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 Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on 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.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

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 seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Requests for comment

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Mentoring process

(Initiated 221 days ago on 15 May 2024) Discussion died down quite a long time ago. I do not believe anything is actionable but a formal closure will help. Soni (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 76 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Turkey#RfC_on_massacres_and_genocides_in_the_lead

(Initiated 75 days ago on 8 October 2024) Expired tag, no new comments in more than a week. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

 Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. Also see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard topic. Bogazicili (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Not sure if anyone is looking into this, but might be a good idea to wait for a few weeks since there is ongoing discussion. Bogazicili (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Request_for_comment:_Do_the_guidelines_in_WP:TPO_also_apply_to_archived_talk_pages?

(Initiated 67 days ago on 16 October 2024) Discussion seems to have petered out a month ago. Consensus seems unclear. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Needs admin closure imho, due to its importance (guideline page), length (101kb), and questions about neutrality of the Rfc question and what it meant. Mathglot (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

And in true Streisand effect fashion, this discussion, quiescent for six weeks, has some more responses again. Mathglot (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 459#RFC_Jerusalem_Post

(Initiated 55 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Grey_Literature

(Initiated 43 days ago on 10 November 2024) Discussion is slowing significantly. Likely no consensus, personally. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 was very clearly rejected. The closer should try to see what specific principles people in the discussion agreed upon if going with a no consensus close, because there should be a follow-up RfC after some of the details are hammered out. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: Still working on this? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Ugh… in practice, no. I'm still willing to do it, but it's in hiatus because of the three(!) pending challenges of my closures at AN, while I evaluate to what extent I need to change how I approach closures. If somebody else wants to take over this, they should feel free. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Taking a pause is fair. Just wanted to double check. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#RFC_on_signing_RFCs

(Initiated 39 days ago on 13 November 2024) - probably gonna stay status quo, but would like a closure to point to Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Check Your Fact

(Initiated 39 days ago on 13 November 2024) RfC has elapsed, and uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 15:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of fictional countries set on Earth#RfC on threshold for inclusion

(Initiated 32 days ago on 20 November 2024) TompaDompa (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)#RfC about the naming conventions for boy bands

(Initiated 14 days ago on 8 December 2024) No further participation in the last 7 days. Consensus is clear but I am the opener of the RfC and am not comfortable closing something I am so closely involved in, so would like somebody uninvolved to close it if they believe it to be appropriate.RachelTensions (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable closing a discussion on a guideline change this early. In any case, if the discussion continues as it has been, a formal closure won't be necessary. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#RfC: Should a bot be created to handle AfC submissions that haven't changed since the last time they were submitted?

(Initiated 37 days ago on 15 November 2024) This RfC expired five days ago, has an unclear consensus, I am involved, and discussion has died down. JJP_Master (she/they) 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Len_Blavatnik#RfC:_NPOV_in_the_lead

(Initiated 6 days ago on 16 December 2024) RFC is only 5 days old as of time of this posting, but overwhelming consensus approves of status quo, except for a single COI editor. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Total
CfD	0	0	0	37	37
TfD	0	0	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	2	2	4
FfD	0	0	1	17	18
RfD	0	0	10	29	39
AfD	0	0	0	2	2

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi (A)

Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion has now been relisted thrice. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 89 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:LGBT history in Georgia#Proposed merge of LGBT rights in Georgia into LGBT history in Georgia

(Initiated 77 days ago on 7 October 2024) A merge + move request with RM banners that needs closure. No new comments in 20 days. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump

(Initiated 67 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Tesla Cybercab#Proposed merge of Tesla Network into Tesla Cybercab

(Initiated 65 days ago on 18 October 2024) This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. N2e (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Stadion Miejski (Białystok)#Requested move 5 November 2024

(Initiated 47 days ago on 5 November 2024) RM that has been open for over a month. Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:JTG Daugherty Racing#Requested move 22 November 2024

(Initiated 30 days ago on 22 November 2024) Pretty simple RM that just needs an uninvolved editor to close. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 17:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Williamsburg Bray School#Splitting proposal

(Initiated 25 days ago on 27 November 2024) Only two editors—the nominator and myself—have participated. That was two weeks ago. Just needs an uninvolved third party for closure. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... BusterD (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 55 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Shooting of Trayvon Martin

Please see the recent history and the article's talk page, over this pot issue. I have extended full protection of the article for three days) because I think this pot thing is not OK, and this needs to be hammered out instead of being warred over. One editor claims (I think) that I'm way too involved to do this--well, my involvement is more with WP:BDP than with anything else, I think. I'll leave that for wiser editors than I; feel free to scrutinize my involvement and my decision to protect. I'm off for a little while: I don't mind being overruled, so if you think I'm totally in the wrong (or three days is too long), you don't have to ask me for my opinion--but I hope you'll overrule with some kind of consensus (the subject matter is important enough). Happy days, Drmies (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I support Drmies's bold use of the admin tools with respect to WP:BLP. Taking corrective action like this and then highlighting the actions for community review are precisely the right things to do in this case IMHO. I think the protection should be removed as soon as the edit warring is clearly over (whether through discussion at BLPN or the article talk page) which given the swiftly changing nature of the subject hopefully will be in less than 3 days. VQuakr (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I am the editor drmies mentioned above. I think he is not uninvolved, as he edited the article to remove the information, and was discussing the removal on the talk page. His change was reverted, then he locked the page. I _do not_ think his action raise to any level requiring any kind of penalty/punishment/wrist-slap etc. I do think that his changes should be reverted and if needed acted on by an uninvolved editor (sigh, IAR). BLP does not apply, the subject is dead, and the information was released by his parents, so BDP also does not apply. INformation is EXCEPTIONALLY well sourced (12k-40k gnews hits depending on how you search). ongoing posts and BLP and RPP. Significant kudos to drmies for reporting himself, an example of good honest conduct for us all to follow. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree - there's been a lot of edit warring regarding whether we view this as a biography or an article about a news event and subsequent editing that supports one view or the other. I generally don't favor it, but in this case short-term full protection will give some breathing room, and one hopes the subsequent admin oversight will help to adjudicate the differences in opinions about what goes in and what does not. This is a high profile article, and needs some help. Tvoz/talk 21:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The disagreement about the way the article is focused has nothing to do with the reason it was protected. Further, while there was some minor edit warring going on, it was dwarfed by the amount of productive edits happening, which the protection prevents. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Gaijin, on your last point, the prevention of productive edits, I couldn't agree more with you, and I hate full protection. Who knows, maybe in the next couple of hours, when all the admins come back from cocktail hour, you'll get your wish. In the meantime: cheers. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

This case centers on the actions taken the night Trayvon was shot, but it has morphed into a larger 'event', if you will, than just an isolated case of someone being shot. This has a national dimension now, with implications for how we proceed as a society with discussions of race and how we deal with others. Such a discussion naturally brings up more about the background of the various players, and as such it becomes hard to decide how to deal with that content. As is often the case with these high profile articles, these things will get sorted as time goes on, but we need to be aware how our coverage of things affects people's perceptions of the two primary faces in this story. The media, as usual, is not being cautious, often showing a very youthful Trayvon photo alongside a booking photo of George. And as a result of this, we see people wanting to take the law into their own hand. How do you counter bias once it has a foothold? I'm not entirely sure. But if we have reliable sources for the good and the bad, we need to try and write as unbiased an article as we can. This is a terrible situation where we really have no positive outcomes, and the best we can hope for is just a little less bad. -- Avanu (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Avanu, I agree - and that is one of the reasons I have been urging that we abandon the "infobox person"s and switch back to the "infobox news event" or one of the other event infoboxes, which would not include the possibly POV pictures. Same reason I changed the first sentence - the article is about an event, not about the individuals. I'd like some backup on this. Tvoz/talk 00:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Just one point to share with User:Gaijin42, without commenting on this specific case. We don't drop BLP concerns about a person 1 second after their last breath. They still have a family and community, and immediately after their death they have generally been provided the same protection as we would a BLP from improperly weighted, negative material. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Admin used powers in content dispute (Comments from WP:ANI)

I moved the following content from the "Admin used powers in content dispute" section of WP:ANI. Nyttend (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

---

In the article Shooting of Trayvon Martin, it seems that Drmies used admin tools to advance his/her position in a content dispute by first protecting the page and then changing to his/her preferred version.[1] --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

While I do think drmies qualifies as "involved" for the purpose of this discussion, I do not think his action rise to the level of needing ANI. There are several discussions ongoing of this issue in different venues. I think it was inappropriate of him to fully protect, and it should be unprotected, but no further action should be taken against drmies. He self reported himself to the AN post as well, which is further show of good faith on his part.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Trayvon_Martin.2C_Marijuanna
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Protection
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drmies#protection.21.3F

Gaijin42 (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Please discuss these matters here, since they were brought up here before the other thread got started. Nyttend (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Gaijin, Please note that after Drmies protected the page, Drmies changed the page to his/her preferred version using admin powers. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggest his edit be reverted and the full protection be left on. After all, them's the rules.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That is irrelevant if the changes he made were in accordance with WP:BDP (BLP), imo. BDP and BLP are far more important, and I don't see that as admin abuse. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 22:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Good call by Drmies. In this context it is necessary to be conservative in what we include in the article. We cannot at this moment verify that everything appearing in the media is factually correct (we have to wait in effect for the media to get a consensus on this), and we cannot yet tell what will turn out to be undue weight. Wikipedia is not the nine o'clock news - we can wait for the overall picture to emerge. Removing undue material, and material that is still in some question as well is protecting the article is quite reasonable as a policy enforcement - different to using tools in a content dispute, and I don't believe WP:WRONG VERSION applies. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Drmies's changes were not in accordance with WP:BDP and this was discussed on the article talk page. No one has disputed the validity of the info that Drmies deleted after page protection, not even Drmies AFAIK. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, presumably he *did*, or he wouldn't have deleted it for that reason. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Good call, laudable. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The content dispute involves an admission by a spokesman for Trayvon Martin's family that he was suspended for having trace amounts of marijuana in his book bag. No one has disputed this. Drmies felt that it was irrelevant and shouldn't be in the article. This is a matter that should have been settled on the talk page, not by using admin powers to essentially win an edit war by making a change after protecting the page.

