Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive190

User talk:MacGyverMagic#List of highest grossing Tamil-language films

Someone contacted me about deleting an article, but I don't feel comfortable doing it myself because I was the nominator in the related AFD. Could another administrator make a judgement, perform an appropriate rename/merge action, or help the user in question mount a DRV? - Mgm|^(talk) 22:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Since List of highest-grossing Bollywood films exists, what's the problem? The article is a mess because people are putting in what they think are the "best" films which is not objective. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Shahid misreads the AfD; the consensus was for the deletion of the "top" lists, not of the highest-grossing lists. One may, to be sure, remove from the article content for the exclusion of which a consensus exists (here, I gather, the "critically acclaimed" sections), but article deletion, in the absence of a new AfD (which is, I note, likely to result in a "keep", consistent with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing Bollywood films, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing films, and [OTHERSTUFFEXISTS notwithstanding] the apparently uncontroversial existence of various other lists of highest-grossing films by country and language) is inappropriate. 69.212.22.27 (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I closed the related AfD, and received a similar request. I was uncomfortable with deleting this additional article because a) I don't see that it was discussed specifically in the AfD, which is often an issue in multiple noms. And b) the person requesting states an intention to replace the article anyway, so I see no reason to expunge the previous history of the article. I am happy for a consensus here to overrule this opinion, however. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Today's featured article semi-protected since last year.

Resolved

I tried to bring up this subject at Talk:Main Page, but nobody seems to be monitoring there tonight. Anyway, I noticed that today's featured article, Emma Watson, is under semi-protection and has been since last May. It has always been my own understanding that semi-protection is not preferred in the daily featured article unless there's a pressing reason for it, which I fail to see in this case. I'm thinking the semi-protection should be lifted- at least for as long as the article's linked to from the main page. Ashanda (talk) 06:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Done by User:SoWhy here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both very much! Ashanda (talk) 06:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of indefinitely blocked user talk pages

I have raised the issue of deleting the user talk pages of indefinitely blocked editors at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Deletion of indefinitely blocked user talk pages. Comments and suggestions are welcome. --Vassyana (talk) 09:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirected page in Wiki

Hello, I would like to make a redirection from the page Tasmeem to the wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmeem_(software)

Could you please add: #REDIRECT[[1]]to the Tasmeem page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=tasmeem&go=Go)

Thanks in advance, Best regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winsoft38 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Image violates law?

 Done File:G839.jpg may be in violation of Counterfeit Detection Act of 1992 as it depicts both sides of a 500 dollar but Template:Money-US (which it uses) states that one of the requirements of this law is that "The illustration is one-sided;" (If this is the wrong place for this then oops but I don't know where else to put it) --Wanders1 (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The illustration is one-sided, but depicts both sides of the note. Given the objects of that legislation, I doubt there's a problem, and anyone who tried to use it as real currency would deserve all they got. Rodhullandemu 13:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not American, but there's no current $500 note that is legal tender anyway is there? Black Kite 13:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

They're still legal tender, but you'd get very funny looks if you tried to use one. – iridescent 14:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a one sided representation. If you printed it out with each side of the bill on both sides of the same piece of paper then that would be an issue. Nobody is going to accept that picture as money, so I don't see how it could be seen as a counterfeit. Chillum 14:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh, this type of discussion shows up how obsolete that law is. It's fairly simple to bring into clear and full compliance: split into two images, rotate and crop so it displays better, and resize so it is absolutely positively more than 1.5 times the size of an actual $500 bill. Now in compliance with Act of 1992, Public Law 102-550, in Section 411 of Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations, I am deleting all files used in creation of the following images. Suggest deleting File:G839.jpg per the above, and since it isn't really needed anymore. Durova^Charge! 14:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• File:500 bill front.jpg
• File:500 bill back.jpg

image deleted as replaced by the two above Gnangarra 14:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Policy question

Resolved

 – No worries here. –xeno (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Could someone clarify the policy on moving an article space page WHILE it is in an ongoing AfD discussion? I can't seem to find anything on it. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 16:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless it is the location of the page that is at issue, I don't see a huge problem with it... Is there a specific case you're talking about? –xeno (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't see a problem unless it's an attempt to avoid the AfD outcome. – Toon^(talk) 16:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The location isn't the issue but someone's vote! for a renaming option prompted the page to be moved by the original creator. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama (disambiguation). - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 16:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the problem. The AfD still links to the article. If you feel that it was a bad move, you can always move it back. Be the R in BRD, as it were. But it looks like an improvement to me and we certainly shouldn't stop improving an article because it is at AfD. Quite the opposite. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is perfectly fine and a more accurate name. Barack Obama (disambiguation) should really be used to disambiguate between notable Barack Obama's, but I think there's only one at present. –xeno (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Archive protection

