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

*If you cannot edit this page, it may be protected. Please leave a message here instead.

Wikipedia Statistics page

Special:Statistics gets a lot of views. The external link-stats are actually linked to from MediaWiki:Statistics-footer (before that MediaWiki:Userstatstext). For the last year or so, I've added the WikiCharts, then removed them once they stopped working. I added the Wikirage "most edited pages" links, and the http://stats.grok.se page. I won't be editing Wikipedia as much as I have been doing in the past from now on, so perhaps admins here could add these pages to their watchlists and keep an eye on whether the Wikirage & traffic stats pages are still working, and whether there are new pages that should be added. Cheers, JACOPLANE • 2008-04-15 21:29

The http://stats.grok.se/ site is a really useful tool. Cirt (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:PD

• Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Template:PD

What do you think about opening the admins channel a wee bit?

Following a very helpful chat with Tiptoety earlier today on IRC, I decided to ask FT2 about the possibilities of opening the admin channel a little bit - specifically to me, because I would like to spend a short time therein to take a look. It now occurs to me that I should also probably see what the general admin community thinks about such a development. I gather there have been some discussions (which I presume might have been on IRC?) on this matter - and thought that it's probably worth bringing all of them onto the wiki, where I think they belong! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the decision would be made by IRC channel ops, IRC is a reasonable place for them to discuss it. In any case, if there is a plan to admit a few non-admins to the channel, they would need to be highly trusted by the community, perhaps former admins or very well-established and trusted users. Otherwise, all that can be expected is for any sort of sensitive discussion to be avoided, which spoils the "observation". — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The admins channel is private for a variety of reasons. At times in the past, exceptions to the "only en.wiki admins" rule have been made, but they are only done when there is a legitimate reason to do so. From the comments I've seen from you, this is merely a sightseeing expedition. If there is a legitimate reason (i.e., not simply to look around) that a non-admin would need access, they're free to present a request. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the IRC issue is causing significant on-wiki disruption, and wish to inform my opinion concerning the channel in order to comment and discuss the issue further 'on-wiki'. I've summed this up as 'taking a look' - hope that's clearer! - Privatemusings (talk) 04:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Open it to you? No thanks. I don't like the company you keep. Purely a personal view, of course. Guy (Help!) 12:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Privatemusings, as you were already informed on your talk page, we held a discussion amongst us channel operators and participants and have decided there is not consensus to make an exception for you to join as a non-admin. Please do not exacerbate this by bringing it to other forums. krimpet✽ 03:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

no intention to exacerbate - and hope you're not stressed by the conversation. Privatemusings (talk) 04:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm firmly opposing this, and from what I see on IRC, the other admins there are opposed to it as well. I can't speak for all of them, of course, but the reason I personally oppose it is that it leads to a slippery slope. If we let you in, then what's to stop random other people from getting in as well? Basically, what I'm trying to say is... why you? What makes you so special that we should let you in as a guest? I do agree that there is always the potential for abuse, of course, but I don't necessarily believe letting anybody who asks in is the proper way to solve that. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 03:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems important to me that this conversation occurs between all admins, and in fact all editors, because the fact that you refer to 'the other admins there' can be seen to be a bit problematic - I can elucidate if you'd like, but I hope you understand my point! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I get it; it's a reasonable point, and I'm making no attempt to stop them from coming here and voicing their opinion; indeed, it looks like many of them already have. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 04:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

When I participated in the admin IRC channel, there were quite a few non-admins there. But I've not logged on there in maybe 6 months or so. Has policy governing the channel been changed to exclude non-admins? Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the rules haven't changed. But the non-admins are ex-admins or other users who generally have some form of authority or respect, whereas what Privatemusings is suggesting (if I read it correctly) is sort of a guest tour. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 04:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I would support users who aren't admins but are former admins, admins on commons or meta, otrs volunteers, stewards, foundation-level people, etc being granted access or granting temporary access to others who need a semi-private place to get attention from admins on a case-by-case basis. But turning it into #wikipedia-en-trustedusers or #wikipedia-en-admins-andPrivatemusings is, I think, not ideal. Mr.Z-man 04:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure we already have non-admins in the channel. _(1 == 2)^Until 04:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Very few though⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are a couple. As mentioned above, however, those are former admins, or other people who have some sort of authority (developer(s), OTRS personel, etc... -not sure if there are any otrs people there though). - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to PM getting a quick looksee for a few minutes or so, but I'm firmly against opening it up. #wikipedia is a shithole. the stats page supports this. WEA is a useful channel, and I would be pissed if it got destroyed. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion here doesn't matter, 500 people could say yes and it wouldn't matter since IRC is off-wiki. And at any rate, we can't start letting nn-admins in without setting a nasty precedent. Most non-admins with access are just leftover from being desysopped. John Reaves 04:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, see User:Cbrown1023/Guidelines (user info)‎ for all the non-admins with access (they're in bold). John Reaves 04:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:IRC#wikipedia-en-admins for non-admins etc. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As for this request, my thought is, it'd have 2 effects. Firstly the direct one... the channel for a day or so would be like one of those guided tours of some House... you'd see calm and quiet and you'd have no way to tell if it was normal or "put on for you", so your report to the community would maybe be dismissed out of hand whatever you said. Secondly, it would raise problems in that some people would object (strongly), others expect an exception to be given to them too (strongly), some would try and interpret it as whitewashing (or whatever todays issue is) and so on. Instant big-time 10-way divisiveness and further arguments from then on, on all fronts (based on "it was done once!"/"it shouldn't have been done once!"/whatever). And for what benefit? Such things have a cost, in lost time and effort. So while it's a nice idea, the current goal is to resolve these disputes, anything that gave a WP:COATRACK for further stuff, would need really good reasons to do so. This one, as a "personal curiosity" request, just doesn't have it. And that's before even considering the privacy reasons that others raise.

What would help instead as a variant, is to have even more of the more irc-critical admins to visit for a month or so and check it out, then it's very different. These would be users who are critical and might want to check it out first hand and see for themselves. They'd potentially be round a long time (a month to indefinite), over which timespan they'd definitely know they were seeing it as it really is, and none of the down sides would arise. If users there are doing right, it'll resolve on-wiki issues faster than anything since these would have more credibility; if it isn't, then these are exactly the users most likely to be willing to say so in channel if something needs higher standards. Both ways it's fine. I have an open explicit request that admins who have concerns might consider dropping by to check it out first hand for themselves, which would probably help a whole lot. I feel fairly sure it would work out well if they did. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the responses - I understand the points raised, but don't quite swallow them entirely. I had an idea that a little more openness might help the channel's reputation, and help it be better understood; its been reported to me by several folk that the actual proceedings are mundane, useful, if a little dull. The fact that so many very clear reasons as to why it's just not quite possible emerge so quickly strikes me as interesting - I mean they're sound reasons 'n all, but they give a different impression.... it's obviously important that I don't have access, but I'm not really understanding why. Has anyone expressed the objections you detail above, FT? - and I'd also be interested in your reaction to "Discussion here doesn't matter" - which I've got to say concerns me quite alot (happy to talk about that too, John - doesn't seem right to me!) - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, Privetmusings, you don't want to go in there. The place is a mess! Shoddy carpet, the sofa's full of tears, Krimpet always hangs the toilet paper the wrong way. That wouldn't be a problem in of itself, but SWATJester never puts the seat up and DMCDevit leaves crumbs everywhere. Oh, and Ryan Postlethwaite is always barging in drunk way past curfew. It may seem like I'm being glib, but that's the truth :) Keegan^talk 05:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You tweak my curiosity all the more, Keegan! - I can pull up a bar stool (and fall off it) with the best of them! You're not the first person to ask why in the world would I want to have a look in there - I just kinda suspect that it's actually almost exactly as you describe - that it's both mainly quite dull, and occasionally very useful. I'm not sure why, therefore, I wouldn't be permitted to take a look. I'd like to inform my opinion, and promote some useful discussions about what its really like, to be honest - nor should folk confuse me with someone who cares that deeply about the issue - it just seems like a good idea to me! Immediate, and strong, opposition to considering this request kinda creates its own problems too. Maybe I'm coming across as an annoying fool, which would embarrass me considerably, but hopefully some may see some merit, somewhere! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

My basic point was that for the most part the channel is idle banter. But at any point someone might bring up something onwiki, such as viewing deleted edits or reviewing a sock investigation. That belongs in private conversation both from a trust standpoint but also because it takes administrative access to weigh in on these issues. Since that may involve revealing personal information, we keep all that discussion in a smoky back room. Being in such a room, poker games and other vice might be undertaken. But the privacy remains for a very legitimate reason and that is not to shield illegal/immoral/unwiki activities. Such is why the channel is private. If you could see the conversations, really the only relevant ones that involve discussion require the bit to gather the informed opinion. I completely understand your curiosity but let me assuage you that it can be quite as mind-numbing and off topic as any other IRC channel or message board in the world. Hope that helps you. Keegan^talk 06:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Keegan, thank you for not mentioning my bong smoking. _(1 == 2)^Until 05:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Some background regarding non-admins in the channel: until recently, the access list to the channel included many non-admins, some with no special authority or anything. They were simply there because they were friends of the chanops, no other reason. These days, Essjay and Kelly Martin no longer use the channel (and are no longer ops), and, as far as I'm aware, not a single non-admin has been granted access since 2006. I already told Privatemusings it would be a waste of time visiting the channel, and an even bigger waste of time arguing about it - I personally have stopped using the channel because of personal issues between certain bullying chanops and the whole ethos of the channel simply makes me uncomfortable being there. PM, you'd be better off out than in. Majorly (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What might be a legit reason for access, at least for some

I do have a thought as to what might qualify someone, or at least myself, in having access to the admin channel. As the original author of WP:TOV and a real-life emergency services responder (credential verification available upon request) I have a few times now interfaced with police and 911 communication centers in order to report what very well might be imminent threats to self or others. It might be incredibly useful (perhaps even save a life/lives) to have immediate access to a larger group of administrators for real time chat in order to deal with such things. I am already very active on #wikipedia-en and by no means an irc n00b. What do ya'll think about granting me access to the admin channel for this purpose only. It wouldn't be a place I'd regularly hang out in, but rather only access in times of emergency. Looking forward to your thoughts. Bstone (talk) 05:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, the non-admins are allowed in the channel because they have proven themselves to be useful. _(1 == 2)^Until 05:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Would this be considered useful? I've received two barnstars for my efforts in WP:TOV and having responded to actual TOVs. Bstone (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Posting to ANI reaches many more admins and other editors who may be of assistance in such situations, Bstone. Several thousand people have ANI watchlisted, while at the best of times we are told only about 30 people are actually around in WEA, and it only has a total membership of about 500. If the objective is to get many eyes on a situation quickly, ANI is much more effective. Risker (talk) 05:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh I agree that ANI is the most appropriate place to deal with it, but I have seen things get lost or not responded to. It just might be that having every tool at one's disposal (especially in a case of loss of life) would be the most appropriate thing. Agreed? Bstone (talk) 05:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Attempting to "reform" #admins is meaningless

Meaningless proposal, PM. Admin channel, like all others, belong to Forrester (personally) no matter what Jimbo or ArbCom order (and they unlikely will anyway.) IRC has no relation to Wikipedia no matter how some try to make it both ways (for convenience to claim either, when expedient). Logs remain to be revolting (including today) and nothing is going to change.

The good thing though is that it got such a bad rep (deservingly) that there are less newcomers who express the #admins psychology. It is already better than in the Fall 2006 (it's clear worse when checkuser data was discussed in public, arbcom statements were compiled, dissenters were kickbanned and penis talk was rampart) and in another several months half of the current activists will be gone due to a natural turnover and there will be less of that type among those who are coming now (less are joining too.)

So, that maybe also a solution to simply wait it out. It's just too slow and in the months to come the channel will still be able to hurt the Wikipedia and its editors. Not saying you should just ignore the maleficence but you should abandon hope of reform or access to the critics.