It's shameful that so many admins/editors here are supporting Drmies's action and more aren't stepping forward to do the right thing. I consider this to be at least as significant an issue as the actions of Drmie that caused this discussion. It appears that neither has much chance of being corrected. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yep, this was a good call. With current events of this sort you will get muck-raking of only minor relevance; usually tangential material attacking one or more of the subjects. I expect the other guy will get some at some point also. To a certain extent we extend the BLP policy to individuals recently deceased - particularly in controversial circumstances such as these, with a larger family closely involved. There are a number of soapboxy phrases in the article as well that may need to be looked at, and individuals politely reminded of policy. This is exactly the reason we should have some sort of moratorium on news events for at least a short time. Tsk. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• However, if the consensus on the talk page is that the information is relevant and should be included, then it should. Silverseren^C 23:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Bad call. There wasn't even much of an edit war here, since two of the three removals are attributable to Drmies himself (including the one where he edited through protection). Yes this is a controversial issue, and yes the topic needs to be addressed with care, but I don't think Drmies handled this well. The facts surrounding this particular issue are clearly verifiable and well-sourced (i.e. reported in many major news outlets and confirmed by the family spokesman). At this point, the decision of what to say about Trayvon's suspension is mostly an editorial issue to hashed out through discussion rather than one that needs the blunt hand of an admin to decide. Personally, I'm not sure this information serves any good purpose (and there do seem to be some people who want to use this information to paint Trayvon in an unfair way), but having a single participant use tools to enforce their viewpoint is not good either. Drmies was aware of and had participated in the talk page discussion about this issue. At the time of his protection, it seems like the majority of the talk page participants favored including this information. It would have been much better for him to request help at one of the noticeboards, such as BLPN, RFPP, ANI, etc., rather than for him to simply exercise the tools to enforce his preferred version. Obviously, there needs to be discussion and consensus about what do with this content, but I don't think a three day protection is necessary here. Dragons flight (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not involved with editing this article in any way, and it was only brought to my attention after a post at the WP:BLPN.[2] As an outside observer, it appears that Drmies is abusing their admin tools[3] to win a dispute they're involved in.[4][5][6][7] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• I am also uninvolved here. In my view, Drmies made a tough but good call here. Upon first viewing the situation, I was ambivalent, though leaning towards my current position. Reading this thread has led me to firmly support his actions. Drmies made it clear when he created this thread that he protected the page so that discussion could go towards determining whether or not to include the material without having a contentious revert-war occurring on the page: "I have extended full protection of the article for three days) because I think this pot thing is not OK, and this needs to be hammered out instead of being warred over." I see absolutely no indication that he was intending to "win" the dispute, as AQFN alleges; rather, he desired that it be productively resolved. It's not like he locked down the article indefinitely—the protection expires on Friday. In light of the fact that this is a highly-sensitive and high-profile article, it is in the best interests of the project that we follow policies like WP:BDP strictly. Contentious material should be thoroughly discussed before adding. Drmies was acting in good faith, and I support his decision here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • A pause is a good thing - these articles get written too fast, and usually end up a mess for some lengthy time (usually until the SPA's with a strong view on the matter lose interest). --Errant ^(chat!) 01:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Good call. Admins can't make everyone happy. This is a tense issue that's grabbing the attention of the nation. We need to be very careful moving along with this. Again, WP:NOTNEWS. This is an encyclopedia; it isn't going to be written overnight, so why ruch? 131.62.10.20 (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with this comment. Why do we even have articles on topics that are only covered by news sources and haven't been noticed by stabler media? If something doesn't get sustained coverage and sustained interest over a period of time, it's really not encyclopedic, and we shouldn't attempt to force an article like this to carry the latest rumors. Good job on making the tough but solid decision, Drmies. Nyttend (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Good call? It wasn't even his call to make. He was clearly WP:INVOLVED in the dispute. Admins are not allowed to use their tools in content disputes they're involved in. How anyone could defend such blatent misconduct is beyond me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Drmies made two major admin mistakes in this dispute.
  • First he was clearly an involved editor in this discussion. Whether he felt that his involvement was minor, is irrelevant. He had already taken a side in the discussion and eventual edit war. When he decided to fully protect the page, he violated the sacred trust we give administrators by violating WP:INVOLVED. He took it upon himself to use the tools that he has been granted to him and and protected a page in which he had recently been involved in a dispute.
  • Secondly he clearly violated the terms of WP:FULL by continuing to edit the page, supposedly to the preferred version that agreed with his side of the argument. In my book, that type of display sickens me. What gives him the right the continue editing a page after it had already been fully protected. This type of behavior breeds distrust and animosity.
• Just because some have chimed in here in agreement with Drmies actions, do not confuse the fact that you may agree with the points made by his side of the argument, and the fact that he twice violated his duty as an admin, by abusing his position to gain a foothold on the article. I am a very mush 'uninvolved editor on that page. I have in no way made any edits to the page or to the talk page. Even after taking a quick look at what the discussion is about, I probably would have taken the side of Drmies. But this does not excuse the blatant violations of admin tools, and in no way should be allowed to go unpunished. Without some form of retribution, these type of "violations" could grow into more serious and offensive abuses. We have these rules written for a reason, we should honor them.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Did you really just issue a call for "retribution"? 28bytes (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Did I stutter?--JOJ ^Hutton 02:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I'll take that as a "yes", in which case, no, your request for "retribution" is declined. 28bytes (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
        • And you consider yourself the personal judge and jury in this case? Does the opinion of anyone else on this page, have any bearing? Guess not.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
          • You are the only one here demanding retribution and punishment. Everyone else here is cognizant of the fact that Drmies brought the matter here himself for review, explicitly turning the decision whether to keep the article protected over to the community. That's what good admins do, when there are objections to an admin action they've taken. It would be extremely stupid to "punish" him for his obviously well-intended page protection, especially given that he put it here himself for review. 28bytes (talk) 02:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
            • Drmies remains defiant and based on his latest post,[8] there is significant concern that they are likely to abuse their admin tools in the future. Let's give them some time to reflect on their actions, but if their attitude doesn't change, a desysop may be in order. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
              • Oh please. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
                • That's a sound argument. You really got me there. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
                  • I have made my argument all over this thread. The question at the heart of this dispute is whether we should care about WP:INVOLVED over WP:BLP in this specific case; i.e., whether our own social rules that have virtually no impact outside of wikipedia should trump the broader social and legal implications of a biography of a living/recently-deceased person in this very controversial and high-profile case. Was Drmies involved? Yes. Should another admin have made the protection? Probably. Is anything lost by holding our horses until the end of the week—or sooner if consensus for a removal of the protection is achieved—to re-add the material? No. Was the protection done in self-interest or bad faith? No. The only self-interested people here are the ones calling for his head on a pike for one single protection that expires on Friday. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• • "to gain a foothold on the article": Sorry, I call BS. Drmies made it clear in starting this thread that the protection was put in place to allow for more productive discussion. That is a blatant assumption of bad faith. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Good Faith was lost, the moment he edited the article just after fully protecting it. If this was a case where he "only" protected the article, then came here to ask for assistance, then I can see a case for assumption of Good Faith. But he continued to edit the article, without any thought to what damage that would do to the trust we give admins. No I'm sorry, he lost the ability to claim Good Faith when he twice violated our trust in his ability to handle the tools we gave him.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
      • • (edit conflict)Step off your soapbox, sweetheart. Nobody's impressed. More telling than any of your tediously self-righteous vitriol is that Drmies recognised that his action might be viewed as problematic by some and started this thread in the first place. How is that a bad-faith action? Re: "these type of "violations" could grow into more serious and offensive abuses". No they won't. Go play with your slip'n'slide somewhere else. (Edit-conflict addendum: DGG below sums it up perfectly) ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
          • Are we standing up for a buddy? Facts are that he twice violated the trust he was given. How can he ever be trusted again?--JOJ ^Hutton 03:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
            • Do you have evidence to support that loaded question? Or are you automatically assuming that since I find your comments to be nauseatingly self-important and downright absurd, I must be 'in cahoots with the enemy'? That's a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, and I suggest you drop it. Drmies has by and large shown himself to be a reasonable contributor and administrator, and I see no reason why erring on the side of caution on a highly sensitive topic should mean any loss of trust. I find it especially telling that Gaijin42, the user who first brought this to the community's wider attention, does not advocate for anything other than the protection being lifted, whereas you—an individual with precisely zero ponies in that parade—advocate for the most laughably draconian solutions based on nothing but irritating self-righteousness. "Retribution"? Really? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
              • • First you ask if I have evidence. Nope, just did a simple duck test on that one. You confirm it with your quick knowledge of Drmies editing history and admin uses. Second, I'm not sure why you are turning this into some sort of personal disagreement between the two of us. The fact that you disagree with me is evident, the fact that you find me nauseatingly self-important and downright absurd is fascinating. How my opinion that another admin who twice abused his tools should be punished, would somehow give you this much hatred toward me is beyond compelling. Third, you ask why we should not error on the side of caution. Who's caution? Yours or mine? Who gives one person the right to dictate what is right or wrong? What needs protection from bias, when the very definition of bias in this case is in dispute. Vey bad form form very bad form indeed. Finally you mention that Gaijin42 does not advocate anything more than the protection being lifted. Has this protection been lifted? Has the edit that was made by an involved admin on a fully protected page in violation of two separate and distinct guidelines on admin tool use, been reverted? I have no "pony", as you put it, in the parade. Nor will I in this case. But that doesn't dismiss the fact that these violations occurred. Whats next then? Admins blocking other editors with whom they are in dispute with? Admins deleting pages because they don't like what they say? All in the name of "erring on the side of caution". Its clear that you feel that he was justified. Do you also agree with him in the content dispute as well? Guess what, So Do I. That still doesn't give him the right to take matters into his own hands. Now that he has violated these admin guidelines, its fair to say that his judgement as an admin, in the eyes of others, will always be in question. He not only violated the guidelines, he violated our trust in him. For that, no amount of words can express just how damaging his actions were. Not only to himself, but to other admins and users as well. How will he ever be taken seriously as an editor and an admin again, when there will always be doubt in the minds of those who disagree with him? He blew it, plain and simple.--JOJ ^Hutton 03:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
                  • I have had little to no personal interaction with Drmies. I have only seen him around the AN and AN/I boards, and I have a positive impression from my observations. You, on the other hand, see one single action and mount your high horse to charge into battle as a righteous crusader for WikiJustice. No no no no no. This I take issue with. Anyone who demands "retribution" for such a matter is behaving in a "nauseatingly self-important and downright absurd" manner. Do we care more about our own little world here, or the actual world which we describe in our articles? That is the central question with regard to "bias" and "caution" in this matter. Generalising this incident to other situations is inappropriate given the nature of the article. The hotly-debated and polarising nature of this case in other places online and in real life makes this different than a simple editor dispute on-wiki. Should another admin have placed the protection? Probably. Has it been established that the material should be re-added? I think so. But those are not reasons for the desysopping of or the commission of other acts of nameless "retribution" on an admin who made a quick call in a sticky situation. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• • • • I think Drmies did reasonably, especially by bringing it here. I am not sure I agree with his position, but this is the sort of topic where caution is needed. That an admin shouldn't protect their own view is basic, but even it has exceptions. If one;s own view is that possible bias should not be introduced into a particularly sensitive article , there's something to be said for taking direct action. (He should , of course, have asked someone else to do either the block or the edit, but I do not think this in the situation a great crime. Protecting articles from potential bias until the matter can be discussed is a good thing to do, even if done less than ideally). DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think a distinction needs to be made between the protection and editing by drmies, and the overall BLP issue. the ends do not justify the means, IAR aside. And further, there is considerable debate as to if drmies is in the right regarding the blp issue (see the ongoing BLPN discussion). as this was NOT a clear cut violation of any policy, but merely drmies opinion of such, the action to protect and break rules via IAR should carry less weight. However, I do fall back to my opinion below, saying it does not require any sort of administrative punishment etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) Well said. But the potential "bias" was still in dispute. The fact that he considered it "bias", and others did not, creates a big problem. He took the position that it "was" bias and took what he considered "appropriate" actions. The fact that he "thought" he was right is irrelevant. The fact that he made these actions in violation of WP:INVOLVED and WP:FULL is undisputable. An admin should never take these type of actions when they are clearly involved. I'm not sure what Drmies was thinking, but what I am hopefully sure about, is that he will think twice before ever doing something so blatant again.--JOJ ^Hutton 03:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm no admin, but I do believe you raise very good points. The edit summary after protection gives the reason; "sorry, but WP:BDP does, and I protected fully precisely for those reasons. i hate using my admin tool here, but i feel i have to" Rather then handling it with dispute resolution he instead used his admin tools to protect and revert the very edit which had an ongoing discussion on the talk page by various editors over the course of two hours prior to the page locking. He protected the page and made commented about bringing it to the attention of the boards. [9] He should have done that first before taking such drastic action and even then he should have passed it onto a third party as he was involved. Instead he used admin tools to protect and remove the material to his side when no further edits could be made, telling them to 'hammer it out'. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

He reverted the page to the WP:STATUSQUO pre-dispute so that the contentious material could be thoroughly discussed before being added. WP:INVOLVED is a policy which ultimately only matters to us lot of internet-warriors, whereas WP:BLP/WP:BDP has much broader social and even legal ramifications for the project. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• He removed the entire matter of the terms of the suspension along with the 'contentious' material which came from the family, some of which was already present and would seem fair under WP:STATUSQUO that those remain. Only the marjuana issue was added at 18:25, which came from the family itself and did not seem to be a BLP issue due to its confirmation from the family. [10] His first comment on the talk page was 19:50. [11] He removed the material at 19:51. [12] Which was re-added 'Status-quo' applicable at 20:06 by Richard-of-earth. [13] Then it was removed at 20:08 by Ledrush. [14] Discussion continued and it was re-added at 20:30 by Truthsort. [15] 10 minutes later, Drmies protected the page and reverted the edit again. [16] As two other pieces unrelated to the discussion why were those removed if it was status quo? Seems that a discussion was taking place, created an edit war and when other issues were brought up protected the page and reverted additional material that was not contentious. Going by that policy those two sentences should not have been removed and that since consensus was formed against his and Ledrush's view the best thing to do was bring it to dispute resolution rather then take action to end the edit war which his action started in the first place. I'm all for policy, but the situation warranted a different course of action then the one taken. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

As the editor who initially brought up possible conflict/involved admin editing, I think its clear he did break the letter of the rules, by participating in the discussion, taking action, and when reverted protecting, but based on drmies reuptation and long history, i do not feel any action such as block/desysop etc are needed, although his action should be reversed. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Question Is there a single editor here who examines the evidence[17][18][19][20] and thinks that Drmies wasn't involved in this content dispute? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

  but, but... zOMG, BLP!!!1!1!!1! (just sayin'...)
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• As an editor who brought Drmies action to WP:ANI and is watching this spectacle, I don't think that Drmies or the editors supporting him should have administrator tools because they do not appear to be trustworthy. . --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think Drmies's actions warrant a desysop. Merely agreeing with those actions even less. I think your suggestion is an overreaction. Reyk _YO! 03:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • You need to clean house here. Their actions show contempt for Wikipedia and demean the project. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I disagree. I haven't decided whether I agree with Drmies's actions themselves, but it is obvious that he was acting out of a desire to protect Wikipedia's integrity. You seem unable to tolerate differing views. You call for extreme punishments for not only the "perpetrator" but anyone you deem guilty by association, as the first resort. This attitude is unhelpful. Reyk _YO! 04:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
        • There's an awful lot of ABF in the comments here, and some ridiculously over-the-top calls for blood. This'll get sorted out sooner or later, and the encyclopedia (which is not a newspaper) will not suffer from not having every last little bit of breaking news in it before it's clear whether it means anything or not, or even if it's actually true. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
        • I believe that the page should be reverted to semi-protection, other material is awaiting removal under other concerns raised during its protection and while Drmies actions were not the best course of action, they do not warrant 'retribution'. People make mistakes. If the editors concerned (myself included) harbor no desire to see action taken then who is to condemn him? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Drmies made the right decision. On what planet is it essential to immediately record some minor and very recent claims regarding traces of marijuana? Removing such over-egging per WP:BDP shows good adminship, as does protecting the article and bringing the issue here. Rather than having the issue resolved by an edit war, community consensus can readily determine what happens—no puppies have been injured in this incident. If consensus agrees, the edit can be re-instated and the protection removed. Yes, the admin action is unusual, but the article relates an extremely unusual case (the shooting is regrettaby not so unusual, but the associated interest is). Johnuniq (talk) 06:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, the negative marijuana information was leaked from the police department, most likely to malign the dead victim and to support the case made by the police. Considering that somewhere around 50% of teenagers in the U.S. have cannabis in their bloodstream, this is unimportant information. Keep also in mind that the victim was suspended because cannabis residue (which I think amounted to smell only) was found in his belongings. It should be remembered that this is not evidence of usage, as cannabis residue is sticky enough to find itself on just about every conceivable surface. All one has to do is come into contact with someone who uses it, and bingo, you're a potential user just by touching the person or something that they have used like a book or a DVD. Viriditas (talk) 08:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • This is entirely incorrect. Editors held off during the leak and waited until it was confirmed from the family out of BLP concerns. It was not residue, it was a plastic bag of pot. And I really would contend that you can get a positive pot id from someone who merely comes in contact with any object or person who used it, specifically a book or dvd. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid you are entirely wrong. The leak was negative, and as every reliable source on the subject states, it concerned "an empty baggie containing marijuana residue".[21] Do you understand the difference between "residue" and "empty bag" containing residue? There was no "plastic bag of pot" as you claim. Further, you are evidently completely and totally ignorant about the concept of cannabis trichomes, so I suggest you do the research before you "contend" anything factual ever again. If you need any further assistance or corrections on any other misinformation you wish to share, please let me know. I'm here to help. Viriditas (talk) 09:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Good call Drmies. By locking the article and bringing the discussion here he seems to have done the right thing. Calls for desysop over this are frankly ridiculous. --John (talk) 09:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Just to pile on, this seems a sensible decision. Admins are expected to make tough calls at times, and Drmies' protection was reasonable, especially given that he or she then asked for a review of their action (admins hoping to use their admin tools to 'win' disputes don't advertise the fact that they've done this here!). Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Hate to ask again; but why is the page still protected when the discussion has moved on, concensus has been formed and major corrections need to be addressed. Over 10 specific pieces of the article need to be addressed now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Drmies made a call, and then promptly asked for community input here. That warrants desysopping of him and anyone who agrees with him? Sheesh. LadyofShalott 16:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Does it matter whether it was a good call or not? It's done. The question is how to now proceed. Support your colleague. Improve the article. Why waste energy with crucifixion? Span (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • It wasn't his call to make, and what's to stop them from abusing their tools the next time? What to do next? RfC/U or ArbCom?A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I can assure you that you will be rightly laughed out of both venues by everyone except for Jojhutton and Bob K31416. Re "what's to stop them from abusing their tools the next time?": I shall tell you the same thing I told Joj: go play with your slip'n'slide somewhere else. Nobody else thinks it's fun; you're just getting the front lawn all muddy. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Lothar, that's the third time you've used rhetorical flourishes to respond dismissively to other people's comments. Given that some people are tense and some are likely to overreact, I would suggest that there are probably better ways to convey your points. After all, you yourself said we need to avoid fostering a battleground mentality. Dragons flight (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Lothar likes language. I admit my tone has been less-than-cordial here, to say the very least. However, I really see nothing deserving of respect in this fallacious squawking for desysopping and/or "retribution". Others have phrased it more pleasantly, but the general consensus seems to be that boarding the M/S Hysteria to RfC/U- or ArbCom-land is not even a remotely reasonable way forward. I just translate that into more "zesty" terms. Whoops, looks like I already did.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment WP:GRAPEVINE, an explicit part of the WP:BLP policy, includes an exception to WP:INVOLVED. --joe decker^{talk to me} 22:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:GRAPEVINE did not apply because the material was well sourced and did not violate WP:V. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Admin powers in content dispute — Poll: What would you do in a similar situation in the future?