Resolved

 – Doesn't look like this is going anywhere. — Jake Wartenberg 20:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I imagine Village Pump would be the place to bring this up but before doing so, it'd be nice to see what, if any, consequences would result from this proposal. It seems that at times, archive pages get vandalized. And who has the thousands of archived pages on their watchlist? Not I. You? So, what about an auto-full-protect of archive pages related to the various notice boards, such as this one, ANI, etc.? And of course archive pages of AfD, MfD, RfA, RfB, etc. This would also do away with the many "This is an archive, don't edit it!" banners on archive pages. Thoughts, opinions, trouts? - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 18:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too sure. I think there are probably times when it is appropriate to edit talk pages - see my relevant proposal at WP:VPR for adding {{Reflist}}s to them. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Our huggle army probably catches most of it. –xeno (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The admin archive pages do get vandalized. I've found it useful to watchlist a few of them: one long term vandal tends to edit his own ban discussion when he returns on new socks. That archive page is a useful honeypot. Durova^Charge! 19:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

@Jerry1250: that couldn't be done via {{editprotected}} on the archive page's talk page? For example, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive189 would be fully protected and any changes needing made to it could be brought up on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive189 with the editprotected template. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 20:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There are several reasons why archive pages might one day need to be edited (updating redirects that have been retargeted, for example). Forcing people to use edit protected requests in these cases to stop vandalism once in a while doesn't strike me as a net benefit. –xeno (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (I'm assuming you mean me!) Yes, but the currently proposal is for clearing the backlog i.e. the equivalent of hundreds of PERs. I'm not sure that's going to pass anyway (I was merely testing the water, as you are here), but it's just one point to be considered. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this would create a huge backlog but I guess it could add to the work in a sense. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 20:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't we have a bot that watches all archives and update one page that we can watch? That should ease detecting vandals. — Edokter • Talk • 20:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Is a useful honepot. Moreover, they get edited on occasion for legitimate uses. Since they are all NOINDEXED vandalism is not a serious concern. Net benefit is negative. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
• Archive pages are often edited en-masse by people removing old signatures when they do not want their name/pseudonym associated with an account any more. I don't like the idea of people having to bug admins to do that (but, to be honest, the fact they do it bugs me anyway). I would support such a proposal. Shouldn't be too hard to get a bot to do all the protecting. J Milburn (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I would strongly support such a proposal, too. This is a problem with an easy, common sense solution. In fact, if we made the archive bots adminbots, full protection could be applied to article talk and user talk archives, too. — Jake Wartenberg 00:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• I'd like to think that one doesn't have to gain administrator privileges merely in order to be a WikiGnome. Uncle G (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • One probably shouldn't be wikignoming talkpage archives, if I understand you correctly. Can you elaborate a little bit? — Jake Wartenberg 01:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I've done WikiGnoming in archives a few times. For example, I removed confusing TFD notices which came with Template:Smile (before I became an admin), and I retargetted links in very old signatures, such as changing links to LMS so they point to User:LMS. Sometimes, bad subpage links need to be fixed, such as this edit to an RFA talk page archive, or discussions need to be moved to or from an archive page, such as my edits to Talk:Astrology/Archive 1. I've even moved around discussions in noticeboard archives for readability, like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive27 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive29,. Having said all that, I've found that most edits to archive pages are unhelpful, but are usually made in good faith (e.g. spelling fixes). I don't think that we should deny non-admins the ability to tweak archive pages, if they find that it's necessary. Graham87 09:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I regularly gnome Talk archives to add better templates, such as Template:atn, which provides much easier navigation of multiple archives. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Hmm. You both make really good points, though we still have {{editprotected}}. I would say that giving the bots the ability to edit protected pages still makes sense though, as there are times when full protection is appropriate. We just might not want to indiscriminately FP all talk page archives, and instead do so on an as needed basis. The changes that would be made to the protection policy as a result of this proposals implementation should probably reflect that. — Jake Wartenberg 18:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback all. I guess I'll let this one rest, as some valid points for not implementing this have been raised. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 01:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirection request

Resolved

Hello everybody. Im not sure if this is the right place for my request. Now, you will surely tell me, if this is the case. I write this, because I need the help of an administrator. It has to do with the following article: Jacob Westervelt. Actually the common/usal name of the person, which is described in this article is Jacob Aaron Westervelt. I cant move the article, because the article Jacob Aaron Westervelt already exists (redirection to Jacob Westervelt).