Note how "reform" was undertaken. By critics' exclusion (not an exclusion of non-admins. Betacommand is there most of the time, btw, asking for blocks and warnings of those who "personally attacked" him) So, while exposing the cheating is a good thing, trying to waste an effort on reform is unlikely to help. --Irpen 05:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've always been a kind of 'positive change from the inside' sort of person, and that's another reason I thought I'd try and take a look! The eternal optimist in me says that it's always possible at any given moment to choose the best path forward - and at the moment, I'm trying to gain support for the idea that a little bit more sunlight, openness etc. might be worth looking at - and I'm trying to get to the bottom of the tensions between the 'it's really boring really, why would you want to come in?' and 'there's no way we could safely allow you in, it's just too risky'. Time will tell if I get anywhere.....! - Privatemusings (talk) 05:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I do intend to see what the channel thinks of releasing a day or two's worth of logs so people can get a feel for the channel. John Reaves 05:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Great idea. Especially, when participants know in advance that today's logs would be released. --Irpen 05:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't posting logs sort of similar to letting a few other eyes and ears in? - they seem to have some synergy to me! In fact, it's probably a dramatically more extreme step in many ways - why not take it slow, and first of all let a few folk lurk and see for themselves? - I would think it would be pretty straight forward to monitor the folk so invited too, so I guess I see the risk as low... whaddya reckon? - Privatemusings (talk) 05:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, attempting reform is especially useless when we can't even crack down on people constantly leaking logs. Mr.Z-man 06:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with a conclusion but for a different reason. Every time the embarrassing evidence gets exposed, the IRC's talk is about leaks (just as above) instead of the problems being discussed. Best proof that the channel is unable of a self-reform. --Irpen 06:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The infamous channel logs will always contain improper things, said at improper times by improper people. That happens on-wiki, too. These threads always disturb me slightly be cause as a regular lurker in the admin channel I become indicted with the channel itself. I, and many others, sit in the channel and use it to communicate in regards to admin related tasks whether they be personal or policy related. Some(most)times we wander off topic to general conversation but that almost always circles back to the wiki. Most of the time the channel is either quiet or idle banter. It only takes a few bad apples and a few bad topics to indict an entire channel so let's consider that if you want to name names, do so. If you don't, please don't insult everyone else with condemnation. I have great respect for your work, Irpen, and the sins of others should not be cast upon me as a user of the channel. Keegan^talk 05:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Keegan, I am sorry for inadvertently "indicting" you (or anyone.) Most admins are good. Bad is the channel that allows few bad apples to multiply the damage and also, spoil some not so bad apples on the way. Apologies for not being clear that I never intended to say that all admins at the channel are bad. It's just that good ones have lesser impact "at the channel" (not on wikipedia.) --Irpen 05:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd rather see older logs released which would only be edited for privacy reasons, e.g. discussions of BLPs (one of the reasons the channel is useful). John Reaves 05:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would be appropriate to decide that once private conversations should become public after the fact unless the parties involved gave their consent. _(1 == 2)^Until 06:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

1=2, Just don't say things in private that would embarrass you if made public. It's that simple. None of the bad stuff you did at the channel involve any privacy policy, checkuser, BLP or similarly sensitive issues. When you went to shop for blocks and it became known, the reason is that you went to shop for blocks in the first place. --Irpen 06:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There is plenty I would say to trusted friends I would not say to those seeking to invent battles, of which there are plenty. You don't know squat about what happens on channel as is demonstrated by your baseless accusation. If you have any evidence of my impropriety on channel then take me to arbcom and I will provide the logs myself, but stop blowing smoke. You want to toss accusations of corruption around then damn well prove it and act on it. _(1 == 2)^Until 13:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No hard feelings, Irpen. My opinion on that matter has always been that those who use the channel for its purpose use it that way, we have little use for it otherwise. I may chatter every now and again in there or #wikipedia, when I'm in that kind of mood I don't even notice what channel I'm in. I'm not on Wikipedia to make friends or run in a circle; hell, I use it to get away from that in real life. If people want to piss, moan, bitch and badmouth I don't care where they do it as long as it is offwiki. It is both shameful and regretful that this takes place in a channel bearing the name that it does. That is undoubtful. If we had a way to change it, I feel we would have found it by now. There reaches a point that you can't get away from people acting like people in a social/communal setting. I sleep at night knowing that at least, considering our numbers, we still manage to keep composed while editing here. Happy editing to all. Keegan^talk 06:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, reform is impossible even though the first and foremost step is obvious. End the revolting ambiguity of the channel's status that is only more so revolting for being kept so on purpose (cake/have/eat). There is no way to defend this immoral setting but sabotaging the change worked so far. --Irpen 06:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I glad we can agree to disagree to agree to disagree to agree, at least I think that's how that went. Keegan^talk 06:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Until(1 == 2) says charmingly above to Irpen "You don't know squat about what happens on channel" This is untrue, many of us have very accurate and verified logs showing us exactly what goes on in this chatroom. We can see that nothing productive, only incoherent noise, malicious gossip and orchestrated blocks emerge from that channel. The reasons for keeping it private and the logs unpublished are to prevent the ordinary editor knowing of the loutish and disgraceful behaviour that occurs there with the full knowledge of Arbs, who are often in the channel when trouble is occurring. Basically, the channel is used for purposes and language which would not be permitted on Wikipedia and serves no useful purpose whatsoever beyond creating division and exclusion. Giano (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Like you said, you have access to the logs. Like I said, if you think I was improper take me to arbcom and present your evidence and I will also provide logs, as will many uninvolved people. I am pretty sure my logs and your logs agree, it is just your interpretation that differs. You have no lack of evidence Giano, it is just that what you say happened did not happen as you say it did. I won't be denying the content of the logs if they are accurate if you choose to persue this in a productive evidence based fashion, but if you are just going to repeat accusations then I have not much to add other than "It just isn't so". _(1 == 2)^Until 13:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem very nervous Until(1 == 2, if you read my post properly you will see I am talking in general terms of behaviour in the channel, not specifics. Giano (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the fact that you claim conspiracy in an occasion where there was not is a pretty good representation of your general view of IRC. Unfounded static. You have all these logs, so where is all this abuse? Where is all this conspiring? Because if you looked at the situation leading to your most recent block as an IRC collaboration, then I have to doubt your interpretation of other IRC events. I think you either have an ax to grind so you are sowing distrust, or you are truly misinterpreting events. Either way I have to take you claims with a grain of salt. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think either of their posts is helpful. Everyone should at least be able to agree that the perception of impropriety on the channel is a problem. This occurs because it is a secret exclusive channel. Secrecy breeds distrust. This needs to be addressed either by opening the channel or preventing its use. DrKiernan (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• I partially agree with you DrKiernan, however, I don't think you will find that neither openness or closure are going to be willingly on their agenda. We now have a situation where the all inclusive Wikipedia is governed by a nonproductive and exclusive clique at its centre, and no one with sufficient authority is prepared to stand up and address the situation, the reason being that they are all in their chatting or friends with those who are. As a consequence the editors on the factory floor have become second class citizens. Giano (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

One would think that such a horrible oppression and manipulation would be demonstrable. Yet while we have forest of accusations, we have very little objective evidence. What little evidence that has been provided does not demonstrate abuse of power. _(1 == 2)^Until 01:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

Just open it up to all and only voice admins. A discussion or decision or whatever can then be had about who else to voice, if necessary. Start a separate admin-only channel strictly and plainly for BLP issues, if necessary (the only good reason for a private channel, right? I'm not aware of any others) Give up the weird idea that #admins has nothing to do with Wikipedia. If people didn't believe it was a quasi-, demi-, almost or de facto official channel they really would have no business being there. Encourage all admins to join both channels. The watchers are watched, paranoia is at a minimum, everyone lives in peace and harmony forever. 86.44.30.169 (talk) 06:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't even use the IRC channel, but that would be pointless. If #admins is opened up to all viewers, the traffic that people want to keep private will just be moved into other private user-created channels. There is no way to control off-Wiki communication between Wikipedia users and any attempt at doing so will fail. FCYTravis (talk) 07:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If people want to make their own private wikipedia clique channels with no trace of official imprimatur, there's no way of stopping them. I don't think admins or selective pockets of admins would think that was a good idea, is that naive of me? 86.44.30.169 (talk) 07:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You're assuming that such private clique channels don't already exist. They almost certainly do. Furthermore, I'm quite sure that anyone who isn't in those clique channels now, but thinks that what they say on #admins should not be seen by non-admins, is going to join them if your proposal is adopted. So, nothing is accomplished except driving everyone into private clique channels and extinguishing whatever usefulness #admins might have had. It's counterproductive in the extreme.

I'm a journalist. I'm a believer in WikiSunshine. That's why all on-Wiki actions should have to be backed up by on-Wiki discussion except in exceptional circumstances (OTRS actions, for example). None of this "two people said so on IRC, so I blocked" crap. That's pernicious and dangerous.

But open meeting laws such as the Brown Act have never extinguished back-channel discussions and off-the-record conversations, even among actual governmental bodies which meet in the real world. They never will. We're never going to be able to do it on Wikipedia, either - there will always be private conversations, private groups and private information. It's like playing Whack-a-Mole with 1 billion holes. If you make #admins public, it's not suddenly going to reveal its darkest secrets. Those secrets will just move somewhere else. FCYTravis (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

QUOTE You are assuming that such private clique channels do not already exist.QUOTE Well, yes, I think that's rather the point 86.44.30.169 was trying to make. This you can't stop it because it will start somewhere else is a strawman. Yes, it might well start somewhere else... but, if it does, that too can be stopped for what it is ie. out-of-process, cliquish, canvassing.

The point is that it shouldn't go on. The point is that the community has had enough and has said, enough! To apply your argument to another topic - perhaps the community should not bother to stop vandalism, because it will just happen again? Of course it should bother. Of course the community should act in such a way as to promote appropriate, open behavior and send a message to those who would attempt to act outside of what the community feels is valid.

I do not doubt that it is nothing like vandalism - that it was and is done, mostly, in the best of faith. But it is still out-of-process, cliquish, canvasing and it is still wrong. It is something the community has shown it does not accept and these administrators- these so-called respected members of the community should know enough and be big enough to stand up and say yes, I was wrong. If it starts up again, so be it. But at least the effort was made... and perhaps then we will know who is here to write an encyclopedia and who is here to play the MMORPG58.104.199.132 (talk) 10:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Having a quasi-official channel helps prevent cliques, or at least make them large enough to be diverse. Unlike ad hoc, undisclosed channels, the #admins channel has a large enough group of users to have a range of viewpoints on many topics - thresholds for deletion, BLP, blocking, etc. That makes it much more valuable than a channel with only 5 like-minded administrators would be. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• My suggestion, not sure it it's noted above, is to bot-post logs from the admin channel to a place where all admins can read it, with sanctions against leaking. I have no problem with other admins seeing what goes on there, I was an IRC sceptic until I subscribed. I don't go there as often as I used to but it's a handy place to get a sanity check in real time, provided you only ever believe the dissenting views. 90% of what goes on there is banal. If you allow non-admins access, it will simply go underground, as admins have to have a place to vent and be talked down by others. Unless, of course, you want all busy admins to burn out and end up only with people who have no memory of long-term disruptive users and disputes, which I suppose might be seen as attractive in certain quarters. Guy (Help!) 12:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• How would you determine who made the leak in order to apply sanctions? I expect that some admin would decide that the logs "need to be public" and would copy them to another public location. Compare deletionpedia and similar sites. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Guy has persuaded me that there is a use for an off-wiki communications channel that I won't be able to access. Venting and ranting is important, and too often it's not recognized for the ephemeral 'letting off steam' that it is, but is used as a stick to beat people with. Dan Beale-Cocks 13:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Guy, I had suggested this very thing the other day to Until 1=2 on his talk page, for an admins-only 24x7 log of the WEA channel, and he said basically that he (and presumably other admins) would simply not discuss some things there then because of the logging, and not trusting "all" admins. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Those admins whom people in general one cannot trust should be persuaded to give up the mop, and if one admin finds himself in a situation where he can personally can not trust a large number of his colleagues, it indicates a problem that also must be resolved. This is more serious even than the question of the existence of the channel. DGG (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

DGG, the conversation where Until made the statement is now archived here. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 21:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what would happen if one of these "untrustworthy" admins asked for access to the admins channel? Would they be denied? Maybe this channel is not for admins at all--perhaps it is just a "trusted user" (as defined by whom?) channel and having adminship is a preferred prerequisite but is not the defining factor in allowing access. That is what it looks like to me (an outsider): Calling this an "admin" channel is misleading; it is actually a trusted user channel where people can vent and do not have to worry about "being talked down to" by regular users. It's like a club or a fraternity--If it was not a club, then there would be less opposition to posting logs that are available to admins only. It is a little odd to have such a club, considering Wikipedia's transparency ideals, but as FCYTravis says, there is absolutely no way to stop this with policy--peer pressure and shame might work, but not policy. This club has "unofficial" status and the prerequisites required to access this club is unclear. I suppose that helps in keeping out certain Ppeople...Maybe it's like the Freemasons and you have to be tapped by an existing member! :-) Oh well, keep acting like you have something to hide and people will continue to think you have something to hide, I guess. Like I said on PM's talk page, it's not like it's my channel (or the community's) anyway, so I do not care what the channel's reputation is like. That is up to the users of that channel to improve--it does not appear the majority care to do that. It's not like discussion here is going to change anything, right? daveh4h 20:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have o idea if any admin has ever been refused channel access. A small number have, I think, been booted. Guy (Help!) 21:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I can think two (maybe) admins that were booted for "per IRC" blocks and a non-admin booted for incivility. John Reaves 05:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Daveh4h, you are making the assumption that "these 'untrustworthy' admins" are untrusted by the channel as a whole, rather than a couple admins who have no control over who gets access. Why don't we post full logs of the channel? 1) IRC isn't a mailing list or a forum, to compare it to other technologies, it would be like comparing a phone conversation (IRC) to mail (mailing list). People may hold on to mail, but not many record their phone conversations. 2) Its so far from the norm. Of all the Wikimedia related channels I'm in (17? 18?) only 1 (#mediawiki) actually records logs besides what individual users may keep. 3) Archtransit (and possible similar incidents) - he could have gotten access to the channel in his couple weeks as an admin and posted all the logs from that time, which would have been annoying to say the least. Had there been a full log archive though, he could have posted the whole things, making the "admin-only" restriction pointless. Mr.Z-man 06:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Another of the major problems is that from time to time Admins can if they wish invite in their non-admin friends to join in the fun, we then have non-admins discussing and adding to converstions about which they have no business. The whole concept is intrinsically wrong. Giano (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Two additional suggestions

Recent (unfounded) paranoia made me concerned about this issue as well. I was thinking about bringing it up at wp:vp eventually, however, I might as well chip in now so as to not bring it up twice. My concern is the same as mentioned above: having a closed, admin-only, chat room seems to be in strong contrast with normal wikipedia ideals. In the long run such secrecy only cause suspicion and some might feel alienated. One of the things that (well this is my personal belief) have made WP work so well is that it's 99 % transparent. And the fact that it works on WP makes me think that a private admin channel is unnecessary?