There is tremendous support for Drmies here. I'm interested in the attitudes of only the administrators here regarding what you would do if you were in a similar situation in the future as Drmies was in at the article. Drmies situation was that he was working on the article, then protected it, and then made an edit after it was protected.[22] Please indicate whether you would or wouldn't do the same thing if you were in a similar situation in the future. Thanks.--Bob K31416 (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• If I were working on an article and became concerned that there was a serious BLP/BDP issue, I wouldn't hesitate to use my administrative tools to address it, and (depending on the seriousness of the issue) I might also edit the article to address the violation after I had protected it. I would then present the situation in a suitable venue for outside input, and abide by the result.

  The community, the Foundation, and ArbCom have all repeatedly endorsed this sort of aggressive and proactive approach to BLP issues. There is no deadline, and no administrative action that can't be undone; if a short period of protection leads to a more thoughtful discussion of the issue in question, then that's a clear win, regardless of who placed the protection. Admins are expected to be responsive and accountable, and Drmies fulfilled that responsibility here. MastCell ^Talk 17:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think in a true case of BLP/BDP, Drmies would have been justified. It is my contention that the information added did not violate BLP/BDP, and if it did was not such an egregious violation to warrant full protection without prior discusson on BLPN etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

How are we to determine a "true case"? By discussion? But a discussion necessarily takes place after the fact. Drmies made the assessment that there was a significant risk of a such a BDP violation, and installed the protection so that a discussion could be thoroughly conducted to determine whether or not to include the material without having the potential BDP violation waving around in articlespace. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

This exact point, in reverse, is the exact problem with this topic. Are we simply to trust that any administrator, at any time, can make a judgement that any edit to an article who's topic is a "living person" (which is a moving target in itself) is "bad" and therefore the article needs to be protected and edits need to be reverted through protection?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The fact that an administrator is, well, an administrator does mean that thereY is a significant level of trust involved. Without the community's affirmation of trust, a user will not gain access to the tools. Thus, an admin may make a bold action in an outstanding case, based on the fact that their very status indicates trust. In such a contentious case, the acceptable follow-up to the protection would be to have the action reviewed in a public place—that we trust administrators to make the right call does not mean that they always will; they are humans like us, after all, and will make some mistakes. Submitting the action for review shows that the administrator recognises the trust given them and their desire to maintain it by keeping open dialogue with the community. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh bull. Administrators are not moderators. Never have been, and the recent attempts by a (not insignificant) subset of them to become moderators is... undesirable. The trust that administrators have is the trust that they will not abuse their tools in order to impose their personal views on Wikipedia. These content issues absolutely should not be resolved through the use of sysadmin tools. If you're an admin and you feel that anything that you're about to do requires review (which is a commendable thing, by the way), then stop and ask first. Nothing that happens here on Wikipedia is important enough that it can't wait the minutes (hours, at most, for important thing) required to bring the subject up for debate.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I see no evidence that the dispute was deemed "resolved" when the protection was put in place, or that Drmies's view was at all "imposed" on the article, other than that it was the WP:STATUSQUO pre-dispute. The full protect was put in place not to keep the material permanently off (i.e., enforce Drmies's view), but to discuss whether or not it was acceptable to include it without having potentially problematic material waving around in the wind on an article where "contentious" and "hot-button" don't even come close to describing it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

MastCell, What do you think of asking for protection instead of doing it yourself? --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• I would certainly be inclined to do the same; I'm probably the least likely person on earth to invoke BLP for anything, and even I saw the really obvious problem there. It wouldn't have hurt to ask, but RfPP gets backed up fairly frequently (and when you try it from the admin side, it's much more understandable) and this seemed like a pretty urgent issue. Bob K31416, I suggest you drop your crusade here because it's clear you're not getting anywhere. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Since the material was supported by reliable sources, what was urgent about it? I'm interested in your opinion on this. Thanks. Heres the deleted material for reference.[23]

"Initially Kypriss stated "He was suspended because he was late too many times." His father originally said the suspension was because he was in an unauthorized area on school property, but he declined to offer more details. Later a family spokesman said that Martin was suspended after traces of marijuana were found in his bookbag. Trayvon Martin had no criminal record."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I changed to the full cites for <ref name='MiamiHerald'/> and <ref name=SCHOOL/> after noticing that someone put up a {{reflist}} in the section "Admin powers reference" where they wouldn't otherwise show up. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• As a general rule, if I believe that an article I'm involved with needs protection I'll generally go about it in one of two ways. The first would be to request another admin the review the situation and if justified protect the article. The other would be to protect the article and then request another admin to review my actions and revert as needed. Having said that, there will be cases where I'm convinced that protection is needed and there should be no question so I'll protect and leave it at that. There is no cookbook that we can create that is going to spell this out for every case. And no, while I have been looking at this discussion occasionally, I have not looked at the article being discussed here or the edits. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Just butting in for a moment: RPP does have a tendency to back up--just look how often Jasper Deng and others drop a note on ANI, and I help to clear up that backlog often enough. But I probably would have gone straight to AN or ANI with my request (it's much faster) if I felt that this was not a matter of some urgency. And if I had protected five seconds earlier I wouldn't have committed by second mortal sin, reverting the re-addition of that information (and let it be clear that there was no talk page consensus for adding it either!)--but that's beside the point. Yes, there are other venues, but sometimes they are slow. Drmies (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Drmies did fine. He probably made an editorial misjudgment in removing the info, but the error was on the side of caution, which is precisely what one is supposed to do in this situation. It's easy to make mistakes in the heat of the moment, so "remove first, discuss afterwards" is fine per NOTNEWS. The edit-through-protection is not a big deal as long as it can be sorted out afterwards, which it was. Trouts to those going overboard calling for escalation. A more strictly neutral approach could be to blank the whole article (that is guaranteed to not be anyone's preferred version) and ask uninvolved editors to decide what to restore. That might be preferable in a more intense dispute with heavier involvement, but would probably have been overboard for this. 69.111.193.46 (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Ya, he made a major editorial misjudgment. An Admin should never put themselves in a position like this one. Even if the article should have been protected, it should not have been him. Then doing the unthinkable by actually editing the article after the full protection was in place, to the version that he was currently advocating for on the talk page. End of argument as far as he was concerned. --JOJ ^Hutton 13:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Unthinkable? Hardly. Reversion to the pre-edit war (or "most stable") version is the norm. See e.g. last year at Holodomor in which a full protect was called in to defuse a heated edit war, and the protecting admin reverted to the pre-disputed content version. In this case being discussed here, the version that Drmies reinstated was the "most stable" version. It also happened to be his preferred version, but he was only following the norm of reverting the disputed content until consensus could be established for its reinstatement. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Lothar, Here's the first revert of Drmies.[24] It appears that he reverted to an unstable version which started an edit war. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"Most stable" only means "lacking recently-added contentious material"; in the Holodomor case above, the "most stable" version was very contentious—the article was full-protected to that version nevertheless because clear consensus had not been established for inclusion of the new material. At any rate, this discussion here is pretty much a WP:DEADHORSE that should be lain to rest. The full-protect has been gone from the article for days now. I do not see any lasting harm done that would warrant further ruckus-raising here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Uhhhh Lothar ...... the source of the contention was Drmies. That section that he edit warred in was evolving in a productive way before he came on the scene and made multiple reverts of the same reliably sourced material. This reminds me of a scene in Casablanca. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

And—if you'll excuse the brusqueness—so what? Contention is contention, and just because something is spat out by a news agency does not make it sacred and unremovable. The full-protect was put in place, discussion happened, the full-protect was removed, material was added back consensually. Nobody got a mark-o-shame on their block log or anything. Drmies put the action up for review. And given the shitstorm here, I don't think that this is a situation likely to repeat itself. Abuse of tools implies actions that are demonstrably malicious and bad-faith—nothing anyone has said here has convinced me that that was the case here. And nothing convinces me that this is a matter still worth beating to death here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The accuracy of the reliably sourced material was not contentious. Drmies removed the material about Martin's school suspensions because he thought it wasn't relevant,[25] while leaving in pro-Martin material about his school record, such as "His English teacher, Michelle Kypriss, reported him as being "an A and B student who majored in cheerfulness." " --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

kk. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Request lift of full protection

Protection changed to semiprotected by MBisanz, 1RR restriction put in place. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Trayvon's family has confirmed that he was suspended for having traces of cannabis in his possession [26]. Drmies declined to unlock the article when I brought this up to him, suggesting I come here instead. So, here I am. The issue that caused him to lock the article is no longer an issue, so someone please downgrade it to semi-protected. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Cla68 is correct that I referred them to this forum: this is not just up to me, considering the dramahz. I still feel that there is no reason to include the information: I did not remove it (just) because I doubted the veracity, but because it is undue and excessive and all those things. That the family confirmed the story, well, they had little choice, did they. The problem is, in my opinion, the suggestion that this had something to do with that. Anyway, I've already abused my sacred powers and all that, so I can't in good conscience revert, because then I'd be a pussy on top of an abuser. I welcome any admin to undo the protection, either by reducing its length or its status--but that should be an admin who has managed to read the discussions on the talk page (I just did) and has decided that there is a kind of editorial consensus which will ensure some modicum of stability. Whatever the 24/7 news cycle reported the last three seconds, whatever the family was forced to acknowledge, that really shouldn't be the only decisive factor. Anyway, I am going to leave this to you all, but I take some courage from the fact that some admins I really respect have weighed in here and have not overruled me. You know who you are; thank you. Good luck with it. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Undue, however, is not a reason for full protection of an article, but for a talk page discussion. Undue is not a BLP violation. SilverserenC 04:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Without reference to this particular case, undue can be a BLP violation, per "must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy". FormerIP (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Then undue my protection. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Re "this is not just up to me" — Since it hasn't been unprotected, apparently it is. Re "I've already abused my sacred powers and all that, so I can't in good conscience revert, because then I'd be a pussy on top of an abuser." — Does anyone still think this person deserves admin powers? Why don't you folks start by reverting the edit Drmies made for his own interest after full protection? --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Re: "Does anyone still think this person deserves admin powers?" Please slow yourself down and read the the thread, champ. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Re: "Does anyone still think this person deserves admin powers?". Yes. Yes, I do. Reyk YO! 06:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Fairly straightforward case from one side of "Waaaah! He protected a version I don't like! Everyone agreeing with him isn't fit to be an admin!" in my opinion... —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC) There is no emergency. How would an edit war help? Just wait for the discussion above to reach some outcome. Johnuniq (talk) 06:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Why assume there would be a fresh edit war? The article has generated several hundred edits, mostly productively. In the current episode, Drmeis was the only one to remove or add content more than once. There is discussion of this issue on both the talk page and BLPN, and I doubt any of the participants are eager to start a fight. There is no emergency, so why cut out all editing and stop the article from being improved? Dragons flight (talk) 06:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC) I don't think there would be an edit war, because currently the consensus at the BLPN discussion on this is that the information is ok for the article. Cla68 (talk) 07:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC) As I've had to point out to others recently, Noticeboards do not make decisions, they only offer advice. I'm not weighing in on this debate, but you can't say "BLPN says it's okay" as if it carried authority. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC) There would be an edit war if some editors repeatedly tried to add the material and others deleted it. There's no clear consensus either way on whether it should be there. Deleting it while under protection is an expansive interpretation of BLP, but for heavens sake people, please don't agitate for desysopping admins every time you disagree with an action. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC) There are two sides to this issue. On one hand the material at the time would seemingly insinuate the family was covering up a criminal past that somehow would have made it a "good shoot" and thus be defamatory and offensive. On the other hand, it has clearly emerged as a major narrative in the story. Drmies made some comments that were a bit too spirited on the other side, but this would seem to be a case where there is an obvious BLP violation and there needs to be discussion about how to handle it before proceeding. I think Drmies should approach these things in a calmer manner, but beyond that I see no ill action. Honestly, I would be opposed to reinserting that material without some balance added. A recent statement I saw on the news showed the mother accusing the police of trying to slander her son's reputation with these revelations, so that's a starting point for approaching it in a more balanced manner.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC) There's a simple way around this. I'm going to reduce it to semi-protection in a couple hours at 18:00UTC AND apply 1RR to it, blocking anyone who reverts more than once until such time as the full protection would have expired. That should end any edit wars very very quickly. MBisanz talk 17:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC) The fact is, the full protection that was added - much as I tend to viscerally not like full protection ever - resulted in the editors coming together on talk and actually talking, and reaching a reasonable conclusion. Exactly what full protection is supposed to do. Now we're back to semi - that's fine. But I would strongly urge the semi to be of considerably longer duration as it had been prior to this kerfuffle - this article is a high profile POV magnet and the semi-protection allowed us to edit with some kind of sanity. Also, could a note be added to the Talk page to let editors know about the 1RR? It's on the edit screen, but I think it's a pretty big restriction that it's only fair to let people know before they go to edit and many editors don't read AN. Thanks Tvoz/talk 19:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)  Done MBisanz talk 19:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Thank you MBisanz, and all other contributors. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Anything else?

