would make reflists show up halfway through articles - since he had done it to dozens of articles, I used rollback to undo the changes to the templates which were used in-line (while leaving it on templates which seemed to legitimately use them) - if you look at his contribs you'll notice that he did hundreds of such "adding reflist" without looking at what he was doing - I was merely undoing some of the damage done (inadvertently) to the project. Another administrator did the exact same thing I did, removing your (borderline bad faith) request for Speedy Delete (not even going through AFD) and seemed to indicate your edit was ridiculous. While he indicated, using sarcasm, why your edit was so egregious - and I woefully did not - the fact stands that my rollback of your egregious and ridiculous edit was far from "abuse". Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 22:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Sillyfolkboy's reflists were not transcluded in articles, because they were preceded by the <noinclude> tag [26]. And if you want to treat legitimate attempts at WP:BLP enforcement fully consistent with CSD G10 -- even if later found to be ill-advised, per discussion on User_talk:Erik9#Unsourced_BLP -- as vandalism, then the removal of rollback will be the least of the sanctions imposed on you. Erik9 (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Sherurcij, your use of rollback for that purpose is not allowed. For the most part, rollback should only be used on blatant vandalism. From WP:ROLLBACK (emphasis mine):

The 'rollback' links provided by Wikipedia's interface provide a standard edit summary of the form "Reverted edits by X to last version by Y". These should be used only to revert edits that are clearly unproductive, such as vandalism; to revert content in your own user space; or to revert edits by banned users. Reversion for other reasons should be accompanied by an explanatory edit summary, and must therefore be done by a different method.

—Travis^talk 23:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The user obviously does not understand when it is appropriate to use the rollback feature. Consequently, the flag should be removed. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as I'm kind of half involved here – it quite funny that you accuse others of bad faith while stating that I was editing "without looking at what [I] was doing". Indeed the edits were a bit bot-like and in retrospect Debresser's idea of placing "This reference list does not appear in the article." on the template is a better idea, but I clearly knew what I was doing. The templates were causing error messages and I was resolving those errors. It's a shame that you used rollback in such a way as you seem to be a perfectly decent editor. Did you not think to check that my edits actually caused a problem before you reverted them?

I'd say that it probably amounts to rollback abuse but I'm not too offended, and the BLP speedy was a close call. I personally would not mind you keeping the flag: just as long as you take more care before using it in future. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Considering it was removed in the past for misuse, and here we are yet again, I'd be loathe to provide anymore "chances". Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support removal of rollback. User needs to demonstrate ability and willingness to comply with the rules before getting it back. Looie496 (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

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

RFAR/Prem Rawat 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, MBisanz ^talk 02:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Temporary undeletion for Deletion Review

There's an outstanding temporary undeletion request at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 19#Biblical definition of God, so that non-administrators in the discussion can see what the article actually was (and compare edit history to AFD discussion, I expect). I'd rather that another administrator handle it, since I'm the one who started the review. Thank you. Uncle G (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I restored the article with the history included, with the {{tempundelete}} banner and with full protection. Please comment if you think any of those choices aren't right. EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Relocation of arbitration pages

In order to simplify and streamline the arbitration process, the Arbitration Committee has decided to reorganize and relocate various arbitration-related pages, as outlined below:

Phase 1 (administrative pages)

Phase 1A relocates and consolidates the core administrative pages.

• Wikipedia:Arbitration policy moved to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Policy
• Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Case handling deprecated and redirected to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Policy
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide moved to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Guide to arbitration
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case merged to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Guide to arbitration
• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures merged to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks
• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard merged to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks
• Wikipedia:General sanctions and Wikipedia:Editing restrictions merged to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Active sanctions
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested deprecated and redirected to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Active sanctions

Phase 1B consolidates the core administrative talk pages.

• Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Active sanctions deprecated and redirected to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee
• Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Guide to arbitration deprecated and redirected to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee
• Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Policy deprecated and redirected to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee
• Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Procedures deprecated and redirected to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee
• Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement deprecated and redirected to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

Structure after Phase 1

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee (with active talk page)
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Active sanctions
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks (with active talk page)
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Guide to arbitration
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard (with active talk page)
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Policy
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration (with active talk page)
  • Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration subpages
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement

Phase 2 (arbitration requests and cases)

Phase 2A relocates and consolidates the active arbitration case and request pages.

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration moved to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests
• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests split into Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests/Appeal, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests/Case, and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests/Clarification
• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests/Appeal, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests/Case, and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests/Clarification transcluded onto Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests
• Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Requests/Appeal, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Requests/Case, and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Requests/Clarification deprecated and redirected to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Requests
• New cases are opened as Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Case/CASENAME

Phase 2B relocates and consolidates the arbitration case and request archives.

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests moved to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Index/Cases
• Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions moved to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Index/Principles
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests moved to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Index/Declined requests
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Closed motions moved to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Index/Motions
• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Index/Cases, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Index/Principles, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Index/Declined requests, and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Index/Motions transcluded onto Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Index
• Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Index/Cases, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Index/Principles, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Index/Declined requests, and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Index/Motions deprecated and redirected to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

Phase 2C relocates and consolidates the active arbitration enforcement pages.

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement moved to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests/Enforcement
• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests/Enforcement transcluded onto Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests
• Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Requests/Enforcement deprecated and redirected to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Requests

Structure after Phase 2

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee (with active talk page)
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Active sanctions
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Case/CASENAME (multiple pages)
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks (with active talk page)
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Guide to arbitration
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Index transcluding:
    1. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Index/Cases
    2. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Index/Declined requests
    3. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Index/Motions
    4. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Index/Principles
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard (with active talk page)
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Policy
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests (with active talk page) transcluding:
    1. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests/Appeal
    2. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests/Case
    3. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests/Clarification
    4. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests/Enforcement

This proposal was adopted by a 9/0 vote, with one abstention:

• Support: Casliber, Carcharoth, FloNight, Kirill Lokshin, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Sam Blacketer, Vassyana, Wizardman
• Oppose: None
• Abstain: John Vandenberg
• Not voting: Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FayssalF, Newyorkbrad, Risker, Stephen Bain

Any comments regarding the planned changes should be made by April 25. Unless the Committee determines otherwise based on comments received, implementation of Phase 1 will begin on April 26, to be completed by May 1, and implementation of Phase 2 will begin on May 2, to be completed by May 8.

For the Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Audit Subcommittee procedure, term lengths, and members

The Arbitration Committee has adopted a provisional procedure for CU/OS auditing to be used by the newly formed Audit Subcommittee. The Committee anticipates that the procedure may be revised in the future based on the recommendations of the subcommittee.

The procedure was adopted by an 11/0 vote, with no abstentions:

• Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, FayssalF, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Sam Blacketer, Wizardman
• Oppose: None
• Abstain: None
• Not voting: Cool Hand Luke, Coren, Newyorkbrad, Stephen Bain, Vassyana

The Committee has also determined that arbitrator members of the subcommittee will be designated to serve six-month terms, and that the other members will be elected to twelve-month terms.

The arbitrator term length was adopted by a 12/0 vote, with no abstentions:

• Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, FayssalF, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Sam Blacketer, Vassyana, Wizardman
• Oppose: None
• Abstain: None
• Not voting: Cool Hand Luke, Coren, Newyorkbrad, Stephen Bain

The elected term length was adopted by a 13/0 vote, with no abstentions:

• Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, Coren, FayssalF, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Sam Blacketer, Vassyana, Wizardman
• Oppose: None
• Abstain: None
• Not voting: Cool Hand Luke, Newyorkbrad, Stephen Bain

The initial arbitrator members of the subcommittee will be FloNight, John Vandenberg, and Roger Davies. Interim appointments to the other slots will be announced shortly.

For the Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this