Well, at least I'm not convinced by the arguments given above. And I'm a bit confused as well: (and this might be a stupid question) is really checkuser information being discussed on the channel? Isn't it only some users who have checkuser privileges, and if so, why are such data being shared with all admins on the channel? I mean, if another user with checkuser privileges need the info they could see it on wikipedia themselves?

Anyway, I have two suggestions I'd like to make: (And I hope you forgive me for being completely ignorant of previous discussions (I haven't found any!) or the need of discussing such things as checkuser data etc). Apis (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: Make a Wikipedia administrator policy that goes something like: Admins are encouraged to avoid administrative co-operative off-wiki discussions that are not transparent. (Or even make it all editors and wiki related work)? Apis (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: IRC Wikipedia related logs could be made available to everyone with a delay of 7 days, 30 days, (x days). Apis (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

TTN, again.

Resolved

 – one week block, see [{WP:AE]] of today too

AE link -- [1]. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC) (If it matters any, make note that I have a long-standing account but I prefer to not to use it on Talk pages and the like.)

Even though TTN left for a while due to getting put on probation, he's recently returned with the same "holy cause" attitude he's had before. Despite being barred from making any redirect or merge-related edits, TTN's gone on a tagging and "trimming" adventure in the last few days, and while he's as annoying and forceful as ever that isn't the problem I'm bringing up. As seen here he's also getting other users to do his abrupt redirections and merges for him and from the way it sounds, as soon as his probation's up he's going to be pulling the exact same actions at the same pace that got him in trouble in the first place. It's really maddening, and I'm not sure anything can be done about him. - 4.156.24.213 (talk) 04:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Notified both editors. Is there any particular edit you have a problem with? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I looked into this and object to this sort of thing. Its evading the Arbcom sanctions by asking other users, on and off wiki to do things he is prohibited from doing. MBisanz ^talk 05:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? The problem was how he was doing it, not what he was doing. If an editor chooses to behave in the manner that TTN was censured for, then that is their choice, and appropriate action will be taken. Performing/requesting redirects/merges is a regular editor activity. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I gave TTN an open offer to do this myself, and I stand by it. The rationale is simple, a user, such as myself, would evaluate his request, and if it doesn't seem valid, we don't do anything. If it is valid, it doesn't matter who suggested it. This is no different from TTN making the same exact suggestion on the talk page, which he is allowed to do. Unless we have a problem with the judgement of the user he's asking, there isn't an issue here. -- Ned Scott 05:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And to give further context, this is a user that was already considering this. TTN and the user were discussing the matter, and TTN said "Per the arbcom case, I can't even place merge tags until like August or September, so it would have to be you. I'm in no rush, so you can take whichever course of action you wish to take. " In other words, "if you want to merge them, you'll have to be the one to add the tags because I'm not allowed to". I don't see anything wrong with that. -- Ned Scott 05:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

To give further context, yes the wording is neutral but TTN knows and you know how you'd interpret such a 'neutral' request. All this does is reinforce the view that TTN still thinks he has done nothing wrong at all and is merely sitting this out until starting again. The post could be considered bordering on evasion of an arbcom restriction given the context and people involved and as such should be placed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you really think that the outcome of the Arbcom case would be that every bad article would suddenly become immortal? TTN is far from the only person that believes that TTN did little to nothing wrong, and that means that there is still going to be a drive to remove these things. I don't see anything here that violates his Arbcom restrictions.Kww (talk) 06:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

To quote TTN: "You could just try redirecting it, and if it's only one or two anons reverting without summaries, it would just be fine to revert and ignore them. If any of them become vocal or an actual user jumps in, then some other method would probably have to be used, though." Fun little game I guess. ArbCom here we come. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh gosh, and here's another friendly request...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't this really belong at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement again (yes, I'm aware that one was just closed 24 hours ago). I'll informed the user who closed that one how they feel. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, I really don't want to see Episodes and Characters 3, but if they do start proxying for him due to his "banned" status, I don't see any other option. Can someone please make the drama go away? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have undone sguerka's redirect without discussion of Meowth per [2] Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, how petty can you people be? It should be obvious that these are requests and suggestions. I haven't ask "Hey, can you go tag all these articles?" or "Can you go put all of these up for deletion?" I have told one person that an article would be better off merged, asked someone to finish a forgotten merger that they agree on already, told one person that they would have to set something up themselves, and asked some one, at their own discretion, to re-redirect some articles (out of over 150 for reference) that had already been through some sort of discussion. There is nothing malicious in anyone's actions besides the people complaining. TTN (talk) 08:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You're under sanction, banned from redirecting articles, suggesting that others do the work you are unable to do per the arbcom sanction is attempting to circumvent the ban you are under.... It isn't pettiness, it is the conditions you found yourself under due to the problematic behavior you undertook even after being chastised by the arbcom the first time around. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what TTN has done wrong. He's following the Arbcom ruling, and making editing suggestions. TTN has every right to engage in talk page discussions. He is not a banned user, and to describe him as such in order to justify blind reverting is disingenuous at best. The Arbcom ruling didn't say "any edits where TTN was involved in the discussion can be reverted on sight". Neıl ☎ 09:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Neil here. Especially since Sguereka would've done it without TTN. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This argument does not hold any water. Sguereka had not re-redirected these articles until he was asked to do so as a proxy of TTN today. Perhap TTN isn't officially banned, but he is in spirit. If he was to do this sort of redirection, he'd have been treated in the very same way a banned user would be if that user was circumventing his ban. Arguing the semantics of his restriction seems somewhat silly, but I will not revert your reversion at this time. (No use fanning the fire of this continuing drama, afterall.) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, TTN is not banned officially, nor banned in spirit. This is not an issue of semantics; it's very important to be clear on this, as "banned" has connotations and implications that do not apply to TTN. He is not banned, he is restricted from merging/redirecting/deleting episode articles. He has not even edited episode articles. Nor has he requested merges, deletions, or redirections. This thread has, therefore, very little purpose other than to air old grievances. Neıl ☎ 11:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have serious qualms about the Meowth redirect, notably the fact that it was opposed on the talk page for anyone that looked. I too don't agree one bit with TTN's actions: effectively he can puppeteer users to do what he's banned from and that should be "okay"? You'd be better off just cutting out the middle man and letting him do it himself if you're going to go that route. And last I checked that wasn't the option on the table. A comparison would be an AFD discussion: we aren't allowed to go to users and say "Hey, this article is under fire could you please post a keep vote if you think it should stay?" That violates a blatant rule and we all know it. So how is this any different?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Do I need to quote the ArbCom statement? The ruling states he cannot merge/redirect or delete articles relating to TV shows or characters. It also states he may not request any of the preceding. He has done none of these things. However, the ruling states "[TTN] is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate." Neıl ☎ 12:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you missed his request to sgeureka to re-redirect a number of character articles then, Neil, because he did precisely what you say he didn't. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Kyaa, I did indeed miss that ([3]) - this is expressly against the Arbcom ruling (my apologies). The appropriate place for this to be reported is Arbcom enforcement, that way. I will add a comment to the thread you have already started there. Neıl ☎ 13:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

At the very least I can point out the Meowth redirect ended up violating what you cited Neil, given that the article covers in part the character's anime counterpart, meaning it affected an article on a TV character.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sguereka had not re-redirected these articles until he was asked to do so as a proxy of TTN today. Right as a factual statement, totally wrong in the implication (and who would know this better than I am). While I would not have re-directed (most of) these articles that day, I redirect these types of articles on other days in a similar manner (as can be seen from my contributions) while no-one makes a big deal out of it. And why would they? It would be a hard strain on wiki procedure to open a new merge debate whenever a proper-enough merge&redirect is challenged by newbies or IPs without a comment, and I bet this exact loophole that got TTN into trouble in the first place will be filled eventually as well. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no distinction between anonymous IP users and those who login and suggesting that there should be special rules when an IP is the wikipedian who challenges you strikes badly against the spirit of Wikipedia, imho. As to your comment about newbies... One would suggest you read up on BITE.... Suggesting that newbies and IPs should be treated as second class wikipedians is troubling. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I was a fanboy newbie once who was immediately bitten with an AfD, and I still only really learned the significance of WP:FICT (and WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:WAF, ...) after approximately four months of being an active wikipedian. I therefore consider it very unlikely that an IP or a newbie account who doesn't even use edit summaries, would know today's minimum requirements for fiction articles. And that doesn't even account for newly created disruptive sock puppets, although that would be the worst case scenario, so let's not go there. We're all here to at least maintain the quality we have already achieved, not twiddle our thumbs while some fanboy newbies (in good-faith or not) recreate articles that were considered bad the first time around. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As Seresin hinted above, anyone continuously editing in the same manner as TTN should probably sanctioned in the same manner as TTN. Regardless, Meowth, being one of the main characters (and having a speaking role) in the cartoon series, is far from being an obvious merge candidate (regardless of how one feels about the other 400-odd pokémon). — CharlotteWebb 13:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Clarifications_and_motions ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a question, should I have posted that initially to AE rather than clarification? I am still kinda confused. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Just as a note, there have been two related threads at AE: TTN and notability tagging? and And so it begins again. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

To establish context, I had already wanted to merge this article quite a time ago. TTN's message was merely a reminder about the issue which I had forgotten about. Suggestions of puppeteering are false considering I have acted on my own accord and have decided what I plan to do, which is to raise discussion on the talk page and subsequently merge if there are no objections. So, in all honesty, I don't see anything sinister with what's happened. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

People who edit in a manner identical to sanctioned users will themselves be eventually sanctioned. That is what we see is happening. I want to say "get a clue" but experience has thought me that wont happen. -- Cat ^chi? 18:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

...What? If you have some agenda, then don't take it out on me. I will propose a merge, and will wait for discussion, which is the standard for any merger. Don't make such claims. Check my contributions and learn your mistake. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about you or anybody specific. Mine was a mere general statement. However your ears seem clogged to my words. -- Cat ^chi? 09:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I misinterpreted "That is what we see is happening. I want to say "get a clue" but" on a topic based on a conversation involving myself as an attack at me. How stupid of me<_<. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 08:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion process regarding WP:BLP

I have edited Wikipedia:Deletion process, [4] and Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, [5] to bring them into line with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. I appreciate these are contentious edits and that I am being bold, but neither of those are cause for instant reversion. Before reverting, I'd rather editors consider their reasons for doing so, and debate whether what they are doing is in tune with the policy on biographies. I've been inspired to do this by User:Doc glasgow. I'm not looking to step into his shoes, and frankly, I couldn't. I prevaricate too much and sit on the fence too often. But Doc's right, we need to start making changes around here regarding these articles, and this is the first step. Any editors who want to revert these changes should first of all read User:Doc glasgow/The BLP problem and User:Doc glasgow. We need to find a solution to this problem, and not agreeing on any of them is simply not an option. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons quite clearly places the burden of evidence on those wishing to include material, and has done since it became policy in July 2006,[6] when it stated that In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." Obviously all comments, thoughts and the like are welcome, but one way or another we need to address this issue. Hiding T 11:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• It appears these changes have been proposed at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. This place is getting too big. Hiding T 11:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I would urge people not to simply revert these good faith changes, as there's been rumblings things are heading this way for a while now (thank Christ). The discussion needs to take place at WT:BLP, though, to keep things in one place. Neıl ☎ 11:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, but the wording's able to be improved. It was a bit stronger than consensus seems to have agreed so far, and the first one was a bit wordy too. I've updated it to what seems at least to be the semi-stable version actually visible at WP:BLP for the last while, at least until there's some clearer consensus on the subject, noted the "no consensus=delete?" debate, and also noted on each that BLP AFD norms are under discussion (so AFD patrollers know it's subject to change). [7][8]. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with FT2's comments and policy edits that have brought the two changed deletion policies back into line with current consensus and the current WP:BLP policy. There is no current consensus to allow an unspecified in size minority (one person? 10%? 49%?) override majority opinion on deletion of BLPs. Going from wording that a consensus (overwhelming majority) is required to delete to a consensus (overwhelming majority) is required to keep skips altogether the in-between position of majority decides on BLPs. But there is not even consensus to allow a 51% majority to delete on just any basis; but instead to restrict that basis to cases where the issue is one of marginal notability. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Vote counting is discouraged in AFD and most other venues. Under the "new way of BLPFDs", when the cumulative strength of divergent arguments is close to equal, the result would be "delete" in most cases (hopefully nobody closing an AFD would declare a stalemate between "keep" and "merge", ergo "no consensus", and then delete the article "per BLP"... that would just be stupid). — CharlotteWebb 13:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's almost two different kinds of issue. If there is a BLP problem of the "unsourced/negative/poor quality sourced information" type, then that doesn't need AFD. BLP-AFDs tend to be much more about borderline "do we keep it or not", where the main BLP issue is notability, subject request (if any), degree of information available to write a bio, etc. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that these two issues should not be hopelessly conflated into the same policy, but that's a separate issue. I was thinking of the latter case as (hopefully) were the individuals recently involved in changing AFD procedure. — CharlotteWebb 14:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the material should be restored to the original wording until there is actually consensus for changing it. Policy should not refer to proposed changes until they have actually been adopted. It is altogether wrong to make bold changes in basic policy when the issue is known to be still under debate. How the debate will go should not be assumed--but I predict that there is not consensus to reverse the default. This isnt the place to repeat all my arguments on the underlying issues, but I think NPOV and RS to be sufficient rules for BLP. Keeping our rules as they are, except for removing all references to giving extra weight to the subject's preference, is a very good option, at least if one continues to prefer NPOV over Subject's POV -- alas, SPOV has been preempted as an abbreviation. The only reason I do not myself revert this remarkable overapplication of bold is that i have a position on the underlying issue. DGG (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I must agree with DGG that the change is premature. The issue is still under heated discussion, there are multiple variations on the proposal that are under consideration, and even amongst supporters of the proposal there is disagreement about what form it should take. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC) (Just to be clear: I think FT2's modifications accurately reflect the current situation, but I share DGG's hesitation to include mention of this in a policy page until there actually is a clear consensus one way or the other.)