At this point, the page protection has been changed to semiprotect, a 1RR is in place, and there's no consensus for censuring Drmies (beyond perhaps a WP:TROUTing for protecting & reverting it himself instead of asking another admin to step in). Is there anything else to be done here? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

What? My reading of the above is that Drmies receives a commendation. Yes, those who believe Wikipedia must immediately record every detail of a recent event think a trout is warranted, but many others have supported the admin action. Nothing further is needed, other than to thank Drmies. Johnuniq (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It was a good lock, but his apparently involved status threw a wrench into things, as this report demonstrates. Appearance of impropriety and all that. Trouting isn't exactly a punishment. :) — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:01, 28 March 2012 (

• I agree with Drimies on the substantive issue. But I strongly protest his/her use of admin powers, when involved, and find that it brings the admin corp into disrepute, as do the other admins who would condone such abuse. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Concur with Alanscottwalker. Drmies due to his strong opinions on the Martin case should not have made that call, and bringing it to AN after his actions had been strongly questioned does him little credit. His thanking, individually on their talk pages and collectively here, of those who have supported him, is unseemly.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Bullshit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• To expound upon this matter in a slightly less scatological way, administrators are called upon to exclude clear BLP violations from Wikipedia, using every tool at their disposal. That articles go live immediately make problems of this nature quite pressing. When seconds count, administrators who make good faith and reasonable efforts in this respect, then present the issue for review at this noticeboard, are to be commended, even if they are ultimately found to have erred on the side of caution. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 07:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• No. They are called upon to act as administrators, when they are uninvolved. Not otherwise. Administrators who make mistakes are not commended for their mistakes, generally, or specifically when involved. It's not an error on the side of caution, it is an error on the side they are involved in, and thus dis-caution. If a user cannot find an uninvolved administrator, it is not pressing (or the admin corp has failed in general but that does not make the involved administrator error not error). Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

There was no urgency. It was POV pushing by Drmies. See discussion in above section. (E.g. Bob K31416 02:21, 31 March 2012 ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Nonetheless, your immediate call for de-adminship appears over-reaction, and although such is not an excuse for the over-reaction of other admins, it does provide context. Condemnation not sanction, is in order. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh no. That's not the case at all. I didn't immediately call for de-adminship. I originally didn't suggest any action against Drmies or anyone else. I was trusting that the admins here would see Drmies' inappropriate behavior as an involved admin in the article and correct it. It was only after most of this long discussion occurred, that I briefly mentioned that Drmies shouldn't have administrator tools because he didn't appear trustworthy.

Alan, I can see that you're trying to get a consensus for some kind of statement against Drmies' actions, but I don't think you should do that by trying to blame me for the bad comments of some of the editors and admins here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. When it comes to action, of all the admins who participated in the discussion here, there was only one that proposed a useful solution and used his admin powers to get the article back on track, and that was MBisanz. Many of the others were concerned with protecting Drmies.--Bob K31416 (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Administrators are given specific license under Wikipedia policy to protect articles that they have edited, etc when "clear BLP issues" are in play. WP:GRAPEVINE, part of the WP:BLP policy, is clear that it includes an exception to WP:INVOLVED. This is an important policy point and one that should be reemphasized as a result of this discussion, since apparently (from this discussion) it's both little-known and contentious. In any case, it's policy. --joe decker^{talk to me} 22:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:GRAPEVINE did not apply because the material was well sourced and did not violate WP:V. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough rationale. --joe decker^{talk to me} 04:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Expewikiwriter

I'm a little worried that the user's contributions are a little advertisingish at times. [27]

Consider Joseph Lani, David_Jerome_(author,_adventurer), Stone_Bridge_Homes_NW, and others, possibly. 86.** IP (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hi. What's up?Expewikiwriter (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Stonebridge Homes is pure puff/advert. Non-notable awards as a show of notability? 6th place in a non-notable "competition" is somehow notable? The President is non-notable by any means. I'd swear the person is being paid to write adverts on Wikipedia (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• I see your point. I'm familiar with the company through a friend's son, who is employed there. My friend knows I've written Wikipedia articles (a passion of mine, for no pay - I'm a retired school teacher) and asked me to consider writing one for this company. I probably tried a little too hard to make it fit Wikipedia's standard for notability. I will take this as a reminder to be more vigilant in the future. For that, I thank you. Expewikiwriter (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Please help me to understand the problem with David_Jerome_(author,_adventurer); does the article not make clear his notability? Thanks.Expewikiwriter (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a little hard to separate out te threads in it, as it's covering two sides of the person, but a lot of it's sourced to his website, and it's not clear how notable some of the mentions are. Maybe I just don't understand what counts as notable for a humour writer, as notability is relative. Can someone else look? 86.** IP (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, 86. In the meantime, do you really think the article warrants a proposed deletion tag? Expewikiwriter (talk) 16:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Think you're right on that one. Could do with discussion first. However, note that just because you worked on an article doesn't mean you can't remove a tag, so, you know, do feel free. Also note that, if something is mistakenly deleted that way, the decision may be reversed simply by contesting the deletion. The procedure is meant as a sort of testing of the waters, to see if anyone has other views. 86.** IP (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was willing to give Expewikiwriter the benefit of the doubt until this happened. Not sure if this is trolling or socking or meatpuppeting, but it's weird. I'd be curious to hear an explanation for that edit. Valfontis (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Expewikiwriter also uploaded a logo that goes with this other user's draft. An SPI might be in order. Valfontis (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Expewikiwriter. The choice of username is lighting up my spam radar in a big way. MER-C 02:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

How unfortunate. 86.** IP (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Expewikiwriter - Looks like it's been confirmed. How incredibly unfortunate. 86.** IP (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked and tagged the socks but not the main account. I've got a list of over 40 articles that appear to have been created for promotion. What a mess. Regarding: "I'm familiar with the company through a friend's son, who is employed there. My friend knows I've written Wikipedia articles (a passion of mine, for no pay - I'm a retired school teacher)" it seems to me like a strange selection of articles for a retired teacher to write. I wonder how they got permission to use the photos. Valfontis (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the main account. I have little doubt that this is a professional spammer, but in any case it is a user who has gone to some efforts to be deceptive, and has abused several accounts. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The blocked socks are now asking for help, one, right after, another. Can someone more patient than me explain things to "them"(?)? Valfontis (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think they understand perfectly well, and are just playing their game beyond to the end. it's not even worth blocking talk p. access, though I wouldn't oppose it. All we need do is watch for whatever new socks there will be. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree, it's all about the future socks. It's interesting that the socks are claiming to be students and the puppetmaster is a former schoolteacher. Hm. tedder (talk) 00:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, a NY-based IP has protested the deletion of 2tor, Inc. created by Expewikiwriter. It was nice of "them" to reveal their location. Valfontis (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Certainly it's not possible for you to know the intent of any author. TheExpewikiwriter account has been deemed in violation of one or more Wikipedia policies and has been cancelled as punishment. But the articles written by the account holders (several authors contributed Wikipedia articles through this one account) should be judged on their own merits (is the article spam? is the article objectively written? is the article sufficiently supported by legitimate secondary sources?). It appears that a few expewikiwriter articles have been indiscriminately deleted or tagged for the purpose of rendering punishment on the account holder(s). Consider the following:

• Harold J. Morowitz - The subject is a leading, and internationally known, scientist. The author of this article is a published researcher and professional associate of a colleague of Dr. Morowitz. Judge for yourselves, but it would appear that the article meets all standards for a Wikipedia article on a living person, and should not be tagged.
• 2tor, Inc. - Covered extensively in the national press, this company is one of the most important players in online education. No less than 4 experienced Wikipedia authors collaborated on this article. Because it had been posted and removed once before (please see the record), all due care was taken to make sure that this article would meet Wikipedia standards. In particular, care was taken to write it OBJECTIVELY and NEUTRALLY, and to support EVERY fact and detail with a legitimate reference source. Review and decide whether this article should have been summarily removed - and consider re-establishing it in Wikipedia.
• Joseph Lani - After hearing Lani on national late night talk radio for the third or fourth time (he is a familiar radio guest to late night talk radio fans), the author of this article decided that Lani deserved a presence on Wikipedia. The author did research, found articles, and wrote the article.Whatsongisit4578 (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

...You know, it's fairly obvious you're the same user. You aren't allowed to violate your block by creating a new account. 86.** IP (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Role accounts aren't allowed of course. Also please read WP:BOOMERANG, you just keep digging yourself in deeper, "Expewikiwriter". Valfontis (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I've asked for another sockpuppet check. Probably obvious, but keep getting new ones, so... Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Expewikiwriter 86.** IP (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Anarchangel

Anarchangel (talk · contribs)

I'm a bit uncomfortable with this user's admission here: [28], specifically,

So I will break with my tradition of taking articles off-site without mention. It is transcribed to http://hippie.wikia.com/wiki/Mundane_astrology and should be reintroduced at a later time.

That's problematic, because Creative Commons requires the authors to be credited. If Anarchangel is taking articles offsite, claiming them as his or her own, then putting them back on Wikipedia later, without crediting the original authors, that's basically a massive copyfraud, and it needs dealt with. 86.** IP (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You need to complain to the relevant people at Wikia, then, who can actually deal with it. 87.114.248.222 (talk) 08:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, he's apparently bringing them back here, after some time, but without the names of the people who made the original, it's copyvio. 86.** IP (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

In which case, any articles which he brings back should be examined by an admin to see if the article is a copyvio - if such is the case, the user should likely be barred from such acts. Collect (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

What part of the {{WPN}} template did you fail to understand?

“ This article contains content from Wikipedia. An article on this subject has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mundane astrology. Current versions of the GNU FDL article on WP may contain information useful to the improvement of this article. ”

If someone else wishes to reintroduce material that was previously on Wikipedia, on my recommendation, then that is their business. I certainly never have personally, and I have no plans to do so in the foreseeable future. However, if there is a policy that restricts that, then I should like to know right now, because it would be wrong and I should like to have my say about it. Anarchangel (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not just policy, it's a legal issue. If the article is deleted on Wikipedia, the history of edits is gone. By pating that work back into Wikipedia, you are re-introducing that material without the required attribution for all those edits. Thus, it violates the license. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I see the rationale. However, this is also the same as reintroducing an article from Userpace, or reintroducing an article that was previously deleted. In both those cases, the edit history is available to administrators, yes? So since the edit history is still available, there is no licence violation, no? Anarchangel (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that the "What part of WPN" questions leads me to a serious concern that there may be a deep misunderstanding here. :/ "Wikipedia" does not own the copyright to that content; the individual contributors who contribute the material do. It is *they* who must be attributed. Providing a link to the article (not the AFD), so long as it is still alive, is regarded as sufficient attribution. If it is not still alive, you need a full list of authors. This is the reason why the content cannot be reintroduced to Wikipedia; without the history of the article, which includes the full list of authors, or a complete list using that content is a violation of the license granted by the contributors and hence of their copyright. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

See my query, above. The edit history exists, somewhere, surely? Anarchangel (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, thank you for noting the distinction. If the answer is no, the edit history does not exist, then I will take care to note the names of the individual contributors, probably on the destination talk page. Anarchangel (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The edit history existing somewhere, only for administrators, doesn't help I'm afraid. :) Attribution must be accessible to comply with the license. When material is introduced form userspace, there's no licensing issue as long as the user who is introducing is the author - you retain rights over your own material and don't have to attribute it. Articles should not be reintroduced after prior deletion; their history is supposed to be restored at the same time. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, if you've copied content from articles that have now been deleted, I'd be happy to help you get a list of authors that can be put on the talk pages of the Wikia page. That would satisfy attribution requirements just as well as the link. I'm afraid I'd just need a list and - if the list is long- time. :)

--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Of the 44 articles, all attributed as containing Wikipedia content, most have been redirected at AfD or kept, and thus have an edit history which not only exists, but is easily accessible. Some are originals. And then there are this seven, which were actually deleted after AfD. I gladly take you up on your kind offer of contributor lists. If you would prefer, just go ahead and ctrl-c; I'll do the parsing:

• Puget Trough prairie butterfly (moved to -flies, it says on the AfD), Nude & Breast Freedom Parade, Energy Art, High fibre composting, Northern California Solar Regatta, Virginia Good. Anarchangel (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• At your talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait a second, are you saying that it's illegal to copy content from Wikipedia?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

No, not at all. It is not only legal, but encouraged. :) However, the content has licensing requirements that must be met. wmf:Terms of Use explains these requirements; where possible, a hyperlink or URL to the article or a stable version of the article, with history, is sufficient attribution. Where this is not available, a list of all authors will do it. It may be illegal to copy content without meeting the terms of the license, considering all factors. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess that this is about deleted content though (...right?), so... if content has been deleted from here, then how can there still be licensing issues at all?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Copyright doesn't disappear when content goes out of publication; if it did, there'd be a whole lot more material we could reproduce. : ) Under the US laws that govern Wikipedia, the term of copyright is 70 years after the death of the author or, where the author is unknown (as will often be the case with Wikipedia content), 95 years after publication/120 years after creation (on Wikipedia, it would be the 95, since this constitutes publication). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, agreed, but if the content has been deleted from here then how does anyone know who the author(s) was(were)? Does the WMF hold the copyright on the content of deleted articles, since it's not possible to determine who the contributors were? I somehow doubt that we're talking about content that is "out of publication" (how would that even be determined?), if it's been "destroyed".
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Deleted content never actually goes away - it and its history are still visible to admins, and if it is ever to be used again its whole history can be restored. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but how does that address the original issue here? As User:Moonriddengirl said above: "The edit history existing somewhere, only for administrators, doesn't help I'm afraid."
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have much idea where you're going with this. :) So I'll just try to explain the way this works. John creates an article on Wikipedia. He doesn't give it to the WMF or even to Wikipedia; he owns the copyright. He licenses it liberally for modification and reuse, provided the terms of the licenses are met. The licenses require, among other things, that John receive attribution. Anyone - whether another Wikipedia contributor or a book publisher or a website owner - is free to reuse John's content, so long as they honor the license agreement. If they do not honor the license agreement, they may be infringing John's copyright (a matter for a court to determine, based on weighing a number of factors). The fact that some contributor or contributors on Wikipedia delete the article in which John originally placed the content doesn't change anything; there's nothing in our Terms of Use terminating licensing requirements upon article deletion. (WMF does not hold copyright on the content of deleted articles; the original contributors do...and always will, until copyright expires under the terms of US law.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Except that there is no copyright on Wikipedia. When we release anything we've created on Wikipedia, it's released as Creative Commons which isn't copyright, we're allowing free use of the material , it says so at the bottom of the page,

so copyright doesn't even figure into this discussion.