Hey, cut me some slack. I missed the discussion. Like I say, this place is way too big now. Hiding T 09:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just voicing my opinion on the change: it's good in that reflects the fact that discussion is ongoing and invites additional comment, but it also may cause confusion since the discussion has not yet produced a clear consensus on one particular course of action. I apologise if my comment came off as criticism of you personally; that was not my intention. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

My position is this. How am I supposed to know a change to deletion guidance and policy is being proposed on a page unrelated to those pages. Something needs to be somewhere, because otherwise people may well change the policies ignorant of heated discussion elsewhere. Like I said, this place is too big. Hiding T 17:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Let it run, see what happens. We get way too many problems with marginally notable BLPs. Guy (Help!) 17:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

800 MEGABYTES???

Since a few weeks ago I've noticed that Wikipedia has become much slower than it used to be, especially after I've been using it for a while. This seems to be associated with a severe memory leak, for which the only solution is to restart my browser frequently, which is hardly acceptable. My computer has never has a virus so it must be in Wikipedia.

Could someone give me roll back so at least I can revert vandals without taking several minutes?

And why does in now say 'new section' rather than '+' at the top of the screen? I'm used to the position of the old thing on my screen and now always find my muose navigating to the wrong place. Could you please change it back? The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I've noticed a decrease in the speed Wikipedia works at, not to mention the repeat lockings of the database (and this always seems to happen when I'm editing;) are the servers in the process of being upgraded or something? Qst (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

So many edits in so little time. Wikimedia hardware needs upgrades but for that we need funds. :) -- Cat ^chi? 15:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The "new section" tab can be changed back to a "+" with a setting under the gadgets tab of your preferences. —Travis^talk 15:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I did that. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you using Firefox? Because Firefox is kind of known for leaking memory... I can't imagine a reason why Wikipedia and only Wikipedia would cause a browser to leak memory. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been using the same Firefox for a long time and this has never happened with any other site. It also didn't happen last year with Wikipedia so something must have changed. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything that a website could do that would actively cause one particular browser to spring a memory leak. If you're using an old version of Firefox, well... I'd say update that first. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Firefox makes it easy to open many tabs or windows, and then it tends to slow down if there are more than a few of them --it has an option for giving a warning about that--you might want to activate it. DGG (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't open more than usual - just one for Wikipedia and one for whatever else I'm looking at. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

there several reasons for the recent wiki issues. FireFox just released a new version, it may have introduced a memory leak then. Also the master database server's clock was lagging by 7 seconds until about a day ago. that is what was causing the high job queue and the database locks. β^{_{command 2}} 18:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you give me rollback anyway? I think I'll have to quit Wikipedia is it takes this much time ... The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on your edit history and propensity for making questionable decisions (such as edit warring with admins ([9], [10], [11]) or creating pages like Wikipedia:Toilet to house "copyrighted, offensive, or libelous content"), I suspect that most admins would be extremely hesitant to give you rollback privileges. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Based upon a series of reverts with another administrator at Real social dynamics only today, I'd like to wait a bit. In addition, I don't see how this thread is related inanysoway to rollback rights -- you can use TW or other javascript programs, or perhaps another browser, to edit with. Firefox is riddled with memory leaks. seicer | talk | contribs 00:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I want to just step and say. I use Firefox as my main internet browser and I have never one experienced a lockup while being on Wikipedia and it seems to be loading quickly to me. Just wanted to add that. Rgoodermote  16:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I concur with the original problem. My browser is presently using 273M and rising. I don't know if the problem is related to Wikipedia, as I usually have Wikipedia open. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Do not move to Commons

Many images use this template which is a problem because per 17 USC 104(c) and 17 USC 104A USA did NOT agree with Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works's article 7.8 (Rule of the shorter term).

In other words media that are free inside the US but not free outside of the US are in fact not really free inside the US per 17 USC 104(c) and 17 USC 104A.

We should sort this mess out. Commons incompatible "free" images should be unwelcomed to English wikipedia for not being free enough.

-- Cat ^chi? 15:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps something that the foundation lawyers can sort out? I don't know if this is something a layman can determine with certainty. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not want to run to foundation lawyers first thing every time... -- Cat ^chi? 15:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Making policy decisions based on non-lawyers' interpretation of laws is not a good idea. Mr.Z-man 17:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not interpreting the law. I am quoting something well known and in common practice. Such images for example are deleted in commons. -- Cat ^chi? 18:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sure if there is a need, then somebody will. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There are other license templates that fall into this category...{{PD-US-1923-abroad}} and {{PD-US-1996}} come to mind. Probably worth raising at Wikipedia:Copyright. Kelly ^hi! 18:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping a general discussion on this noticeboard since project talk pages do not get the necesary attention. -- Cat ^chi? 18:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreting things. This template would be appropriate and correct for a work from a life + 100 country -- in the US, the work would only be copyrighted for life + 70. Likewise, it would be appropriate for works like Peter Pan or the King James Bible: they're under perpetual copyright in the UK, but not in the US. The US did not adopt the rule of the shorter term, but to my knowledge, it did not adopt the rule of the longer term, either. --Carnildo (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless you adopt the rule of the shorter term by default you are adopting the rule of the longer term... You are missing the entire point... -- Cat ^chi? 09:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There are three options here, not two.

1. The rule of the shorter term: if the copyright in the country of first publication is shorter, use it. A bunch of countries adopted this
2. The rule of the longer term: if the copyright in the country of first publication is longer, use it. I don't know of any country that's done this.
3. Apply your own copyright terms, regardless of the term in the country of first publication. To the best of my knowlege, this is what the US has done.

--Carnildo (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit point alpha

• Law isn't a matter of opinion. There are many (far more than three) practices conducted by signatories of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. Countries need to ratify each individual article or section in their own laws as the international treaty by itself is meaningless. Not every country chose to ratify "article 7.8" of the Berne Convention for example. In addition Berne sets the minimum amount of protection. Countries may choose to be more restrictive. Berne for example suggests authors life +50 years but US chose to be more restrictive with authors live +70 years. Because the servers are inside the US, only the US laws are binding. Foreign laws are only binding per US law stating that it is.

---

“ § 104—Subject Matter of Copyright: National Origin

(a) UNPUBLISHED WORKS.—The works specified by sections 102 and 103, while unpublished, are subject to protection under this title without regard to the nationality or domicile of the author.
[...]
(c) EFFECT OF BERNE CONVENTION. No right or interest in a work eligible for protection under this title may be claimed by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto. Any rights in a work eligible for protection under this title that derive from this title, other Federal or State statutes, or the common law, shall not be expanded or reduced by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto.

”

---

• 17 USC 104 (above) basically talks about how laws of other signatories of Berne Convention is binding in the US even if the work is not published. 17 USC 104 and particularly 17 USC 104A extends the copyright protection beyond Berne to include non-signatories of Berne such as WTO members and etc. There even is executive privilege over the matter.

---

“ § 104A—Copyright in restored works

(a) Automatic Protection and Term

(1) Term.—

(A) Copyright subsists, in accordance with this section, in restored works, and vests automatically on the date of restoration.

(B) Any work in which copyright is restored under this section shall subsist for the remainder of the term of copyright that the work would have otherwise been granted in the United States if the work never entered the public domain in the United States.

(2) Exception.—Any work in which the copyright was ever owned or administered by the Alien Property Custodian and in which the restored copyright would be owned by a government or instrumentality thereof, is not a restored work.

(b) Ownership of Restored Copyright

A restored work vests initially in the author or initial rightholder of the work as determined by the law of the source country of the work.

”

---

• 104A's a-1-b talks about protection unless the work has entered the public domain in the US at some point for whatever the reason. This addresses templates like {{PD-US}}, {{PD-US-1996}} and etc where works made/published in the US somehow become PD. Once a US work becomes PD inside the US, it stays PD forever at least within the US. This also means even if a work becomes PD in the country of origin the "author's life +70 years" may still apply (rule of the long term for you).
• 104A's b explicitly states that the laws of the works origin applies. Fortunately for most countries copyright expires within 70 pma, some as low as 50 pma or even 25 pma. As you can see on the grand list for some countries the copyright term exceeds +70 pmas. Per 104A's b if it is copyrighted in the country of origin it stays copyrighted within the US.
• Tying the two items above together... 104A's a-1-b explicitly states "if the work never entered the public domain in the United States" meaning US law makes no guarantee weather or not the work stays within PD if it did not entered PD within the US. This is 70 pma (post mortem auctoris) rule also per 104A's b the laws of the country of origin apply. Therefore a work may stay copyrighted until it is both PD in the country of origin and for some reason it became PD as per US laws as well. US laws explicitly give priority to the laws of the country of origin.
• On wikipedia we prefer to play it safe per past experience. Unless a works PD'ness is guaranteed by the US law, we treated as if it were copyrighted even if the work became PD in the country of origin. We made this mistake with Template:PD-Soviet. PD-Soviet was based on the fact that "all works published in the Soviet Union before May 27, 1973, were not protected by International Copyright Conventions" which was fine until Russia passed laws renewing copyright of PD-Soviet works. They can do that. Had they renewed after the US 70pma, then it would be a different story but even then it is an unnecesary gray area.
• I do not believe {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} has any legal basis. Or at least the template doesn't link to it. It appears to be wishful thinking at best as is but works published before 1923 are typically safe as in most cases the copyright has already expired and such images should be marked with {{PD-old}} instead.

Is it more clear now? (Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights#Dates of restoration and terms of protection answers all three point of yours.)

-- Cat ^chi? 20:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright duration is determined by Chapter 3, not Chapter 1. --Carnildo (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Please quote the specific legal text you are referring to. -- Cat ^chi? 09:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

17 USC 302 and 17USC 303: "Copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978...endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the author's death." "Copyright in a work created before January 1, 1978, but not theretofore in the public domain or copyrighted, subsists from January 1, 1978, and endures for the term provided by section 302." 17 USC 104(c) may also be of interest: "No right or interest in a work eligible for protection under this title may be claimed by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto. Any rights in a work eligible for protection under this title that derive from this title, other Federal or State statutes, or the common law, shall not be expanded or reduced by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto", as may 17 USC 301(a): "On and after January 1, 1978, all legal or equitable rights that are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright as specified by section 106 in works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible medium of expression and come within the subject matter of copyright as specified by sections 102 and 103, whether created before or after that date and whether published or unpublished, are governed exclusively by this title. Thereafter, no person is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such work under the common law or statutes of any State." In short, the only thing that determines the term of copyright in the US is 17 USC 302 and 17 USC 303. --Carnildo (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Somewebsite

What's the point of waiting for a week before deleting crap uploaded with that tag, instead of nuking on sight? Shouldn't it be a custom CSD tag, like {{Non-commercial from license selector}}? MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 16:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It gives the uploader a week to fix the problems -- not likely, but it sometimes happens. An unsourced image is not inherently unusable on Wikipedia, unlike a non-commercial-only image. --Carnildo (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

We do not have a deadline. Waiting a week or even a month will do no harm and has potential benefit. If there is no improvement in the arbitrary amount of time, it is easy enough to nuke it. -- Cat ^chi? 22:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio in Maronite mummies

Resolved.