Creative Commons , simply put means :
We are free to:

to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work, and to Remix—to adapt the work Under the following conditions: Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.) Share Alike—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license.

Further, we can't copyright our own work here, nor can we waive Creative Commons or revoke it. There's no copyright on Wikipedia, just creative commons, so the usual "life of the author...." doesn't apply. Just my two cents. @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 19:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is, because American copyright law holds that copyright automatically exists when copyrightable material is created or published. Here that material has specifically not been released into the public domain, but has been licensed for use under the terms listed above, which does not change the status of the copyright -- which is, precisely, the right to determine how your material will be used. You can't license something if you don't own it, and each contributor owns the copyright on whatever they've created on Wikipedia, but has agreed to the licensing scheme by uploading it. The licensing terms exist only because the copyright exists, you can't have the one without the other. Once the copyright has run out, there's no longer anything to license, and the material falls into the public domain. (That will be interesting, 70 - 95 years from now, trying to unravel which words and punctuation date from when to determine which is p.d. and which is still copyrighted and licensed under CC.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Reusing Wikipedia content

The relevant policy is WP:Reusing Wikipedia content. Reusing content at Wikia is particularly easy, as it has compatible CC-BY-SA licensing (for most of its wikis) and compatible MediaWiki software. Full page histories can be transferred using Special:Export/Special:Import. Histories of deleted articles can be requested at WP:Requests for undeletion. Flatscan (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Mindless creation of "suspected sockpuppet" categories from years old, with resulting problems

User:Rich Farmbrough has created hundreds of categories yesterday, despite having Wikipedia:Editing restrictions: "Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from mass creating pages in any namespace, unless prior community approval for the specific mass creation task is documented."

The problem is that this is done in a mindless, bot-like fashion, ignoring all potential problems this may cause. Among the creations are many categories from the "Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of ..." group, from years ago, linking e.g. an IP address to an editor for some edits done years ago (e.g. Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Grimkn1ght), even though that IP is probably no longer linked to the same person, making the catgeory essntially useless. Other cats like Category:User rue-0 and Category:Wikipedians who like The Wedding Date are already up for deletion. Many more "Category:Wikipedians who like ..." have been created, from the categories only used by User:Lady Aleena/Media franchises. Considering the number of redlinks still remaining there, stopping these creations now may be useful.

A clear example of the problem with these creations is e.g. Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ghirlandajo, based on a tag from 2007, and where the discussion at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ghirlandajo concluded that there wasn't enough evidence at all to link the two. However, thanks to this creation now, five years after the fact, this has been "officialized" and the editor smeared for no good reason at all.

The editing restriction was installed because of earlier instances of mass creations, including category creations, with poor or clearly unwanted results. Apparently Rich Farmbrough won't head the restriction without some firmer action though. The categories need to be chekced and deleted if needed, and the creator encouraged by some means to stop this. Fram (talk) 07:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Note that after this report, Rich Farmbrough has deleted some problems I noted, and hidden some others (the "Lady Aleena" redlinks). Any indication that he will change his approach and/or look for remaining problems himself instead of relying on others to check all his edits is so far missing. Fram (talk) 10:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Again? How many times is Rich going to violate these restrictions? This is going to turn into a Betacommand case again unless something is done soon. Personally I suggest a short sharp block to remind of the restrictions, and maybe if it continues in the long-term a desysopping. I don't want it to come to this, but you can't always ignore all rules, like Rich Farmbrough is. Rcsprinter (tell me stuff) 14:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of "IAR", he has just (again) edited a fully protected template to add a rule that adds some pages using the template to a certain category created by Rich Farmbrough in 2010. Sadly, that category has just been deleted one week ago after Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 15#Category:Empty categories. So not only is he ignoring the rotection, he is also ignoring the community consensus at CfD after only a week. And it seems furthermore that his edit isn't having the intended effect, since it is listing on-empty categories into the "cat:Empty categories", e.g. Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of "The Template Vandal" had one subcategory, 33 entries and the "empty categories" cat at the time of writing... Fram (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This is especially concerning given that I had to threaten to block both him and his bot (and did block the bot) just a few days ago in order to get him to stop another series of violations of his other editing restriction. I recommend he be blocked for at least a month, as he's been blocked for 1 week and 2 weeks previously for violation of these same restrictions. However, I also have serious concerns that an administrator is unwilling to work with community-placed restrictions; that sort of conduct seems incompatible with the trust needed to hold the tools. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 17:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result. Therefore, let's not do what happens every time RF is brought here. Instead, let's do one or more of the following:

1. Archive this thread immediately, as nothing is ever actually done about RF, so why waste the time?
2. Block RF now, for at least a month or two.
3. Take RF to ArbCom and have him desysopped

→ ROUX ₪ 19:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I say 3 should be done immediately. He is clearly misusing the tools at this point. Silverseren^C 21:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Support 2 and 3. Rcsprinter (deliver) 21:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: Rich's positive contributions far outweigh these occasional "trips off the reservation." – Lionel ^(talk) 08:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. How to oppose this argument? It like a mirrored WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Let me try:

A: the edits. Say, RF operates a bot that, in multiple tasks, does 10,000 edits with "only 0.5%" errors. That is 50 erroneous edits. Now (apart from how to find those 50 edits and how to repair, in a stack of 10,000 edits!), who of us could do 50 such edits manually without going free? Already after ten such edits I'd be caught and send home. Now RF can do so because "these other edits are so useful"?. Please.

B: the behaviour: If RF knows so well how to do a good edit, and by bot at that, why does RF still does not know to differentiate between these ever-discussed edits and those presumed good ones? Has any editor who says "mostly great", like User:Lionel does, ever had a discussion with RF?

My background in this: I am no admin, nor bot-oriented. I have met RF many months ago (in this same subject), but met RF here through another route (template bot request). I am one of those people that the blocking editor Elen of the Roads describes, below, as been pissed off by RF.

Final note: I get a smell that RF is being protected from above. -DePiep (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have blocked Rich. Like Hersfold I have previously threatened to block him for editing outside of restrictions, making volume mistakes and pissing people off. During the Betacommand case we had discussions about the necessity for UAT (testing the final outcome is acceptable to end users for those unfamiliar with the term). Since this UAT f*** up has affected real editors badly, I felt I finally had to block him to get through to him (I tried cussing last time. Didn't work). If someone opens an RfAR, he can be unblocked to contribute. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC) (NB It's not an Arbcom block, it's just a plain old admin block, so if for some reason the rest of the community decides I'm wrong in the next eight hours while I'm in the land of Nod, please just undo the block Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC))

• Good block. Rich is not a bad guy but he seems absolutely incapable of respecting consensus when it comes to his own actions. I would encourage him to take the high road at this point, meaning: hand in his admin bits and voluntarily recuse himself from using AWB or any other automated tool for content creation. Or he can take the low road and wait for arbcom to do it after a lot of bad noise that doesn't improve the project. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Sad truth. See him in a month then. Rcsprinter (orate) 19:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Coordinated voting by Fringe Theories/Noticeboard participants in AfD and other debates

When one is deliberately attempting to mask one's multiple sockpuppets, it is a bad idea to start a discussion in a high-visibility noticeboard.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is a case of informal coordinated voting (a distant cousin of meat puppetry) going on at the AfD on the Mundane astrology article. FT/N appears to have a history of trying to control pseudo-scientific material, like astrology, on Wikipedia. The FT/N discussion about this AfD began on 21:42, 25 March 2012 by an IP that is likely user Saedon. The discussion at FT/N involved a number of other editors active on this board, including AndyTheGrump, Dominus Vobisdu, 86.** IP and IRWolfie-, all of which voted in the AfD debate. Another FT/N participant The Hand That Feeds You suddenly appeared, having taken no part in the Mundane astrology discussion at FT/N, with the AfD nomination at 21:42, 26 March 2012. Following that, yet another FT/N participant Salimfadhley appeared out of the blue to vote. One of these editors claims that as he/she voted against the proposal, it is evidence that no coordination is taking place. That claim doesn't fit with the evidence. Just examine the following exchange at FT/N concerning the Mundane astrology article: Frankly, it looks to me to be nothing but a POV-fork of our existing Astrology article, with all of the criticism taken out: It should probably go for AfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC) Just what I was thinking. Would support delete if proposed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC) I considered an AFD as well but thought that maybe there actually was a difference between mundane and regular astrology. Going over it now I agree with ATG and would support as well. Saedon (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC) These voting practices, even if they involve open debate at FT/N, are intransparent to other users, as they are not announced in the debates. The prior discussion also stacks the voting in favour of the FT/N viewpoints. The result is that decisions are not based on the merit of discussions but numerical superiority of those favoring clamping down on ideas at the margins of science, like astrology. Often the knowledge of the subject matter is limited and the attitude "the less, the better" is displayed, no matter the possible encyclopedic value to readers. Finally, these practices appear to have a [contentious] history. Some discussion about these biases has taken place at [FT/N]. However, as these practices are in violation of Wikipedia rules, they should be ended or managed to avoid biases. Romulanius (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC) This was Romulanius's 5th edit ever. Cardamon (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC) I'll comment further on this later, but for now, can you provide a source for your assertion that astrology is "at the margins of science"? From all evidence available, it is at the margins only in the sense that Mozambique is 'at the margins' of the Arctic circle ;-) Talk about fringe theories... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC) Right - let's start by looking at the thread at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Mundane_astrology. What Romulanius has conveniently chosen to omit was the next post in the thread - mine: I suppose one could argue that it is a subtopic: 'Western' astrology as applied to natural events, politics etc - but any policy-reflecting subtopic would have to follow Wikipedia policy on pseudoscience, and not present it as factual. If there are sources which can demonstrate that this is a genuine subtopic within astrology, we might do better to stubify the article, removing any claims to effectiveness, and other unsourced material (e.g. the 'Planets and areas of life' section, which lacks any inline sourcing), and balancing it by adding the appropriate material on pseudoscience. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[29] (and of course the discussion continues...) Does this look like "informal coordinated voting"? Nope. It is a discussion related directly to FTN matters - a policy-violating article that needs dealing with, whether by editing, merging, or deletion. As it happens, at the subsequent AfD, I !voted for a merge with the main astrology article - but only after looking further into the question as to the extent to which it could be justified as a topic. As can be seen, I was doing exactly what Wikipedia editors are supposed to do - which is to look at the issue of notability not on the basis of my own opinions, but on the basis of sources (or in this case, the basis of the lack of them). AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC) You know, quite a number of Wikiprojects use a tool to bring AfDs in their field to their attention; I fail to see how mentioning a discussion on a noticeboard devoted to the policy would be any different, indeed, it's arguably rather less likely to result in coordinated voting. 86.** IP (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC) Just a thought, Romulanius: Don't blame Wikipedia's systemic flaw of promoting the bias of the majority, on the biased majority? Anarchangel (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC) This entire complaint is much ado about nothing. These are the same conversations that take place on every other notice board. Sometimes, that means an article being discussed does not appear to meet Wikipedias guidelines. Other times, it just means the article needs work, or the board editors feel there is no problem Doesn't matter if it's the Reliabke Sources board, Notability board, Fringe board, or Original Resource board. This is not vote coordination, in any form. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC) And then there is the question of whether say Wikipedia:WikiProject Astrology could ever be used for 'coordination'. Actually, it isn't a question at all - what does it say at the top of the page: "This is a WikiProject, an area for focused collaboration among Wikipedians". AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC) I'd argue that the OP is essentially saying that any post to a noticeboard or project page about a specific article is coordination that's bad. A view that, to me, is patently foolish. Ravensfire (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC) Except for Anarchangel, the replies so far are from editors participating in FT/N discussions. They see little problem with the issue at the basis of the complaint: advertising among like minded editors and vote stacking the debates. No surprise there. What is needed is feedback from administrators who are not themselves involved in such practices and can give an objective appraisal. Romulanius (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC) Are you asking for a response from administrators that don't respond to posts on noticeboards? ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC) A few administrators who aren't part of a noticeboard gang would do the trick. ;-) Romulanius (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC) Would that include the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard gang? ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC) No, of course not. There is a difference. FT/N participants have a particular bias in their views when it comes to topics like astrology. By advertising and heading en masse to debates on things like astrology, due to their numerical strength they tend to overwhelm unsuspecting editors with different views. Off-site coordination is frowned up on. Intransparent on-site coordination is no better in such cases. Just read the complaint, again! ;-) Romulanius (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC) Umm....ALL of Wikipedia could be said to have a "particular bias in their views when it comes to topics like astrology". See: WP:PSCI, WP:FRINGE and WP:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Are you sure you in the right place? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC) FT/N is the official noticeboard for discussions of WP:FRINGE policy. Could the OP kindly tell me what purpose a noticeboard should serve (in his opinion) if it cannot be used to notify other interested editors of the existence of suspected policy-violations? --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC) This noticeboard could be considered biased by the OP's logic: certainly they're trying to marginalize a particular set of opinions here. It is clearly desirable to attract informed comments at AfD, rather than no comments or poorly-informed comments. Should I not comment at deletion discussions on architectural topics because I see an AfD for a notable building at WP:ARCH, because that's just biased? Acroterion (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC) By the same logic we should ban all special-interest noticeboards. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC) Salimfadhley, FT/N seems to be a special case. Acroterion, if there was a noticeboard on "tasteful" architecture and the refined participants there were to go in numbers to stamp out articles dealing with "horrid" architecture, would you be fine with that?Romulanius (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC) Romulanius, just out of curiosity, since you appear to know far more about the inner workings of Wikipedia than the 15 edits in your contribution history would seem to indicate would be likely, it seems reasonable to ask whether you have previously edited Wikipedia under another name? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC) This is about group behavior and not individual editors. Romulanius (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC) No it isn't. You have made specific accusations against particular editors, including me. Now, are you going to answer the question? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC) Question What administrator action is being requested here? FT/N is a board like many others and what happens there is what happens at many others, including boards WP:NPOVN. Participating in these boards is not a blockable offense. There's really not much here an admin can do, as they don't have the power to unilaterally change the way a board works, and no one afaik has broken any policies. SÆdontalk 01:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC) I don't want to be conspiratorial about this, but this was Romulanius' fifth edit, apparently. Meanwhile, looking at Talk:Mundane astrology, and editor named EagleEye (talk · contribs) has recently been blocked, who made similar sorts of rants and points ([30]). Are they the same? 86.** IP (talk) 04:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC) We are having an open discussion about procedure in AfD debates on the basis of good faith. I am an editor acting in good faith. My participation here is predicated on all of us acting in good faith. Romulanius (talk) 09:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC) Would you care to answer the question, yes or no? 86.** IP (talk) 09:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC) @Romulanius: Don't take WP:AGF as a commitment to throwing out our common sense. You opened a complaint here, so your own behavior is subject to investigation. Please answer the questions that have been asked here: have you edited under another ID, and in particular, did you edit as EagleEye? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC) The complaint makes no sense, those mentioned didn't even vote the same way. Also, WP:FTN is where you Discuss a possible fringe theory, and instances where undue weight is being given to fringe theories can be posted to the board. The article was originally filled with undue material. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC) WP:BOOMERANG anyone? Romulanius (talk · contribs) and Modelte (talk · contribs) are  Confirmed socks of Plankto (talk · contribs). Socks blocked. Technically comparing them with EagleEye is  Inconclusive. WilliamH (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC) ...And we didn't need to resort to astrology (mundane or otherwise) to see that coming ;-) Could some kind uninvolved person please mark this discussion/farce as closed? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC) While there is potential for project boards to be used for canvassing, this instance seems to be much ado about nothing, and now the OP is acting a little dodgy, going to AN in their first dozen edits... and spouting AGF. Let's close this and move on. Shadowjams (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