I tagged Maronite mummies as a suspected copyright violation on April 18. I then moved the article to the temporary subpage and removed the offending paragraphs, expecting someone to rewrite them in a way that isn't a copyright violation. No one's touched the page since. :-p

Since the rest of the article is OK, if an administrator could move the page from the temporary subpage back into mainspace, that'd be appreciated. Thanks! —Rob (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote one of the offending paragraphs, and removed the other. Fixed now, and I deleted the temporary page. Thanks for the notice. Keegan^talk 02:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

A question on attacks

If a user says he doesn't have to listen to what I say because I haven't contributed "substantial, meaty and scholarly articles," can such statements be categorized as a personal attack? Grsz^talk 03:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it could be considered a blatant personal attack in the sense that would result in a harsh warning, but it's definitely unwarranted, no matter what you've contributed. Criticism is made no more or less valid by the person who is performing the criticism. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 03:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're looking to find the meat of NPA, then you would not have a case. Personal attacks are those aimed at the author unbiased of contributions (there are always caviats). This user was making a comment based on contributions. So there's the fine line. Was it nice? No. We do have etiquette. No warrant for administrative action, I'd just play nice and find out what the problem is. Keegan^talk 05:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Vernier and Keegan, however Wikipedia:NPA#Personal_attacks does note "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream.". Probably does not apply, but worth noting. What was said was incivil and certainly not a nice thing to say to someone. Good faith Opinions on any subject a user has an interest in should always be welcomed. --Hu12 (talk) 05:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The argument is also a logical fallacy. See ad hominem. Durova^Charge! 17:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Just tell him he's being silly. MastCell ^Talk 17:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Nothing444

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.

Consensus is clear. The block stands. No need to continue the pile on. - KnightLago (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

---

I, for one, am getting tired of seeing this name, but is anybody else uncomfortable with User:Nothing444 trying his hand at mediation? – ClockworkSoul 07:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As I indicated Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal#Objection_to_mediator, I am strongly opposed to letting Nothing444 do WP:DR. MBisanz ^talk 07:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'd have to agree here, from how I've seen his conduct/contributions, both on en wiki and on an external wiki, I'm not convinced that he would be an effective mediator. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 07:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree, he's not ready to mediate. He's inexperienced with mainspace and content disputes, he has recent blocks, he misunderstands lots of things on Wikipedia, as highlighted by Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Wikipedia:Arbitration Cabal and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nothing444 2. Probably, namespace ban could be appropriate, if he continues. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Suggest making him (and the others usually mentioned when his name comes up) take Fillls AG challenge. Not the multiple choice either. Also, I would possibly find any dispute I was in would degenerate to an unworkable mess if he contributed to DR. Dan Beale-Cocks 08:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Yesterday I was one Ctrl-V away from silencing him on IRC. Make what you will of that. --Deskana (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Namespace restriction

What is the feeling on some sort of namespace restriction for Nothing444 (talk · contribs). Maybe that he can only edit article, Talk, and User talk:? MBisanz ^talk 08:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The Gp75motosports monobook solution is a good one. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this user is already under namespace restriction per [12] and has been ignoring it. I'm thinking this Medcab issue now warrants a 1 to 2 week block. MBisanz ^talk 09:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see a need for a new namespace restriction. Simply tell him that with regret, the Admin Cabal has decided that his presence at the Mediation Cabal is not appropriate at this time. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking that we need to go beyond the "please don't edit outside the mainspace" phase, and move on to something more restrictive. As we've seen again and again this user, though well meaning, tends to color way outside the lines. Perhaps he needs to be told, once and for all, that for the next three months, if he edits outside or main or user, he'll be subject to blocks of increasing duration. I've been watching him very closely, and I think it would be best for all involved parties if he's fenced in for a little while. – ClockworkSoul 13:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

In a way it's a shame that his RfA was closed so early as SNOW. The pile on, had it been left open of editors saying "NO" might have given him a clue. Dan Beale-Cocks 13:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I tend to dislike draconian measures, but, given what I've seen over the last month, I think what I put at User_talk:Nothing444#Explanation_required is entirely warranted. MBisanz ^talk 14:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This user's behaviour has been causing problems for some time and firmer action is needed. Hut 8.5 14:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. This discussion last night (as a result of this note I left on his talk page) shows his inability to accept advice when dealing in the user talk space. I think a restriction is needed. And I think that he needs to avoid new page and recent changes patrols because he cannot A. fully grasp the policies and B. cannot communicate with others effectively. Metros (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I endorse MBisanz and Metros' comments, and support a further restriction. - Philippe 15:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As do I. I'm very against draconian measures myself, which is why I unblocked him not once but twice. Really, I think we gave him plenty of rope and he went and got himself all tangled up in it. – ClockworkSoul 17:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This specific case has already been resolved, but we need to stop trying to force these editors to edit articles. When they're obviously incompetent, the last thing we want them to do is touch important things. I have no strong opinion on whether we should tolerate their playing in user space, but telling them "you must edit articles" is just plain harmful. Friday (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked Nothing444 indefinitely for a recent act of pure vandalism to Photochrom. My extended reasoning can be found at their talkpage; I'm in far too much of a slothlike mode to draft a second extended statement here. :-) east.718 at 18:04, April 25, 2008

• I endorse this block. MBisanz ^talk 18:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• I endorse as well. I am tired of the games with this user. They are obviously not here to contribute constructively. Enough is enough. KnightLago (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• I also endorse this block, per this (admins only), which was what was added to Photochrom above. Ral315 (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Dogpile plus me. – ClockworkSoul 18:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. His subpages will need to be deleted or redirected to his userpage as a result. Also, this seems to be a blank RFA for him created by him. D.M.N. (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added {{indef}} to his navbar. Mⁱc_rochip ⁰⁸ (non admin) 18:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• <sigh>I'm sorry Nothing444, but I and others believe you have been harmfull to wikipedia. I have no choice but to Endorse the block. Cheers.--RyRy5 (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have known Nothing444 for a while and I have seen how much he has done wrong to the encyclopedia. He/She has been blocked many times. He has offered many users adoption while welcoming users even when just blocked, he has vandalized a few times, he is harfull to the project, making many wrong edits. He is overly enthusiastic, running for adminship way too inexperienced, copyrighting images, socializing, ect. He thinks that wikipedia is more of a WP:MYSPACE than an encyclopedia to me. These are the reasons I endorse this block.--RyRy5 (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So you are saying you agree he should be blocked because he has done the same things you have spent most of your time on Wikipedia doing? I know you are trying to sort yourself at the moment, but you are in danger of becoming your own prosecution here! George The Dragon (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

RyRy5 is his own editor, and I've witnessed a vast maturity boost in his editing. Your assessment is unfair GTD, and is based on older complaints against RyRy (that I agree with). Your comment here was unnecessary and had "nothing" to do with "Nothing" (444) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to drag this out, though I think it's fair to say we have different opinions of the best way for Wikipedia to achieve the best future, but what I will add is that if all social-networkers and would-be social-networkers look at Nothing444's situation and decide to focus on the project, then something good would have come out of his Wikipedia existence. And that, I do believe, would be a good thing George The Dragon (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, then we agree. I'd encourage you to look, if you wish, at some of RyRy's recent contribs. I've seen some very positive contributions mixed in with the chatter, including starting some articles that were missing. My point was to tell you to talk about the issue at hand, and to try not to talk about those other editors that also partake in the discuss (and ironically and as proof of growth, agree with you). Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to jump in - though I feel that discussion of RyRy's behavior is off-topic, I'm pleased to say that I've seen a MASSIVE attempt at fitting into this community from RyRy. He has asked for and taken advice, and has gone from trying to adopt to being willing to be adopted, with good results so far. He's a little impatient, and he makes mistakes, but who doesn't? It's no secret that a couple of weeks ago I was nearing my breaking point with RyRy, but to his credit he has done everything that I've asked of him to the very best of his ability. He has my respect. Unlike Nothing444, Ryan is working very hard at defining his role in this community and is showing every sign of maturing in his judgment. To lump him in with Nothing444 is - at this point - a massive distortion of the facts. - Philippe 20:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Philippe. RyRy5 has been working hard lately, and if this is one of the areas he can improve in, then let him. Let's not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 20:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with Philippe, which was why I challenged the comparison drawn by GTD. Please visit this section of my talkpage to see an analysis of RyRy's improvements. Keep in mind, I was one of the initial complainers about (and to) RyRy5. Completely unrelated to Nothing444. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything Philippe said. I've noticed many positive changes by RyRy5 in the past 2 weeks. APK ^{yada yada} 20:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• I endorse this block. I feel that all avenues of attempting to correct this users behavior have been tried, and none have worked. Tiptoety ^talk 18:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, I'd be surprised if anyone didn't. Wizardman 18:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Definitely endorse - it's a shame so much good faith was extended to him, yet he's consistently abused it. :/ krimpet✽ 18:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse its been a long time coming. Queerbubbles | ^{Leave me Some Love} 18:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Sorry I'm sorry, I know this user has been troublesome, but indef seems harsh even to me, couldn't we have just blocked for three months or something? I think he deserves one last chance. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 18:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

He has had for too many "one last chances" given to him, all of which were abused. When do we say "enough"? Tiptoety ^talk 19:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

We say "enough" now. Nothing444 has had 3 "last chances" according to my calculations.--RyRy5 (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• • (e/c)This is now his fourth block for pretty much the same reason. Is there any reason to think he will be different after 3 months? Or will even come back after 3 months? Mr.Z-man 19:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I realize all of that, but one of Wikipedia's core policies is WP:AGF, and Nothing444 has acted in good faith most of the time. Don't get me wrong, I dislike social-networking on Wikipedia very much, but this user is not relentlessly vandalising, so I think he should be given a conditional last chance, perhaps put under arbitration, maybe a restriction to only article and article talk? Maybe get mentored and watched more closely and maybe he'll become a better contributor. Look at RyRy5, look how much he grew in the past weeks, maybe a similar thing will happen with Nothing444, just take a bit longer. I'd be for blocking him for another week or so then putting him under restrictions, getting him some mentorship and made clear (I think it's already pretty damn clear) that any repeated incidents will get him an indef block. I just hate to see potentially good users gone to waste and Nothing444 might very well give something to this encyclopedia. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 19:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

AGF is not a suicide pact. Enough is enough. KnightLago (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse which is wholly unfortunate. Enough energy has been used up. Time to move on. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse it's clear that nothing short of a miracle would get this user to edit articles, and even if this did happen he would do more harm than good. Far too many opportunities and chances abused. Hut 8.5 19:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse We've got better things to do than coddle someone who is so obviously unrepentant for their actions. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Pour encourager les autres. :) --barneca (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - we've seen absolutely no attempt at reforming and becoming a productive member of the community. he's had plenty of chances. My patience is exhausted. - Philippe 20:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Should we delete User:Milk's Favorite Cookie/adoption/Nothing444 now that he has been blocked? - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 20:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I have no opinion on the specific users conduct. I do however find this endorsement unnecesary. If someone needs to be blocked for a reason as obvious as vandalism there is no need to make a big list of endorsement over it. -- Cat ^chi? 22:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Template:Bots

Resolved

Please add hu:Sablon:Bots to interwikis (protected page). Thx. Bináris (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done. In the future, you can request edits to protected pages by adding {{editprotected}} to the talk page of the page you need changed. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 12:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I am not familiar with the enwiki system, in huwiki we have only one all-purpose admins' noticeboard. :-) Bináris (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I do envy you. Not needing to have a WP:DRAMA shortcut must be nice indeed. :-D Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 12:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Page move/History merge needed

Sorry in advance for not knowing the correct forum for this, but I need this user sandbox moved to this currently occupied portal sub-page, whilst preserving the contributions to both pages in the same history. I believe this requires an administrator. Any help appreciated. Skomorokh 12:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There's WP:RM, but this works. I don't have time to complete the move just now, but I'll take care of it in about half an hour if nobody else has by then. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 12:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Muchas gracias. Skomorokh 12:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Do you want anything done with the old talk page? Graham87 13:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, forgot about that. Could you replace Portal:Anarchism/Selected image with User talk:Cast/Portal:Anarchism/Selected picture? The existing content is superfluous as the only contributors are the architects of the new version. Thanks again! Skomorokh 13:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

RPP

Resolved

 – backlog cleared, Tiptoety ^talk 18:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

A backlog of about 8 pages... worth peeping at? Thanks. —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible Grawp sleepers

Resolved

98 red balloons (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), Typingvolume (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), and Don't Know Why (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), Destroyerofterran (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). I was browsing Encyclopedia Dramatica and it seems that some of it's users are helping Grawp vandalize by creating accounts for him and giving him the passwords so he can bypass the checkuser block. I would post a link but links to ED are blacklisted it seems. Also, check their contribs. Each of the accounts has a single contributions worth of creating a page in a very similar manner. I wouldn't be surprised if their original user wasn't creating pages with false info.--Urban Rose 19:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Also please note that the passwords have all been changed which means that Grawp has already logged in as them and changed the passwords. They should be blocked as compromised accounts.--Urban Rose 19:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)--

No checkuser data on three of them, the other one is taken care of. Thatcher 19:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The accounts are clearly socks of the same user. I did a google search on "Euan G. Cameron" and the only hits it gets are this article on Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors. They should be blocked for hoaxing if nothing else.--Urban Rose 19:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, this diff show one of the accounts creating a page on a person claiming that they are deceased, though, the current version of the article reads that they are alive.--Urban Rose 20:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Something is off, but I don't know what. The first 3 accounts all created articles that were nominated as hoaxes by the now indef-blocked RepriseRubric (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). In all 3 cases, AfD's determined they probably weren't hoaxes, but it seems like all had pretty bad info in them to start with (fake death dates, possibly a fake middle initial (there evidently IS an author Euan Cameron, and deleting the page might have been a little rash) etc). Urban Rose, are you saying you think all three were also RepriseRubric, and this was some kind of game? --barneca (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'm starting to catch on and see the pattern, I'm blocking all three that Thatcher didn't block. --barneca (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(Refering to your previous post) Possibly so. I saw a page on Encyclopedia Dramatica where a user ("") claiming to be the owner of the accounts revealed their passwords to another user who claims to be the vandal Grawp so that he could compromise the accounts and avoid being checkuser blocked for creating his own accounts. I will email you with a link to this page if you request it.--Urban Rose 20:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)No need (I can't access that place from where I am anyway). I'm going to be a bit rouge and block all three. Hoaxes, being involved with an indef blocked sock of you know who, and your description of the situation. 3 strikes. Blocks can be reversed if I'm being to aggressive. --barneca (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The only author I can find is Euan K. Cameron. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm it, I saw it as well. No need for email. KnightLago (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So anyway I guess it's possible that "RepriseRubric" could be ED user "ByAppointmentTo".--Urban Rose 20:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Please stop discussing Grawp related vandalism, it is all he wants, just revert and block, because of all the threads like this, it is becoming a game. This is the only way to deal with trolls, stop discussing them, and delete the vandalised lines from page histories also. Jackaranga (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't meaningless discussion. I reported some compromised accounts so that they couldn't be used for vandalism. Ignoring a problem won't make it disappear.--Urban Rose 20:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Just check (removed diff). This proves that RepriseRubic was also compromised by Grawp, though I assume that it could have originated from "ByAppointmentTo".--Urban Rose 20:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the diff above, just vandalism that is freezing firefox. KnightLago (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we have a very serious checkuser flush of all this. It is getting very boring. -- Cat ^chi? 22:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll file one myself if you like.--Urban Rose 22:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Why, Thatcher is a CU and he ran one? See the top of this. KnightLago (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

He didn't run one on RepriseRubric and the other accounts to see if their was a common IP range. If we can find a common range other than Grawp's, we can locate ByAppointmentTo's IP range and at it to our list of ranges that Grawp socks are originating from since he admits to be aiding Grawp in creating socks. I've added a new request at the top of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grawp.--Urban Rose 23:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The accounts I blocked are way too old for CU. Good catch, Urban Rose, but really, I think we're done here. DNFT and all that. --barneca (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:John J. Bulten

Is the disambiguation template at the bottom of User talk:John J. Bulten unacceptable? I had previously removed it, but it is now added back. I'm not against humor, but adding it to chase people away[13] (and laughing about it) can confuse newcomers, and might fall under simulating the interface, I'm afraid. [14]. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 20:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the disambig link is just a harmless bit of fun, but the hidden comment should be removed IMO. He shold also have a post or two underneath that disambig link just to make it clear that it isn't a disambig page.--TrueWikimedian (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot reverting YouTube video links on Durham Miners' Gala

User:XLinkBot has been reverting YouTube videos showing the Durham Miners' Gala (see here). The bot seems to go through taking out anything with a YouTube link, even though the videos are not banned outright. I can't see that it cotnravines any copyright having the videos there. It simply highlights the spirit of the event nicely: it's so much more enriching if people can see what it is like. I'm really upset that this stupid bot is removing these videos. Can somebody take a look at this? 88.107.110.247 (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the list of sites it removes, and youtube is on it. I can't imagine youtube having much encyclopediodic value, but I suppose it does help from time to time. Oh and btw, try not to describe things as stupid ;-)--TrueWikimedian (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Okies, so can someone edit the bot? Clearly removing anything ith a YoutTube link is useful at getting rid of most spam, but it's still throwing out good stuff. It's a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Because the links do not contravene any Wikipedia policy (as far as I can see), surely it is the bot who is violating policy by remoiving such links. Thus, its reverts are wrong, and it should therefore be immediately be deactivated until the owner (or someone else) can sort it out. 88.107.110.247 (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the vast majority of the youtube links that are added to Wikipedia do indeed tend to be copyright violation or inappropriate, so this is more of a case of throwing your change away with your meal. Especially since it's programmed to not perform the reversion more than once per page per user. I've found that the bot's merits outweigh its shortcomings, at least in my experience as a link patroller. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's not the point. A criminal can break the law, yet then do a thousand good deads before getting caught, but they still broke the law. What the bot does well does not excuse what it does not. That it removes a lot of spam does not then make it ok to remove legitimate links. That is the point. 88.107.110.247 (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

88.107, your analogy isn't valid; for starters, breaking the law usually requires intent. This would mean that the bot's programmer intentionally made it remove links that he somehow knew in advance wouldn't violate the link guidelines. This'd be more like negligence, and a charge of negligence can indeed be dropped if it's shown that reasonable care was taken. And it has. It's unreasonable to expect any sort of spam-removing bot to have a 0% false positive rate. It's more like a person who normally does really well at their job, but occasionally makes a mistake. You're not going to fire this person because you know nobody can be perfect, and the mistakes they do occasionally make are ones that are easy to fix. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No it's not - negliance isn't acceptable once it is found. When it is spotted, it should be immediately corrected. We cannot say it is ok for the bot to revert legitimate positings because most of the time it gets it right. Granted it was not the creator's intention, but now we know it is reverting legitimate posts, it has to be changed to ensure it is not doing this. 88.107.110.247 (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Assuming the bot works as advertised, it only reverts the edits that (a) add links to sites that are on its revert list (b) made by editors whose accounts are less than 7 days old. Not a bad set up, IMHO. --ElKevbo (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

And "for some values of legitimate" - the collection of links in question smell strongly of processed meat products. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I find it upsetting to see something writing "I can't imagine youtube having much encyclopediodic value," as if that matters. What is TYPICAL of youtube may have no encyclopedic value, but what is TYPICAL is NEVER the point. The point is whether the one link being added or deleted has encyclopedic value. Just because 99.999% of everything written is crap is no reason to abolish writing if the other small fraction of it is of great value. Same thing with youtube or anything else. Wikipedia relies heavily on that fact. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

My point exactly :) 88.107.110.247 (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

However, when 99.9% of the links added are to 'typical' unencyclopedic youtube stuff, the minor .1% that is encyclopedic but is reverted anyway is an acceptable price. It's never the case that a youtube link, or any other link for that matter, is so critical to an article that it would require dismantling the quite useful XLinkBot. To reverse my earlier job analogy, if an employee is a lazy slacker 99% of the time, and the other 1%, he's only maybe slightly above-average, would you fire him? Of course you would; the 1% of above-average productivity isn't worth the 99% of below-average. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No, but if the hispanic population had a lower literacy rate than the white population, and you had a white and hispanic man apply for a job, you would not use those statistics to choose the white man. That is what the bot is doing. It is a really sad day when you start to say that censoring legimate links "is an acceptable price". I do not know a great deal about WIki, but I am sure that must go against some key principle, somewhere. I can't believe there are people like this who run Wikipedia :( 88.107.110.247 (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The fundamental problem here is that your analogy (and mine, for that matter), involve a human performing the decision. XLinkBot is, obviously, a bot. It does not possess artificial intelligence, and is thus not able to test a link on its own. And it's not like you're forever denied of the right; just register an account and wait 7 days (I think that's the bot's autoconfirm period). As far as I know, there's no such thing as a white-ification procedure. Being Hispanic is part of one's identity; being an anonymous editor is not. Nor is it your fundamental right to add a link to an article. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot 1 spam 0 --Hu12 (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(New section) Ultimately, Wikipedia has these bot requirements. I have left a message on the talk page of the bot, so therefore in time I expect the creator to be aware of the issue of removing legitimate links. If the bot is not changed, the creator of the bot would be in violation of the policy on vandalism, specifically:

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.

Since the removal of legimimate links is compromising the integrity of Wikipedia, they would therefore be violating the policy, and be subject to whatever recourse is usual. End of. 88.107.110.247 (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The creator of the bot is currently on vacation; I'm not sure when he'll be back, but it won't be at least for a week I'm pretty sure (unless he decides to pop in). And I would draw your attention to the word "deliberate": in order for this to count as vandalizing, XLinkBot would have to be removing all youtube/blogspot/whatever links regardless of who added them. As it is, this is a simple filtering mistake of the sort that cannot be avoided in any anti-spam bot that will have any affect at all. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I agree, it is a mistake. It does become deliberate though if he then allows it to continue to make mistakes when he is aware of it. 88.107.110.247 (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What you fail to understand, but as many have tried nicely to explain to you, is that the argument is actually irrelevant. No bot works 100% perfectly (heck, no human works 100% perfectly). But for the same reason we don't ban anti-vandalism bots over the rare revert of a good-faith edit in an article concerning genitalia or something of the like, we are not going to ban this bot because now and then, the youtube link was actually good. In my own experience, the vast majority of youtube links added by new or unregistered users are blatant copyright violations, and keeping these off the project is far more important than not causing you a 10 second inconvenience every once in a while. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

And I don't mind that, as long as steps are taken to make sure unregistered users can post legitimate YouTube links! I'm sure it does a lot of good :) 88.107.110.247 (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh. You can just undo the bot's edit, and it won't make it again. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You have to register to do that though :( I don't want to register. I have tried reverting 2 times and it just switches it back. 88.107.110.247 (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You'll notice it didn't revert you until you made another edit after reverting the bot. So it was probably actually acting on the next edit you made, and by default reverted all of your edits, which is the norm for anti-spam/vandal bots. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There should be no bot removal of YouTube links. While many of those that are linked are copyright violations, some videos are posted on YouTube by the copyright holders, and having links to such videos can be very beneficial to an article. If the bot is programmed to remove the links, won't it just remove them again even if you revert? Everyking (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Need admin eyes on US Department of Justice activity, please (CAMERA/lobbying)

149.101.1.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), the US Department of Justice in Washington, DC, has made two edits to the article Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, which is directly related to the CAMERA/Israeli wiki lobbying mess under way and pending to be an RFAR at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#CAMERA lobbying, fuller details at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby campaign. The Justice employee is attempting to scrub any mention of CAMERA's activities to influence Wikipedia (now double-sourced) as seen here in this edit. It's causing a stir on the talk page at Talk:Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America#Edit from U.S. Department of Justice. A warning was left for the IP user here. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 21:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The IP editor at Justice is leaving BLP violations all over, in addition to the blanking vandalism at the CAMERA article. He's now on his final warning, whomever it is. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 21:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest contacting the ISP over it. I would imagine U.S. Department of Justice would not like a scandal like this. -- Cat ^chi? 22:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't Sleep, Clown Will Eat Me has blocked the US Department of Justice for four days. Who needs to contact the Communications Committee? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 22:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

See here for the notification. KnightLago (talk) 22:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Any admins looking might want to consider the sources claimed for this piece of disputed text. MickMacNee (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

In the case of the initiator L Cohen, I point to his recently filed, and universaly rejected AFd of G D Stefano, on his nomination grounds of 'do no harm', and he's suing wikipedia for defamation, yet contrast the on wiki fall out of this wikilobby drama he seeks to maintain, there is created a massively POV talk page template defaming a whole organisation. The question being if/when they sue for defamation, what will his stance be? MickMacNee (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat bizarrely, it seems that Admins should not be primarily involved in content disputes, whatever you would like to believe. As I see it, the processes have been followed; end of. Trying to stretch an issue beyond that which it cannot reasonably be taken seems unnecessarily disruptive. Issues tend to have their limits, and unjustified and unexplained leakage would appear to be unhelpful. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

149.101.1.130 maps to "wdcsun30.usdoj.gov", which appears to be one of a group of web proxy servers. There are "wdcsun1" through "wdcsun32", with IP addresses from 149.101.1.101 to 149.101.1.132. I'd suggest putting them on "soft block", to prohibit anonymous editing. It's disturbing to see politically-oriented edits coming from the U.S. Department of Justice. --John Nagle (talk) 04:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly surprising, considering what's been going on at the DoJ for the past seven years. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Large number of Jewish editors are pushing their anti-palestinian viewpoints in this article though64.126.34.118 (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The religious/political affiliations of editors is irrelevant; fairness and consistent policy is what matters. Durova^Charge! 09:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Disabling email when blocking

Admins, please keep in mind the email function should not be disabled as a default when placing blocks. Email should only be disabled if it is abused, not preemptively. I've seen this happening more and more frequently. (pet peeve) - auburnpilot talk 21:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. See also Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Setting block options: "This option should not be used by default when blocking an account, but rather it should only be used in cases of abuse of the 'email this user' feature." Is there a specific case/user you're having trouble with, here? – Luna Santin (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Resolved

 – Nothing there right now... —αlεx•mullεr 23:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There's quite a backlog over at WP:AIV. Thanks.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 22:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Editing dispute