RPP backlog

There is a massive backlog at WP:RPP.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Done Secretlondon (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Seeking second opinion Special:LinkSearch/*.grupo-rbd.com

To me it looks like there has been a significant change to the links for grupo-rbd.com in that they now all head off to a single page at facebook, and now seem at odds with our Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:External links processes. Happy for someone to bash away and see what they can resolve here. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

CfD backlog

WP:CfD has a bit of a backlog dating back to March 2. Closure or at least input would be appreciated. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Changing username

To whom it may concern;

I recently started editing Wikipedia using my real name as my username. I have since become uncomfortable with this. If possible, I would like to have this username permanently deleted and replaced with the alias "incorrect horse battery stapler". Thank you.

Gabe Radovsky (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:CHU is the place to go and maybe you could pick something a little more user-friendly for others? Just a friendly suggestion. ([31] for anyone who isn't a fan btw)--Jac16888 ^Talk 20:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Dantherocker1

Resolved

 – User(s) blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Nobody can stop him. He is very annoying, he has been at it for more than a year now, its getting very old. Somebody needs to stop him. MassFavonia (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Any specific problem? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Could you provide some diffs and a brief explanation that tells us what needs to be stopped?--Jayron32 00:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

He made a anew account, called User talk:Pooping In Reverse and has used it against Wikipedia's policies. Although it is blocked, someone needs to shut him down and make sure he can't create any more accounts. MassFavonia (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

So says you. Do you have any evidence? --Jayron32 00:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Just what we need - a basket of socks. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:BEANS

Could someone please move User:Don't stuff beans up your nose back to Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose (along with the associated discussion page). Someone moved this into their user space, and I tried to move it back, but forgot to change the namespace back to Wikipedia, and now I can't undo it. Also, this frequently-cited essay is up for deletion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

fixed by Salvio giuliano. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep. And move protected too. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Can we fricking remind people that a game or two may be funny, but ridiculous nominations for deletion are still disruption, and will be dealt with accordingly. April Fool's does not mean IAR for a few hours (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Doing it on one day does not hurt, especially for non-mainspace pages. Nyttend (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

So then create WP:Don't stuff Lima beans up your friend's nose, use pinto beans instead; make it humourous. Then nominate it for MFD - you then draw people's attention to your humour. Mindless MFD's are not positive, and are truly a disruption in all cases. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

↑ Truly Awesome. benzband (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

April Fools nominations getting out of hand

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

---

There are currently over 40 joke AfD nominations, 15 joke MfD's, and 6 joke RfA's. A couple here or there is funny, but this is beyond disruptive. I run a bot that corrects malformed AfD nominations, and it was blocked because it was adding AfD templates to articles like Jimmy Wales, Earth, and Sexual intercourse, because technically they are nominated for deletion and therefore should have an AfD template on them (bots don't understand jokes). The block was done in good faith by an editor who was just doing his best to minimize the damage being done, but when we get to a point where real work is being disrupted in favor of jokes, then I think we've gone too far. At the risk of being a curmudgeon, I feel that next year the "celebrations" need to have limits imposed on them. It's just not even funny anymore. —SW— ^prattle 14:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Among the 'funny' jokes today was proposed deletion of Adolf Hitler and Moon - when it comes to mainspace articles having deletion templates on them it isn't funny, not that many of them were funny anyway. If one or two people get in first with some clever April fool jokes that don't affect the encyclopedia, fair enough, but dozens of people piling on with lame copycat attempts at humour isn't something we should have every year. --Michig (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah; I did mine really early on, but with the number of jokes now I wouldn't start a new one. Besides, messing with MediaWiki is so much more fun. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I have an idea for next year. If you make a joke nomination and it's not funny, then you get blocked for the rest of the day. It's funny, right?! Look! You're blocked! It's FUNNY hahahahaha! :P —SW— ^soliloquize 14:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Apply that to the joke RfAs too; there are a couple really good ones, but most of them are just terrible. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It's very tempting to bring that forward a year. I feel sorry for the people going through real RfAs at the moment.--Michig (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, it would make for interesting reading anyway, endless discussions of whether a joke was funny, and of the subsequent blocks.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This illustrates an important distinction between Wikipedia and other websites (such as Google). The comparison invariably arises, with editors citing Google's April Fools' Day jokes as justification for April foolery at Wikipedia. The key difference is that when Google creates an April Fools' Day joke, it doesn't spawn dozens more throughout the site, added arbitrarily by random visitors. But that's exactly what happens here. If we permit a type of joke, it's extremely difficult to limit the extent to which it's committed. The combination of April Fools' Day's "join in the fun" tone and a wiki's "anyone can edit" nature ensure this. Without clear boundaries, we descend into chaos. —David Levy 21:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

There are "only" 15 joke MfDs because I deleted like 14 in the morning. This is just ridiculous...and I agree that most of these silly nominations are just lame. T. Canens (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

What can we do now to stop this from happening next year? Doing this in article space is not a service to our readers, it's disruptive. Dougweller (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that it would be difficult to tromp on, and the attempt would publicize things and well, you know what would happen.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

As Mom said, "First time, funny. Second time, not funny. Third time, spanking." If you can't bother to be creative and original with your April Fools disruption, you can take the day off. Kilopi (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that works for me, and Wehwalt is probably right. Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I have had to delete three of those "joke" pages now because of BLP concerns. This is getting way out of hand. T. Canens (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm closing some of the remaining joke nominations now. They are disruptive. Wikipedia is not a playground, and the people who think this is a worthwhile use of anyone's time should be editing Uncyclopedia or something else more in line with their degree of maturity. I suggest that we make it clear beforehand next year that the joke is no longer funny, and that misusing Wikipedia processes (such as making frivolous RfA or XfD nominations) for an attempt at humor may result in a block for the rest of the day.  Sandstein  17:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Support ↑ this. —SW— ^express 18:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I undid some of that type of stuff on a policy page a few times today. I think that a good rule of thumb is that anything that would be considered vandalism during the rest of the year and does not involve some creative humor is still vandalism on April 1st. North8000 (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The highlight was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Hung (2nd nomination), now deleted by me as an attack page, in which an article about a living person was nominated for deletion for a defamatory reason - and three experienced editors actually left joke comments.  Sandstein  18:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Good call. I somehow missed that. T. Canens (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Defamatory? There are many, many, many references for that claim, and a personal opinion about one's taste in music can't be defamatory. That's how the guy got famous, after all; he was kicked from American Idol. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, BLP doesn't necessarily have to have defamatory material. Notice that most of the RfAs were for non-human beings - we don't have a BLA nor a BEO policy, after all.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

We are talking about someone who became famous specifically because people thought his voice was horrible. That's basically the sum of the deleted content. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - When longtime experienced editors just want to have a little fun on a day designed for having fun and pulling pranks, what's wrong with that? As long as it's done tastefully, I don't see a concern with letting some of it go ahead. It's interesting to note that this has been going on for nine years or so and only this year it became a problem for people; yes, it went a bit far this year after I went to bed, but a little fun should still be encouraged and probably agreed upon (in case of mainspace stuff) in advance. CycloneGU (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is you are setting a bad example. Yes, I know this is a phrase you may not have heard since school, but it applies. If experience editors say it's ok to mess with Wikipedia today, what's wrong with passing vandals joining in the "fun" any other day? Frankly, I don't see the difference. A large percentage of vandals are only "having a little fun". Besides that, it does nothing for Wikipedia's reputation. We may as well put a big disclaimer up on the Main page for the day; "Warning! Everything you read on Wikipedia today may be a lame attempt at humour, but that's how we roll here. But it's fine for the rest of the year, promise." --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

"Only this year it became a problem for people"? What on Earth gave you that idea? We have discussions like this one every year, with "You guys have no sense of humor. Lighten up and have some fun, you killjoys!" as the standard response to users complaining about vandalism to the encyclopedia. —David Levy 21:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think the entire Wikipedia should be deleted and everyone permanently blocked. Night Ranger (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

We already did that, sort of. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• OK, I was going out of hand, sort of. I request that all joke pages made by me for this year's April 1st be deleted as G7.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I know I played a large part in the April Fools stuff this year, and I know I'm probably going to sound like a hypocrite saying this, but I agree with you. I'm actually a bit disappointed in myself for nominating my alternate account for adminship; I now realize that, while we should at least have a little fun here, it shouldn't be done in that way. On the other hand, you're not going to be able to convince everybody who participated that these were disruptive; you've convinced me, so it's entirely possible to convince some people, but I'm pretty sure you won't be able to convince everybody. I've seen a few people say that it's just "harmless April Fools' tomfoolery", but it has gotten a bit out of hand this year (the worst part being the blocking of SnotBot). Next year, we need to make sure that everybody knows that, while a little tomfoolery here and there is fine, it shouldn't escalate to the scale that it did this year. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 18:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You mentioned the blocking of Snotblock as "the worst part". I hope that you realize that I did this to minimize the harm caused by the jokes (the insertion of fake AfD tags and issuance of warnings to editors who removed them), not to enable the foolery to continue.

It's highly unfortunate when a productive bot has to be stopped, but that's what happens when users are permitted to sabotage its task for the sake of "fun". —David Levy 21:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I personally try to limit myself to one, maybe two jokes each year. Last year, I went to Meta Wiki and proposed to move the servers to Canada, probably one of the better received jokes of the day. This year, I got in an early joke AfD of Irony (nominated out of coincidence, and someone else then ironically nominated Coincidence), and also marked my own user page as "historical" (not using the actual template, causing the page to be tagged, but just the notice userbox contained within the template copied to my user page). The reason the bot is adding the templates is just as discussed above; people are not following the AfD procedure properly even for joke nominations. I do not argue against limits being imposed, but going so far as to completely disallow it because some people are not following proper procedures even for joke nominations is excessive. I personally look forward to the little pranks each year, but I wonder if it might be best to have a place where a few of us get together and coordinate certain pranks that are known in advance, funny, and thus not likely to be reversed before the end of the day. Anything else can be done in userspace by whoever wants to vandalize their own pages, and other little things like project pages being nominated for deletion are still funny if never done before (if it has, it's not really funny). To summarize, don't try to remove it, but rather try to contain it within a selected area every year. I personally am done for the year and will be closing the Irony AfD myself later today (never mind, someone already did so, good way to spoil controlled fun in this case), as well as the historical box on my userpage. CycloneGU (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that we can use things like joke MfDs, but only in something like "WP:April Fools' Day 2012/Jokes/MfDs". At least, no jokes should be transcluded to main pages at all (like joke RfAs not being transcluded onto the main RfA page).--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC−)