Myself and someone else, are having a dispute over the Dutch Empire. I have listed references, created a new map(filled in the needed area), and made a few new paragraphs for the new locations. However, he claims my references are not reliable. The main site I have usedhttp://www.colonialvoyage.com has references on where they got all of their information from such as this page for example http://www.colonialvoyage.com/biblioDAfrica.html However, he wants me to go back, and find out if the people who wrote this site misinturprutated what the references say. That would result in me buying hundereds of books, hunting down old newspaper articles from the 1600's and flying around the world for a couple of years look at the remains of the forts and musuems in Africa, Asia etc. Now, I could be wrong, but isn't his a big ridiculous? I have listed more than this, I believe I listed six. Anyways, go to the Dutch Empire talk and you will see what we have been talking about. Thanks. (Red4tribe (talk) 03:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

As a long-standing and serious contributor to the history of colonialism space, I have pointed out to this user why his "sources" (a collection of self-published websites) are not in accordance with WP:V. I have also, regrettably, gotten a bit too emotional about it and quite badly exceeded 3RR. However, my final attempt-at-interim-solution action was to remove the map altogether until others have had the opportunity to contribute. However, the response was an immediate revert from Red4tribe to put his map back. Anyway, I am going to take a break now. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 05:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:RM - Franjo Tuđman → Franjo Tudjman

While the backlog at WP:RM is nowhere near as bad as it has been at other times this year, we are mere hours away from the proposed move of Franjo Tuđman → Franjo Tudjman being on the books for a full month. Any experienced administrator's assistance with the closing of this proposed move would be appreciated. Thanks! JPG-GR (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Nukeh

If User:Nukeh (user page reminds me of User:Conservative) continues to mess around on my talk page, can one of you do me a favour and shoot him? Richard001 (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Which gun? Sig Sauer, .30-06, or Combine SMG? In any case, I have your page watchlisted. He shows up again and bugs you, he's gonna regret it. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 08:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Nukeh is evidently either trolling or completely confused, a classic case of a disruptive editor. I've given him a stern warning, this behaviour is definitely blockable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Another admin bites the dust

LaraLove appears to of retired within the past few hours. How many admins is that so far this year that have gone from this project? D.M.N. (talk) 08:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• I predicted that at her RfA. Guy (Help!) 08:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Too bad... sometimes things are taken too personal... I've always considered taking a couple of weeks' break from editing or at least from admin tools the best remedy for wiki-stress. --Tone 09:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

:( seicer | talk | contribs 13:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What Seicer said... sucks :( Sceptre ^(talk) 13:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Damn... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Much as Lara and I had severe disagreements in the past (fortunately now resolved), I find this retirement particularly regretable in view of her strong encyclopedia building skills. Burn out, or just generally becoming hacked off with the project, seems to be becoming a major issue, and one I doubt we can fix. Pedro :  Chat  13:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Any background on Lara's departure? I know that a lot of administrators have been getting hit hard with a lot of threats and releases of private information, especially when you have dedicated web-sites to that venture. seicer | talk | contribs 14:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This is too bad. Maybe she'll come back after a break... Is it standard, though, for user - even admin - talk pages to be protected when that user retires?

Likely that she does not want people piling on her talk page to leave messages right now. Let's give it some time and hope that she changes her mind. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems (from looking at the past week's worth of contribs) to have been the result of interpersonal online stuff with her and another now-retired user. As a chatroomer from waaay back, I'm still amazed when people get so involved in an online community that they let it disrupt their equilibrium. But obviously she was hurt by SOMETHING, and that's never good. Gladys J Cortez 14:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Her recent edit summaries and diffs are frankly unsettling.[15] I hope she comes back, like most "retired" users tend to do (hey, I've done it myself), but it's clear that something has affected her deeply. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Song lyrics, for the most part, for the record. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on the symbol on the top right corner of Lara's userpage, The_undertow has also retired. D.M.N. (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Damn (again...) LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah...that was the "other now-retired user" I mentioned above.Gladys J Cortez 17:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

A sad day for WP. Bearian (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Bearian said it best. A sad day. May she return if/when she's ready. Always welcome. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer

• Just to be clear here, I was rather hoping not to have my somewhat gloomy prediction fulfilled, since I too think LaraLove is a decent and nice person and was an asset tot he project overall. I hope she'll be back when the stress levels drop. Guy (Help!) 18:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey all, just wanted to fill a couple things in. the_undertow has indeed retired; he is probably gone for good this time. Lara is taking more of a WikiBreak for personal reasons; she'll be back within a few weeks, most likely. She sends all her well-wishers her best, though. GlassCobra 18:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Continued trolling by sockpuppets

I would refer you to this incident and advise that the situation is continuing via a series of what are definitely WP:SOCK transgressions. Please see my talk page in particular and the contributions of User:Fieldgoalunit, User:JimBakken, User:Mountlaurel, User:Fiddler Einar of Saipan and now User:Longrunup, all of which are the same person. As is, so I have been advised, the banned User:Richard Daft.

This person via his several userids is carrying on a campaign against me because of actions that I took to improve Golden Age of cricket, an article that was seriously lacking structure and context, as well as being afflicted by content errors and poor spelling, grammar and syntax. Since the article was redrafted, this person has attacked my talk page on several occasions.

As you can see from the incident quoted above, he has first attempted to "out" me by using what he thinks is my real name (in fact he has mistaken me for someone else that I actually know). Despite interventions by both User:Orderinchaos and User:Moondyne, he has carried on a campaign of trolling which is designed to discourage me from using Wikipedia.

Would an administrator please take whatever action is necessary to stop this person from abusing (and even from using) the site? Thank you. --JamesJJames (talk) 08:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no connection with the listed names but as I was unhappy with JamesJJames comments on the article, he has begun attacking me. Mountlaurel (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Before leaving this to rot, I would point out that it began with a vicious and uncalled for attack by the so called James on something I had put up for edit. This attack continued and was motivated by his supposed knowledge of who I am. I am Jimbakken as well, though I did indicate this. I know who longrunup is but not the other names. Too much of Black Sabbath's second album I think. Oh and all his great friends at Cricketarchive would send regards, were anybody speaking to him. Over and outFieldgoalunit (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

All of this relates to some sort of off-wiki feud between members and others associated with Association of Cricket Statisticians. There's history here that I don't understand (a possibly uninvolved and now retired User:BlackJack would probably be able to explain it all) and don't know where to begin to explain it all. The problem is that they've now come here to point score and attack each other. Certainly there does seem to have been a campaign of harrasment against JamesJJames, but his hands are not entirely clean either. IMO, his edits to Golden Age (cricket) and AfD'ing several of BlackJack's articles seem to have been more about making a point than anything else. I confess I don't know what to do here but would not be unhappy if someone blocked the lot. I know we're not supposed to use cool-down blocks but this may be a case to do so. Moondyne 14:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Please file a report at WP:SSP. That's the way to get attention from users and administrators who are accustomed to dealing with sock puppetry cases. You also need to be specific and factual. Less talk, more diffs. Jehochman ^Talk 14:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I please make clear that I have no problem with User:BlackJack, who is (was?) a brilliant contributor to Wikipedia and other sites on the internet. I know who he is, via the ACS, and I have communicated with him personally in the past, mainly about his own website. I supported him when he wanted the article about himself removed from Wikipedia as I know something of the problems he has faced.

I am already aware that two of the articles I recommended for AfD were started by him but I did not act out of malice towards him. I made a mistake with List of works by cricket historians and writers because I didn't understand that lists of this sort are actually useful on the site. I withdrew the nomination as soon as I realised that consensus was against me and that I had missed the point. I then attempted to make amends by making a few enhancements to the article.

The other BlackJack article was Monster Bat Incident 1771 which was a straight copy from another publication (the Cricket Society journal) and I thought it was a breach of the original publisher's copyright. I was wrong again and withdrew that nomination too, but consensus at the AfD discussion was that the article was not objective enough and should be made more concise, which is what happened and I could only demur, though I did make a couple of edits to it myself.

The third and final article I nominated was Golden Age of cricket and this had nothing whatever to do with BlackJack. His contributions record indicates that he left the site (hopefully not permanently) before the article was even initiated. My objections to the article have been clearly documented and I fail to see why an undeniably poor article should not be improved. I thought that was something the site expects of its editors? The main contributor to the article was the Fieldgoalunit troll and his work was frankly abysmal. It was far and away the worst cricket article I have seen on Wikipedia. Since it was overhauled by a number of editors such as User:jhall1 it is now quite good and is a worthy "start-class" effort.

My problem was with (what was) a badly written article and there is no way that anything written by BlackJack comes under that heading. As for the ACS, I have already stated that I am a long-term member and I feel bound to defend its interests (which is not something that BlackJack himself would do any more).

I do not know where the WP:SOCK troll is coming from at all. He appears to both support and denounce the ACS but I am mystified as to his motives, other than his intention of stopping me from using Wikipedia. The comment above about CricketArchive makes no sense whatsoever. As you can see, he has contravened WP:SOCK in this thread alone as User:Mountlaurel and as User:Fieldgoalunit. He certainly does know who User:Longrunup is: himself!

As for his assertion that I "know who he is", I'm afraid I do not. It has been suggested to me (offline) that he is a certain person who used to be on the ACS committee, but I never met or even communicated with that person so I am as confused as User:Moondyne obviously is. However, I do know the man that User:Fieldgoalunit named and tried to "out".

The mind boggles and I despair. I am thinking of calling it a day as this has got completely out of hand and is a waste of my time. I'm afraid the internet as a whole, including Wikipedia, is at the mercy of trolls like this one. --JamesJJames (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking for recreated deleted articles?

Looking to stay one step ahead of those recreating the same deleted article but under a slightly different article name? Where Special:PrefixIndex allows you to search article names that begin with a certain text string, Wikimedia.de grep is a recently improved tool that allows you to search text strings anywhere they appear in the article name. For example, if the article John Smith is delete and recreate as John J. Smith, entering ^John.*Smith$ at Wikimedia.de grep allows you to keep tabs on all John Smith articles, whether John, Johnny, Johnson is used, or any text string is placed between John Smith. search example Even if the beginning of the article name is changed, grep lets you search the middle and end of the article name for common text patterns. Wikimedia.de grep allows you to find such postings in project space and any other name space. The grep tool also is great for finding all related categories and all related templates, even if they are not categorized in a [[Category:]] -- GregManninLB (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

With this search, I found false blocking notice, Blocking or other action needed: 1, 2, 3, 4; Offcolor article names in user space: 1, 2, 3; Offcolor userboxes 1, 2, 3; Offcolor commentary: 1; Offcolor essays: 1, 2. GregManninLB (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Amoruso, & sockpuppets

Amoruso (talk · contribs), a long-time editor on Israeli/Palestine issues, has lately, among other things, been edit-warring on articles about different settlements/neighbourhoods of Jerusalem. I noticed that as soon as Amoruso had "used up" his 3RR, another "fresh" editor, Robertert (talk · contribs), conveniently came along to take up where Amoruso had to stop. I requested a CheckUser, and it came up with this result, namely that Robertert (talk · contribs) is also Arzkibar (talk · contribs) and Onthedunes (talk · contribs), and " Likely also Amoruso (talk · contribs)." Could some admin please take a look at this? Thanks. Regards, Huldra (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's legalize killing! How obvious!

User:Porosenok17, a new account whose first edit was earlier today, and who may or may not have a very strange sense of humor, has been advocating this proposal on numerous editors' talk pages, as seen here, including mine, as seen here. Please advise. John Carter (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked him indefinitly as a vandalism only account, after those messages he started vandalising articles. Davewild (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Miyokan and standardization

I would like to bring to your discussion on User:Miyokan (Talk) recent deletion and edition history. Recently, this user has been removing vital code from the article "Template:Russian cities." I am not knowledgeable on whether there is a standardization rule here on Wikipedia, but I hope you would agree that it is a reasonable unwritten rule here. In recent days, this user has removed images all together, added unnecessary information or code, and removed a vital location tool from the template. This has repeated for weeks now, and I would hope that you would agree that this needs to stop.

This is not this user's only notification on deletions and editions on Wikipedia. Miyokan has been noticed about altering the articles "Russian presidential election, 2008," "Ronald Reagan," "Anti-Russian sentiment," and has done others in witch I have no reference for except for on his talk page. I gave this user a warning that I would inform an administrator about these and other edits, but he has refused to acknowledge this and reverted the article again. — NuclearVacuum 15:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to get some feedback about the process of making a WikiProject in witch to officially standardize the all Templates of city populations. I would both like to get your feedback on this and your opinion on standardizations on Wikipedia: is it an unwritten rule? — NuclearVacuum 15:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I expect this would come under the purview of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 17:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have fully explained my edits on talk. NuclearVacuum's has refused to compromise on anything and his entire argument seems to stem from some kind of "standardization" rule, which does not exist, as each template is different. Furthermore, "standardization" does not concern trivial matters (2 images instead of 3, abbreviations instead of the full text, Tnavbar), only the main format of the template has to be the same, which it is.--Miyokan (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy speedy delete request

Hi. Would some kind soul please delete the orphaned redirect Template:Administrative divisions of the Republic of China so that name may be used for the current "Template:ROC divisions". Thanks. Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Ironically it got speedied faster then if you CSD'd it probably. Wizardman 15:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks already! Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Account keeps getting deleted

My account keeps getting deleted. WHY? I'm realsynical and it YOUR SITE keeps deleting me. WHY. SOMEONE DOESN'T want me on wikipedia. WHY????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.126.201.162 (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Accounts can't get deleted. Not sure what you mean. Wizardman 17:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Could you provide us with the names of the accounts? There might have been a violation of our username policy. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 17:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this User:Realsynical? You have to type the name using that exact case, i.e. with a capital "R". Seems like a fairly long-standing, if not much-used, account. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you can "cheat" the first letter, but not any of the others, as a side effect of the automatic uppercasing rules. Saves half a keystroke, at least. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Rania al-Baz

This article was recently deleted, supposedly for BLP problems. I'm not sure what the potentially libelous information in the article was (maybe it did not source her accusations of abuse by her husband? they received international notice and were widely reported). Can someone restore this? Here's a source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/oct/05/broadcasting.saudiarabia More are easily googlable. Mangostar (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed the deleted article and (although I do not often involve myself in BLP matters) confirm that there were problems in the article, not only for the subject but also the ex-husband, regarding bias. When sourcing references for a contentious BLP article the references must be impeccable and neutral; those used were neither (and nor is the one provided here). There is also a question of notability, in that the subject is probably not notable outside of the incident which makes up the majority of the article content. It is possible that there could be an article created around the incident and aftermath, with some background of the main two protagonists, and its rarity in Saudi culture. You may wish to take the matter to deletion review, but I suggest that an article regarding the incident as commented by me above may be a more appropriate way of having the incident included in the encyclopedia - providing you stay within BLP guidelines when referring to the parties. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Do I have to take this to a formal deletion review if there was never a deletion discussion? This woman also was notable outside the beating; the reason she attracted so much attention is that she was a television personality beforehand. (see the linked article beforehand). And how is it inappropriate to cite a Guardian article? It is clearly infused with opinion, but the facts in the article have presumably been reviewed before publication... Mangostar (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mangostar on the subject of reliability- if The Guardian isn't reliable, then we would have to reject all press. I would not reccomend deletion review- the subject seems to be notable, but the article is awful, and I agree with Doc's deletion. The article should be rewritten. J Milburn (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian newspaper is certainly reliable, but the website...? With newspapers there is a point of reference (an archived copy) but it is less certain with websites. Also, the style (I am a Gruniard reader) is less objective than print editorials are. As regards notability of the subject; I am aware that every regional newsreader in the US appears to have a stub at minimum, but that doesn't mean that newsreaders (even a female one in a male dominated society) are inherently notable. I believe that any notability of the individual concerned is implicitly linked to the domestic violence in Saudi culture issue, and that it is that incident that appears to satisfy notability claims. Even if the individual is marginally notable it makes no sense to have a stub article which links to the assault and subsequent divorce - the two would best be combined in the more notable subject. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you support that solution if, hypothetically, Gordon Burns (my local newsreader) became embroiled in some kind of incident that achieved international recognition? I don't agree with the idea at all- say 4chan was behind the next September 11, would you support merging the article on the website into the article on the incident? I believe that if someone was notable before an incident (not saying this person certainly was, but the way The Guardian talks about them suggests that they were) then we should include the incident in the article about them, even if we don't already have an article. Then, if it becomes too long, we can split it out, as with any article. J Milburn (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr Burns does not have an article that casts him, or anyone connected with him, in a potentially poor light. If Mr Burns was, for instance, acquitted on a technicality in a case of whelk trafficking with some salacious tabloid stories as references then - unless the article was returned to stub status - BLP may be involved and Mr Burns be a redlinked (if linked at all) mention in the articles regarding The Krypton Factor and the North of Watford Whelk Trafficking Scandal. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian article is not a blog posting, but an interview conduscted by their reporter. That they put it onto the web does not make it any less subject to their editorial control. It's miscellaneous blog postings of readers that may be attached to it that are not usable for BLP--or anything much else, for that matter.DGG (talk)

Time for some topic bans?

Allegations of state terrorism by the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been a festering heap of ordure for most of its life, and there appears to exist a small but fiercely determined coterie of editors who are determined to keep it that way. They are trying to get William M. Connolley desysopped for taking some brief but much-needed action there, and looking down the talk page I don't think there's a single editorial policy or guideline they have not violated at some point in their zeal to describe as many acts as possible as state terrorism by the United States. That's my view, anyway, and I don't think I'm alone in that.

I'd be interested to see what other admins think, and whether we believe that a "homeopathy solution" might work here. Guy (Help!) 20:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Has the WP:RfAR on William M. Connolley been rejected? If not, why not use that venue to see if there is a case for having such topic bans considered by the ArbCom. If there is no traction there - since it is a desysopping request - then the question might be raised here. Just a thought. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, your recent edit ([16]) to the article in question removed a part of the page that you said "lacked consensus to keep". However, the editors and contributors to the article had just came to consensus on the exact bit you removed. You have went against consensus on a controversal topic. Your edit should be reverted. Will allow an admin or you to decide on that. Hooper (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just reread the lead comment by Guy here - I really don't think he is asking for himself to be topic banned... ;~) Perhaps it really might be a good idea for this matter to be referred generally to Arbs since - unlike Homeopathy - there is no "alternate subject" that a holder of a viewpoint may be directed toward, and removing some editors (likely with a particular POV) from one article may upset the possibility of their being an unbiased article... or even an article altogether. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No they hadn't. Your reading of partial agreement as consensus, is not a correct one. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

JzG, please take it to arbitration and shine a bright light on this. It looks like the level of tendentiousness is high, and folks are gaming the system. Mediation and other forms of dispute resolution will not work when editors are not acting in good faith. Jehochman ^Talk 23:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said on the AfD if you want to deal with this the article will need to be put on probation so that any uninvolved admin can ban disruptive editors from the article without the need for new AN/ANI threads everytime. Topic bans are fine but knowing this article you will simply be playing whack-a-mole with these people. They are easy to recognize, they are the people who only edit this article and related articles. EconomicsGuy (talk) 05:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggest arbitration

I am an uninvolved party here, but I understand that this is a dispute that has been going on for a long time, and allegations appear to be flying around all over the place. Is it time to request arbitration? I don't know how to make the request. —  scetoaux (T|C) 22:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

See below, quite literally. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean that this is already fulfilled as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request for Arbitration/User:William M. Connolley? —  scetoaux (T|C) 22:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No. These are two wholly seperate issues. Hooper (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of admin tools: editing through protection,again!

Guy is involved in the content dispute on this article, has tried to delete lots of well referenced material--when that failed to gain any consensus he tried to delete this article itself by nominated it for a Afd, which failed. Now he is blanking this long term section against consensus--through protection! This is clear abuse of the tools:[17]. Protection is not an endorsement of a version, and its quite improper to use ones tools to get it locked in the version you want it in. It is a misuse of tools. He even admit in his edit summary,[18] that consensus is lacking, so its completely inappropriate to edit a protected article for items that are not copyright vio or violations of BLP. William M. Connolley recently used his tools in a similarly abusive manner, and has been rebuked and is now facing an arbcom hearing. I ask for this Guy's blanking of a well referenced section through protection, that added with consensus, to be undone. There are several editors now protesting this unilaterial action.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is the same article as above, may I suggest making this a subsection of that argument? - Ricky81682 (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, made it so. --I Write Stuff (talk) 00:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have requested Guy to self revert. I feel we should allow a little time (it is early hours Sunday morning in the UK) to see if he will, and we should AGF that he didn't notice the warning in the meantime. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Its now 10:30 Sunday. Perhaps he's at church.

I'd like to point out that while I agree that that article needs trimming, cleaning out, and reduction of the long laundry list of complaints that are frequently duplicated from elsewhere, editing repeatedly through protection when editors in good standing object to it is not the way to do it as it is obviously frakking unsustainable! I can't believe anyone would do that, its utterly pointless as a long term solution. I also note that I, who generally despise that article explained patiently on the talkpage at one point that some mention of the section Guy removed was essential, as discussing its relation to terror, terrorism, and just war is the special province of one of the greatest living philosophers, and thus is hardly fringe POV-pushing. Bad show. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Public domain images (old uploads)

I've recently noticed that some of our old public domain images (in some cases claimed, in other cases clearly PD) that were uploaded many years ago (2003, 2004, 2005) are being tagged and deleted for lack of sourcing information. The lack of sourcing information is in many cases because standards were less strict back then. A recent example is Image:Ac.ptolemy.jpg. There is a large backlog (over 11,000 images) at Category:PD tag needs updating, but many of these will be public domain, and indiscriminate tagging (along with some fixing), as seen here can quickly overwhelm things. It is important to get the workflow balanced right. See also here for an example of a retired editor where lots of tags were placed (some for disputed PD images, some for non-free images). I'd like to ask the advice of admins in general on how to handle this. I recently started a conversation here, but the reaction (saying that the criticism by me and others had been discouraging) actually discouraged me as well, as that editor is doing good work fixing images. I'm just worried that the line is being drawn in the wrong place. I would much prefer to motivate people to help fix images, rather than tag them for deletion when there is a large backlog and not enough people working on it. What can be done? Carcharoth (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You can help with June is Wikipedia Image Cleanup Month and YOU can help! which the whole purpose is "to motivate people to help fix images and educate so there isn't anything to fix". MECU≈talk 04:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is that people cannot easily identify the articles and images in their sphere of interest that require attention. A little while ago I used CATSCAN to identify all the Western Australia-related articles with {{fact}} tags on them, and posted it on WT:WA. A number of people mobilised to attack the list, and about half of it got done in the course of a week or so. I reckon you would see the same effect for just about any combination of topic and maintenance category. For example if someone extracted a list of all the images of plants in Category:All images with unknown source and posted it to WT:PLANTS, you would see immediate action from members of that project.

A longer term solution is to subcategorise. We subcategorise our stubs, so that people can easily find stubs in their area of interest. I've never understood why we don't also subcategorise our maintenance categories. Category:Articles lacking sources is virtually useless, but Category:United States geography articles lacking sources would be very useful indeed, albeit to a much smaller class of editor.

Hesperian 04:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The major problem here lies in poorly written and/or poorly run bots and careless image patrollers who act like bots at the bot speed. It is a fact of life that some web-pages do go down every day. No source or a dead source is just as useless as far as we are concerned and we are not about to go through all images at WMF servers every day to update the status of the WWW when pages disappear or simply change. Even Betabot who can do wonders in term of speed, if not quality, can't scan the web every hour.

Sometimes, the image status is totally clear even if the source is dead. Being able to tell requires human attention and care. Bots can't do that. Human beings who tag dozens images per hour can't do that either. Image patrol is the job that requires utmost care and speed should not be an impediment. --Irpen 05:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Daniel Lièvre

Do we really need a particularly active (across a number of websites he is trying to get included in articles as sources) pro-pedophilia activist causing more disruption and waste of good-faith editor time on Wikipedia? Especially one who encourages users banned for PPA and soliciting minors to sue the Wikimedia foundation? John Nevard (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Assuming it's the same person, he is a leading PPA on forums like BoyChat and has participated in discussions about promoting the pro-pedophile agenda on Wikipedia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I spent all of five minutes Googling up Daniel Lièvre and had enough. Yeah, there are discussions regarding pro-pedophilia, disguised under some minor -> adult relationship (or something along those lines) and other nonsense on other forums and blogs, including his own. seicer | talk | contribs 03:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not he is the same person, he's announced himself as that person - even if he's not, the use of that name is provocative, to put it mildly. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. east.718 at 03:15, April 27, 2008

In The News

Resolved

Hi guys. I'm not sure where most of the "regular" ITN-updating admins have run off to, but there are a few items on ITN/C that seem to have consensus to go on the live mainpage template. I'm talking specifically about the Nepal Elections and the Bamyan Oil Paintings. A few minutes of help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Random89 05:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Template updated. --Tone 07:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Susanbryce

I'd like to request User:Susanbryce be officially warned or reminded of Wikipedia's WP:COPYVIO policy.

Even after another editor pointed out to this user on their talk page (Dated:17:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)) on the Street_Children_in_The_Philippines article that they shouldn't do this, this editor still made a recent edit (Dated: 15:25, 22 April 2008) to an article that was essentially a cut and paste from the article it cited. The section read poorly and does not even make sense given the previous sentence in the article.

Human_trafficking_in_the_Philippines#Angeles

The following text:

Angeles Mayor Francis Nepomuceno has acknowledged the problem. “We admit having HIV cases and that prostitution may be flourishing". STD cases rose five times. The RHWC treated 1,421 cases in 2005, 2,516 cases in 2006 and 6,229 cases in 2007. Most of the afflicted were women. [39]

is cut and pasted from this article.

As I am going through the Human trafficking in the Philippines Wikipedia entry even more, I am finding additional WP:COPYVIO violations which I am documenting in the talk page.

I've also found one in the Makati section of the article which I haven't documented on the talk page yet.

HurryTaken (talk) 11:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)