Agreed. While it was a bit out of hand this year, I don't think we should completely do away with things, just those things that interfere with the mainspace aspect of Wikipedia. As for consequences for next year's out-of-line pranks, I think enforcing a day-long block should not be done unless the user is sufficiently warned first. So, for instance, if someone creates a joke RfA, they should be warned to not do it again rather than be blocked. If they do it (or things like it) repeatedly despite being warned, then a block for the rest of the day will suffice. But only if they ignore sufficient warnings. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 18:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Joke RfAs should not be in the RfA section at all, I would argue, though joke AfDs I don't see an issue with being in the AfD space (note I did not follow step 3 by adding my joke to the list; because it was a joke, I did not list or categorize it) because people would see that a joke is being done based on the article in question. If it were to be deemed that such joke nominations for AfDs should NOT go in the AfD space, then we need to know where to put such joke nominations next year. For instance, someone next year will probably nominate 2012 phenomenon with a rationale of "It isn't real, it never happened". Of course, I might be stuffing beans into my ears here. CycloneGU (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think all of y'all are cranky bleepity bleeps who need to lighten up once in a while. :-P Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Something like that. CycloneGU (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If any of them were funny you might have a point. Secretlondon (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Funny is a personal taste. What you might think funny I don't, and vice versa. CycloneGU (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. And whether a joke is "funny" or not, it doesn't belong in the article namespace (which TenPoundHammer vandalised repeatedly, even after being politely asked to stop). —David Levy 21:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not you or any of us think it's fun, it's being considered disruptive by a pretty substantial group of editors. While we do deserve a break from the hodgepodge of everyday Wikipedia life, we shouldn't be doing things that'll upset such a group of editors. If it were one or two dissatisfied people, then it wouldn't be as big a deal, but we're talking about a good-sized group. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 18:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Right. We only do these as a community. If the whole community isn't at it, we have no excuse for it. How simple!--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not what I said. I said that some April Fools' Day things are acceptable, but there are some things that can be considered a bit out-of-line. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 18:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This I can agree with. In limited quantities, it's good; excessively, it's bad and not encouraged. CycloneGU (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Based on what's happened this year, we may need to write a guideline outlining what is and what is not acceptable on April Fools' Day. It'd be a bit tedious to create, but we might just have to do this. I'd be willing to help work on it before I have to return to my real life responsibilities in a couple days. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 19:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. If a bot is blocked because it can't understand humor, couldn't detect that there was a humor template on the AfD nomination, perhaps the bot needs to be turned off for this day. In addition POST FACTO discussions should not have a binding consensus on processes that are taken in (albeit humorous) good faith. It's not like the date was sprung on us last night, we knew it was coming for almost 365 days now. Now if a binding consensus about April Fools Day Jokes on WP is to take place, let's have it outright. Also realize that if we outlaw Article space for April Fools Day, we're going to need many new essays/pages in WP, User, and Talk space for the purpose of having fun for this day. Hasteur (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Something to consider. CycloneGU (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Where are users getting the idea that article vandalism is permitted now? I see no "1 April" exception mentioned at Wikipedia:Vandalism.
When TenPoundHammer continued inserting jokes in articles (after being politely asked to stop), he expressed a belief that such behavior is considered "harmless", encouraged, and even glorified at Wikipedia. If an experienced editor can somehow arrive at that impression, we're in trouble.
This matter is discussed every year, with longstanding consensus that while there's room for some humor on editor-facing pages (i.e. stuff that typical readers will never see), the encyclopedia proper is off-limits. Why is this unclear to some? —David Levy 21:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Agree that all this got way out of hand. One or two joke noms may be mildly amusing, but this year at least two editors made over half-a-dozen AFD noms each (and most of them were very unfunny). I support a clampdown on this nonsense next year, with a day's block for anyone who does this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• No one seems to be complaining about my addition to the top of RfA, so fun can be had without angering too many people; I suggest we have less total jokes that are better thought out (Ron Ritzman's proposal at WP:VPR was another gem). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I personally liked Ron's "leaving in a hissyfit" on his userpage. CycloneGU (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, him and TPH both. I also made it a point to "AfD" an article with a historical joke rationale, not just some fart joke; those are the kinds of jokes we need. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Point Of Order: SW, your bot appeared to never edit the article I nominated for today. Please your list of example edits and consider only complaining on ones that your bot did edit. Hasteur (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Luckily no one was blocked this year (apart from the bot). If you're being reverted please take the hint and step away from the computer. I think the closest we have to policy in this area is this from a few years ago: Wikipedia_talk:Pranking#Some_thoughts. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not true that no one was blocked apart from the bot. User:Timotheus Canens blocked User:TenPoundHammer. —Lowellian (reply) 22:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That occurred after the above message was written. —David Levy 22:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for linking to that zzuuzz! Best thing I've read all day tbh. ~dee^(talk?) 19:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, one of the most disheartening things to see is the reversion of joke removals. It's one thing to have a bit of fun, but when someone considers a prank disruptive enough to remove, edit warring to restore it is unacceptable. It's sad that this even needs to be said, but if we must place it in an official 1 April policy or guideline (along with such elusive concepts as "don't vandalise the encyclopedia" and "don't set fire to the WMF servers"), so be it. —David Levy 21:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think that a few joke nominations are fine. However, we got to a point where MFD and RFA were completely taken over by joke nominations (MFD had a string of 10-12), and I think that's over the line. (Full disclosure: one of those was mine). --Rschen7754 20:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• I agree... No one even notices the good jokes anymore. — Edokter (talk) — 20:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

That link by Zzuzz gave me an idea. I think it would be perfectly reasonable if we adopt that policy, for April Fools' Day (only). Perhaps add weight to it by including things related to blocks.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking we could do: create a policy (or at least a guideline) outlining what is and what is not considered as an acceptable April Fools' prank. As I said in an earlier comment, I'd be willing to help work on this before I have to return to my real life responsibilities in two or three days. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 19:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

...using Wikipedia:Pranking (forgot to link in previous cmt) as a template.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've got to run a few places, but I'll be able to help out later this evening (between 00:00 and 01:00 UTC). The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 19:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to have a good read of that talk page before proposing, and especially NYB's words. There's actually a surprising amount on consensus on it for a failed proposal. There's even an underlying assumption, as well as the odd mention, that article space is out of bounds. That would probably be a proposal I could support. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that randomly tagging good articles with AfDs is out of taste. My plan merely involved one article, and I was going to twist it and nominate Coincidence as my single joke next year, but someone already did that as part of this year's. Now I need a new idea for next year. We've had several repetitive nominations this time around, however, and some not so funny ones that took it too far. I like it, but I don't like not being able to keep track of it. If that makes sense without sounding foolish. CycloneGU (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I would expect to see an April Fool article somewhere on the main page on April Fool's Day, hopefully not too obvious. Wouldn't it be better for those editors who want to play April Fool's jokes to actually play one via an article, and work together to make it, well, funny and clever? A lot of what has gone on today is what we would ordinarily call vandalism, and at best is repetitive and lame. Joke AfD's could be made to look like AfDs without causing problems, but let's limit it to a handful of funny ones, not dozens of lame ones.--Michig (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If we wanted to be really bureaucratic, we could go through everything listed at the April Fools Day page and see what was and wasn't funny. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this will ever get accepted as a proper policy... But good point, they are getting out of hand. Rcsprinter (chatter) 19:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's only a start, and it requires work.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: Seriously, dudes, you're a bunch of buzzkills. Turn off Snotbot for the day and let us have our fun —PBP89 (Chat)(WP Edits: 999,999,999) 20:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

"You're a bunch of buzzkills." "Let us have our fun." Vandals commonly write such things. —David Levy 21:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that Purplebackpack89 is not a vandal, however. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That's my point; the similarity is jarring precisely for this reason. —David Levy 21:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, you stole my old signature that I got hammered on. :P—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I find it somewhat ironic that you call me a "buzzkill" when I was one of the ones who participated in the "fun" of today. Regardless of the "stupidity" or "hilarity" of all of the jokes and pranks that have gone on today, some of them are causing an uproar in the community. Something has to be done about that uproar; and a guideline (probably not a policy) outlining acceptable and unacceptable April Fools jokes and pranks will probably calm the uproar. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 22:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: See above, the purpose is to take unexpected pieces of the community and have a little fun with them. For example, I nominated the above mentioned sexual intercourse on what would have been reasonable grounds on most other nominations for the past few months. I tagged the AfD nomination with humor, so it was blatantly obvious what it was about, reverted the notification to the original author of the page, and let the reasoned keep/delete votes roll in. Now someone claims that their bot was blocked because (in part) of this when I see that the bot never edited the article, I have to question if the bot itself is faulty. Hasteur (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I am tired of hearing whiny comments along the lines of "don't spoil our little bit of fun". This project is a serious reference work read by millions of people each and every day, not an entertainment venue. If readers open our article about, say, physics, they expect it to contain useful content rather than a big red box linking to a lame attempt at a joke. Remember that the kind of people who go around inserting penis images into articles are also only here to have what they think constitutes fun. Policy defines a name for people who "insert obvious nonsense into a page"; they're vandals, and people who intentionally make joke AfD nominations may need to be treated as such, no matter how funny they think they are.  Sandstein  21:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Part of your argument bears no merit. You say, "This project is a serious reference work read by millions of people each and every day, not an entertainment venue. If readers open our article about, say, physics, they expect it to contain useful content rather than a big red box linking to a lame attempt at a joke." In that vein, Google is a serious tool that is the what, number one site visited on the Internet? Meanwhile, they periodically do little doodles changing around how their logo looks for a day. Every year, they do something tasteful for April Fool's Day. This year, they took Google Maps and added a "Quest" feature, making the entire world look like a Dragon Warrior map. It's an optional click right there on the map types. Do we see them any less seriously than before? No, this is how they have a little fun to prank us for April Fool's Day. So if someone creates a tasteful joke on Wikipedia, what is the difference between that and what happens on Google? I marked my page historical and jokingly suggested that Irony is the same as Coincidence (obviously they are regarded as different things). And now you are saying, "Oh look, this guy is a vandal and a detriment to the project." Maybe before you go around making such baseless accusations, you should look at the contribution history of users that you are about to tag as "idiots". Some of these users may have contributed more to the encyclopedia than you yourself have. And I'm not trying to boast about myself when I say that; at this time, I can't be as active as I would like to be. But the statement still stands regarding some of our valued contributors who just want to joke around on the one day of the year that people are encouraged to joke around. Ever watch The Price is Right on April Fool's Day? Last year, they destroyed the set as a joke. People still came back the next day and watched the next episode. Have a laugh once in a while, you might actually live longer! CycloneGU (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Quoting my message from above:

The comparison invariably arises, with editors citing Google's April Fools' Day jokes as justification for April foolery at Wikipedia. The key difference is that when Google creates an April Fools' Day joke, it doesn't spawn dozens more throughout the site, added arbitrarily by random visitors. But that's exactly what happens here. If we permit a type of joke, it's extremely difficult to limit the extent to which it's committed. The combination of April Fools' Day's "join in the fun" tone and a wiki's "anyone can edit" nature ensure this. Without clear boundaries, we descend into chaos.

A handful of jokes, created in a manner that doesn't affect the encyclopedia proper, is mostly harmless. Unfortunately, that isn't what we've had today. —David Levy 22:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I will make a quick add to this - my purpose for coming to Wikipedia is often for entertainment purposes. I see a song I like, I come here looking for information on the album; I see a movie trailer I like, I look it up here. That isn't a serious school project type of thing (speaking of, Wikipedia was not a permitted source when I was in school); I use it as an entertainment venue myself. CycloneGU (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

An article about an entertainment-related subject is still a serious part of the encyclopedia. —David Levy 22:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Wrong place for this discussion. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose It's only one day out of an entire year and the ones who know better know where to place their jokes. RfA's are definitely not one of those places everyday readers go to for information.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You don't get it...this wasn't just silly RFA's. It was idiotic AFDing of key articles, major BLP violations ... all in the name of "fun". It's not "fun", it's disruption. I was inches from blocking Jesper earlier because of it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I did think of that when SPAs were made for this, though I didn't realize that they were SPAs until the last moment. It'll be over in 81 more minutes. However, I do agree that going to the degree of BLP violations was definitely not OK; my idea is that you stay out of the mainspace, period.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I do get it Bwilkins which is why I kept my jokes out of article space. I am perfectly willing to support 24 hour blocks for any joke or prank that disrupts article space but nothing more.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 01:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose When its April fools let people have their fun, placing articles up for AfD on April fool's day is just going to lead to them being closed anyways, in the end there is no harm done as long as a joke template is used in the AfD or edit summary. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

When the "fun" spreads to the article namespace, harm is done. —David Levy 22:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Here's best reason why. Let people have their fun. Relax, it will all be over tomorrow. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That may work for the time being, but what about next year? Unless something's done, I don't doubt that this will happen again. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 22:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps better planning for such an event, like saying what SPIs, AfDs, etc. are going to be filed.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I can't believe you just did that to me (the video link)! CycloneGU (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Translation: "Let people vandalise the encyclopedia. Relax, it will all be over tomorrow." —David Levy 22:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem really is that bots messed up the joke AfDs. Some people used twinkle to start joke AfDs (see Ritzman), then immediately went back to the article and removed the "big red box" which Wilkins so loathes. But the bots put it back, not realizing it was a joke and didn't belong. So turn off the bots for April 1; turn them back on on April 2. pbp 05:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• An Idea How about this, no pranks on living people with articles? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• If it gets to the point where I get blocked two hours after my latest attempt at an April Fools' edit — during a time when I was sleeping and not editing at all — then clearly something has gone too far. Just sayin'. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Gotta agree with Hammy on that pbp 05:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Every year, someone nominates Earth or Human for deletion so this year I decided to something I thought was original. I looked for a notable subject that was invented in a "school" so I could nominate it with the rationale "wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day". I eventually settled on rugby and I was careful not to touch anything in article space. (but snotbot did, I think that this was the first year that we had a bot adding/re-adding AFD tags to articles) The AFD in question was deleted as "vandalism" which I did not find funny. If I had known how out of hand it was going to get this year I might have thought twice before making my joke nom. The joke RFAs got so out of hand that I was half expecting someone to nominate their penis for adminship. One idea for joke AFDs next year, assuming that they are allowed, is to prefix the AFD page name with the date ie Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AF2013Earth but use just plain Earth when filling out the afd2 template. It will look normal when transcluded on the log but snotbot won't auto-tag Earth with the AFD tag. Also, joke AFDs on living people should be prohibited. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• That would work. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That sounds good to me, joke AFDs on living people just crosses the line. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Joke AfDs on living people is overkill. Actual AfDs on non-notable people is regular business. I saw the Rugby Football AfD; it seemed harmless like others. Like Ron, I tried to pick something tasteful, but I always thought the policy was to make it look like part of the business even as a joke. I'd never seen any policy saying otherwise, and I'd like the annual joking to continue, so we need a policy in place for next year. Perhaps as a rule every page in the April Fool's Day 2013 set should have the directory name include that, then a regularly-named name like otherwise? I do not think a bot would try to auto-tag articles inside that directory. Changing the name as Ron suggests fails as the title would be "AF2013Earth", not "Articles for Deletion: Earth (nth nomination)". I will say this, however, and you can agree or disagree all you want: the bot ruined APD2012. Now time to remove the historical box from my userpage. CycloneGU (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

And I just un-diva-retired. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Sexual Intercourse. Plz. Night Ranger (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support I've thought April Fool's Date was rather stupid for a long time and, often, it goes into the realm of being disruptive. Several sites I frequent decided that for April Fool's, they're going to make everything be upside down. Well, great thanks, now I can't read the site, that's so helpful. We're here to write an encyclopedia. Celebrate April Fool's day in your off-line life or somewhere else on the internet that isn't trying to actually be professional. Silverseren^C 01:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Although I participated in some of the joke AfDs, I agree most of them lacked quality humor. So the proposal below seems to be good. Each year, only one article could be nominated for deletion, but should be high quality humor clearly distinguishable from petty disruption. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 07:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Editors should be able to have fun once a year. However, some pranks are disruptive. I seek to strike a balance between those two aspects. I propose the following:

1. There should be one April Fool's prank in article space. This should not involve a living person or an article about a living person. It should be clever, well-designed and funny, like Google's pranks. It should not be immediately obvious as a joke, but neither should it be so plausible that it lasts until after April 1 is over.
2. Other pranks are OK so long as they stay within the community namespaces (project, user, and talk namespaces), do not affect article space and do not involve living people or articles about living people. For example, joke AfDs would be fine, as long as the joke-nominated articles weren't about living people and didn't have deletion templates on them.
3. Ruining of (legitimate) jokes by exposing them can result in a block after a warning (but only until April 1 is over, as blocks are not supposed to be punitive).
4. The best April Fool's pranks should be commemorated in an April Fool's Hall of Fame, the worst in an April Fool's Hall of Infamy.
5. Editors should try to come up with original pranks, rather than repeating the same ones year after year.
6. Standard vandalism remedies will be applied to violators of item 1 or the BLP clause of item 2.

Your thoughts? ChromaNebula (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

My response:

1. I agree with just one prank in article space but who is going to be the judge or judges on what is clever and well designed? The jokes yes must be made obvious.

2. Agreed with.

3. I dont think this should be the case, rather a person who takes a joke too far should just have one warning then a block. IPs should not make jokes it should only be for people with established accounts here on wikipedia, not to be elite or anything its just those people should know the rules on what is allowed or what is not.

4. We already have that somewhat: Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2012

5. This should be a guideline not a rule.

6. See #3

- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Meh. It's over now and back to being serious.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 01:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The admin do have a point while its only one day there is always next year, the fact that people would make a joke about a living person and go too far on it to me just says that something needs to be done. IM not saying no more pranks but there has to be something in place so something like that doesnt happen again. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Support blocking any involved user for 24 hours for executing any prank or joke the alters, changes, misleads, or is any form of disruption to articlespace only.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 01:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Main Page (on which we feature numerous pranks of the "strange but true" variety) is in the article namespace. Apart from that, no absolutely not. Wikipedia has enough credibility issues without permitting fake articles. (And as discussed above, because anyone can edit a wiki, if we condone the existence of one, we'll end up with many more.)

I'm okay with #2, provided that article talk pages are off-limits.

The idea of blocking editors for "exposing" jokes is ludicrous.

The rest seems fine, provided that it's worded in the context of what April foolery is tolerated (not encouraged). —David Levy 01:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yawn. Really, we go through this every year. It's always the same arguments, and largely the same editors. There's always a hell of a lot of discussion, and no results whatsoever. April fools' day is over. The credibility of Wikipedia hasn't been compromised, the project hasn't collapsed into chaos, and, amazingly, the world hasn't ended. For the love of God, let's move on with our lives. Swarm ^X 03:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I like the tone of this approach. Swarm is right but then again this does come up every year. A guideline and a single organized joke might take away a lot of the desire for editors to roll their own. While funny by committee is not funny, it's possible to make this work. And it goes without saying that a single editor should know better than to make multiple similarly uncreative jokes on the same April fools day. Shadowjams (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support Very good proposal. We need high quality culture for celebrating April Fools. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 07:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal 3

Next year, change the main page from saying "anyone can edit" to "no one can edit, ever," full protect the whole project, and get back to work April 2. Nobody Ent 02:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal 4

Create an adminbot/cratbot that desysops and blocks everyone on Wikipedia, hard blocks all IPs and fully protects all articles. Then forget all about Wikipedia. Night Ranger (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

(half-serious) Proposal 5

Back up the database on March 31, then restore the backup on April 2. Show a banner at the top of every page stating that any edits on April 1 will be overwritten the next day. Yes, this might be inviting abuse on April 1, but consider it as food for thought. Kcowolf (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Death of Sian O'Callaghan vs WP:NOTCENSORED

At AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Sian O'Callaghan (2nd nomination), allegedly as "Law enforcement in the UK has requested deletion of this page in order to mitigate pre-trial publicity and ensure a fair trial for the defendant. The page can be restored later if the event remains notable.", per User:Fred Bauder

There is an obvious censorship issue here. Today an article about an alleged murder (and who could want to see a murderer escape justice?), but tomorrow do we see the UK government trying to cover up Jean Charles de Menezes? Also the obvious issue of UK jurisdiction over a US project.

Secondly there's an internal question of procedure. Consensus is clearly to keep this, yet Fred has blanked the article as a de facto censorship of it anyway. So if there's a legal requirement on WMF to do this anyway, why even bother having the AfD? This looks far too much as if AfD was given the opportunity to give the right answer, but when they failed to, they were over-ruled anyway.

On the whole, I'm surprised I haven't seen this here already - it's not just the usual run of AfDs. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you not know how to spell 'alleged'? Evidently not - I have taken the liberty of adding it where you clearly intended it to go. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've already raised this at ANI... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It is our encyclopedic content which is not censored, we do not, as a matter of policy, include news reports of criminal investigations, see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Crime_perpetrators. We are a reference work not a news outlet. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

BLP of crime perpetrators can still be followed without the deletion or significant redaction of the article. All you have to do is remove the portions of the article that mention a perpetrator and leave the rest that has reliable sources. There's a reason the U.K.-based websites that were reporting on it disappeared in the references, because U.K. law enforcement can ask U.K. websites like The Guardian, BBC and the Daily Mail to take it down. Wikipedia is subject to U.S. law, not U.K., so it would be no different than the People's Republic of China requesting deletion of the article about their firewall. All they can do is request it be taken down, and that's what happened. There's really no reason to remove any content outside of the BLP perpetrators content (specifically naming a non-public individual who had not been convicted, it's entirely fine to say there was an arrest and if there is a trial, they are rightfully named). — Moe ε 17:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Neither the Russian nor the Chinese case is before us. They would represent difficult questions, although not in obviously political cases; in that case we can stiff them; the problem comes in alleged criminal cases which are actually political in a situation where we have no way of determining the matter and are forced to assume general corruption which is not in fact the case. I would like to be able to respond in good faith to requests from either country.

U.K. law enforcement can ask us too and we can respond responsibly. We can do the right thing because it is right, not because we are ordered to. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

"not because we are ordered to."

Would I be correct to read that as "In this case at least, we weren't ordered to"? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

From my perspective in the United States, yes. I'm not sure what our obligations are under English law. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Had this been (exactly) a year ago, I might agree, because that's when the event had a majority of it's press as it was unfolding. A year ago, the article was 15 times as long as it is now in its current state. While I think you redacting the article and the U.K. government are doing so in good faith, that doesn't necessarily mean that it ensures the defendant in this case that he receives a fair trial. In fact, having been a year removed from it being a highly notable event, you're not likely to receive an entirely fair trail whether the material stays or goes. Information such as details in the case and the defendant's name are still all over the internet that anyone with Google or an internet archive can find. All the U.K. government did is request the news articles we were linking to be removed hoping this article be removed. This is unquestionably notable so the AFD needs to be closed, because there is undeniably a support for keeping the article and keeping it hostage with a protection and AFD is inappropriate. My recommendation is semi-protection with a discussion to re-add specific content so that it doesn't interfere with the impending trial. The article needs a good amount of its content restored while respecting the defendant's character, because without it, censoring the content like you have gives a false pretense that it isn't notable when it is. As for doing the "right thing", the right thing isn't to give a false impression of the article not being notable or to aid or give any government the authority to dictate notability. Orders from any government authority should be taken with a grain of salt in determining their true intentions. With that being said, we don't know their intentions, good or bad, which leads me to believe that unless there is a lawsuit where an office action occurs we shouldn't be ordered or comply to do anything unless it violates a law. — Moe ε 18:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

News reports of a criminal investigation are not a reliable source for our purposes with or without a request. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Since that is a plainly false statement in view of standard practice per WP:RS, I can only imagine you intended it as a proposal for a policy change -- in which case it belongs at a relevant policy talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That kind of goes against standards at WP:RS like Nomoskedasticity said. In addition to that, when a source is a news article and a government starts pulling them down from the internet censoring it, it alters its notability by Wikipedia's own standards. Notability is defined by how many reliable sources cover the topic, so you can see the problem when news agencies start having to censor their publications. I hope you can see the problem with a haphazard compliance with a government request to remove such things. — Moe ε 21:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be way too much conspirary theory stuff going on here. The removal of information and restrictions on publishing information in local sources on ongoing trials (sub judice) when that information, true or not, is consider likely to be unduly prejudicial, is a matter of routine in a number of commonwealth countries and is held to be important to ensure a fair trial not only by lawmakers and the police, but also by judges. This doesn't apply once all relevent trials are over and the information can be published barring restrictions for other reasons, but those aren't under consideration here. I haven't seen anyone suggesting we permanently remove information just because of requests by authorities, or remove information for reasons other then sub judice, so talking about government coverups of Jean Charles de Menezes or the Chinese firewall are missing the point. As I said elsewhere, and I'm pretty sure I've said before, I see no reason not to comply with a similar request from the Chinese, or anyone else. But the request has to be similar. Nil Einne (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I remember now there was the case of Peter Tobin, see Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 20#Current legal cases & Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive177#Admin deletes article per Scottish police (probably more discussion in other areas) Nil Einne (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Allegations are not encyclopediac - and we should actually extend this to all such implicit violations of WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

We need beyond oversighting to community consensus on defamatory material of that nature. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

All I can say about this situation is. End the censoring of information on the article now.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• As this was (apparently) a request from UK law enforcement agencies (and not a private individual asking for information to be removed from their article), it should have been handed to the WMF. The WMF have access to legal counsel, who can advise whether or not the request should be complied with. If it should be, the article should be deleted as an office action. I am going to close the AfD - as "the UK police asked us to delete it" is not a valid reason within Wikipedia policy to propose deletion of an article. I am going to refer it to the WMF. I am not going to unlock the article, but I will take over the protection from Fred. The reason I am not unlocking it is that I want to see what the legal advice from the WMF counsel is, and I do not think the world will end if the article remains a stub for the next 24 hours. I apologise for not picking up on this sooner, would probably have saved some hard words. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The need to lift full protection is not an emergency, so fine -- but if it is not deleted then it must be unprotected. What we've had here is an admin using admin powers to dictate content according to an idiosyncratic view of BLP policy -- ostensibly to remove information about a crime suspect but in fact removing a great deal of material that was not about the suspect. The issue here is not the article but rather the role of admins. (Since the ANI thread along these lines was closed, I'll pursue that issue here.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: there was a parallel discussion going on here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Improper use of full protection? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Volunteer needed

To act as a single-issue mentor/advisor for DegenFarang (talk · contribs). I'm trying to work with this user to get them unblocked, they have agreed to a topic ban and have agreed that if/when they get into any sort of conflict they will consult with a third party for advice on how to proceed. That's the whole job, no elaborate mentoring program or anything, just the occasional bit of procedural advice on how to proceed in a disagreement since Degen has had repeated problems in that area. It would be best if it was an admin or other experienced user who has no previous dealings with this user. Any takers? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for closure of RfC at Talk:Libyan civil war#Counterproposal RfC: Move moratorium

Two weeks ago, I initiated an RfC at Talk:Libyan civil war to propose a 6-month moratorium on all requested moves at the page. The proposed allotted discussion time was two weeks, so as to have the closure conveniently line up with the new month. During that time, unanimous consensus was established for the moratorium. Now that two weeks have come and gone, I ask that an uninvolved administrator close the discussion, if the consensus gained is deemed sufficient. Thanks, Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

AIV backlog

WP:AIV has a backlog. Not an April Fools' joke.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Atrocious treatment of April Fools celebrants

As everyone knows I like to keep a very, very low profile, so I'm sure my appearance here will come as a surprise to everyone. But I had to speak out. Just had to. I am a brand new member of the WP:Department of Fun and was really looking forward to our big annual event: April Fools. Being my first April Fools I wanted to celebrate with gusto. I "updated" Obama's picture on the Obama portal, and gave equal time to the right wingers by adding a caricature to the Timeline of modern American conservatism, and I created a really cool bot too. What did I get for my efforts? Barnstar? Awesome Wikipedian day? {{Filet-O-Fish}}? No, no and NO! Quick reverts and vandalism warnings on my talk page. Vandalism?!? That edit to the Obama portal was hilarious! What is the matter with you people? Can't you take the plugs out of your asses for just one day out of the year? My goodness another celebrant got blocked! We need to make some changes around here. April Fools is an important holiday and we can't abuse and screw over people who are trying to make things fun around here. – Lionel ^(talk) 05:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

re: Awesome Wikipedian: to my knowledge the last one was awarded on 21 February 2011 by User:Neutralhomer, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, sometimes too much is too much, as the other thread above pretty much proves.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Fun is important, but even on April 1st, people need access to accurate information to get stuff done. We can have find ways to have fun without disrupting reliability, but it takes care. Dcoetzee 05:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Two observations:

• Barack Obama is a living person.
• Your other edits were made on 2 April. →Στc. 05:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

This still needs to be merged into this and then deleted. We don't want to confuse the bots in 50 years' time. Double sharp (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

To summarize:

• You committed several acts of vandalism, which you believe were justified because of a date that already had passed (according to UTC, on which Wikipedia is based) by the time of your second edit.
• Your vandalism was reverted and you were warned against perpetrating any more. You find this outrageous because you consider your vandalism "hilarious" and had fun committing it.
• In addition to complaining (and demanding that the community embrace vandalism) here, you've proposed a method of delaying future vandalism's detection, thereby ensuring that it remains in place longer (instead of being quickly removed by "humorless bores" who believe that the encyclopedia shouldn't be vandalised).

Did I miss anything? —David Levy 10:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a standing gentleman's agreement that shenanigans will be accepted, so long as they do not disrupt the main space. This year much disruption of the main space was undertaken - to the extent that instead of ranging from "mildly amusing to peurile and idiotic" (seriously; the lack of creativity in the jokes was depressing to the extreme) they ranged from "idiotic to disruptive". I'd have blocked you on BLP grounds for re-inserting that image for a second time, so I suspect you were lucky. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Joke in the article mainspace, like this, is inappropriate. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 13:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest going to back to keeping a low profile. The treatment you got was deserved. —SW— ^yak 13:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Gmail Tap

I want to redirect Gmail Tap to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Google%27s_hoaxes_and_easter_eggs#Gmail_tap but the page is locked to only administrators. Could one of you do this for me please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngril (talk • contribs) 13:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done. As an FYI, you could have done this yourself (I'm not an admin either), but I assume the problem was that you used the full url, when you should have just used #REDIRECT [[List of Google's hoaxes and easter eggs#Gmail Tap]]. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)