I wrote a huge article (60kb - 150 hours of work) about Jacob Aaron Westervelt, that I would like to upload as soon as the old article is moved. I also wrote an article about Jacob Westervelt (a sheriff and Assistant Alderman, who lived in the same period as Jacob Aaron). There is even a third man called Jacob Westervelt, but I have not written an article about him yet.

My idea: making a disambiguation page from the current Jacob Westervelt-page, and creating a new page for Jacob Westervelt (Sheriff). Could anybody help me? With kind regards --Rectilinium'♥' 19:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The best place to request this is WP:Requested moves. – ukexpat (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops looks like someone is working on it already. – ukexpat (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've moved it to Jacob Aaron Westervelt over the redirect - leaving Jacob Westervelt yet to be created. Go forth and disambiguate! In future the best place is, as Ukexpat states, WP:RM. – Toon^(talk) 19:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast! Thank you very much Toon05 and Ukexpat... :)--Rectilinium'♥' 19:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Did it... I hope it is ok like that...--Rectilinium'♥' 19:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

IP vandal

Resolved

I just reverted the last four contributions from this IP user. Because it's a shared IP and it's been blocked before, but it doesn't look like the IP is currently engaged in a vandalism spree this instant, I really wasn't sure where to report it. If you've got future guidance for where I should ask about these (or if I shouldn't bother at all), please let me know - thanks. Townlake (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, not much to do with that IP anymore (no vandalism in about the last hour as of time stamp). In the future, if you see that it had resumed vandalism about now after a break, report it to WP:AIV. If you had caught it ongoing, same place. If you notice it after the editing has ceased, leave a strongly worded warning on the talk page just in case. We aren't prone to blocking if the disruption has ceased. Thanks, Townlake. Keegan^talk 20:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing - and thanks for the helpful response. Townlake (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Userpage redirect to article?

Resolved

Hi, not sure if this is something worthy of anyone's attention. I noticed that User:Phdmaven redirects to an article authored by that editor. I was wondering about the appropriateness of that, and whether it would lead to confusion from people who try to navigate to this editor's talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Looks like he wrote the article on his userpage, and then moved it into articlespace, leaving a redirect behind. I've simply removed the redirect. Black Kite 22:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirect for Simpson Criteria/Simpson Grade

Hi there, please excuse my ignorance...but why can I not create a redirect page for "Simpson Grade" and "Simpson Criteria" to redirect to the relevant section in the Meningioma article?

Anyway, please create two new redirect pages, one for Simpson Grade and one for Simpson Criteria, with the following text:

"#REDIRECT Meningioma#Treatment"

Russthomas1515 (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it was actually stupidity on my part - I entered the wrong syntax to create the Redirect. Egg, and my face, now in alignment! Russthomas1515 (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Reverting in the midsts of article creation

I run into a problem I haven't seen in my 4+ years of wiki experience, and in none of the ~1500 articles I've created. While creating this article (movie) from a redirect, I was reverted by a user who stated in the edit summary that the article is not-notable ([4]). I recreated the article, expanding it, assuming that it had not enough content, only to have the same thing happen two more times: [5], [6] (the links I've added here have also been reverted three times...). Needless to say, even through I have more material to add to this article I can hardly edit the page in what has to much of my surprise turned out to be a strange edit war: my experience was that a possibly unnotable article gets tagged by {{notability}}, perhaps prodded, perhaps debated by the community on WP:AFD, where all sides plus an influx of neutral editors can discuss notability for a few days; what to do in the face of "revert to redirect", with 3 reverts within ~2 hours - I am not sure. RfC? AfD the redirect (which was, btw, my initial plan, per WP:RED, than I decided to stub it...). Movies are not my usual subject of expertise, so perhaps I am wrong and this is indeed not notable (What puzzles me is that the article in my latest version looked as notable (sources, top 10 box office, etc.) than the prequel: here) but I'd like to generate at least some discussion, somehow (at least one other user suggested this article should be created, see article's talk). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus is, of course, completely miscategorizing this. The film was merged, by consensus, months ago as unnotable. It is still unnotable and he simply reverted the merging. He was reverted, on good faith. He continues, however, edit warring with multiple editors instead of following proper WP:BRD and starting a discussion. Nor has he attempted to actually get details from any of the reverting editors, nor taken this to the project. He was, however, given a 3RR warning for the edit warring, which he removed claiming it was "harassment." The main Bleach article contains all of the same information, there is nothing else to add. As is, the film is still not notable enough to warrant a spin out. It is also fully in compliance with WP:MOS-AM to have it in the same article. Box office alone is not a valid reason to resplit it from the main article (and the "sources" couldn't even agree what kind of Box Office placing it had). The first two movies have separate articles because they have been released in English and so there is significant coverage on both in reliable sources, including reviews. Both were, however, considered for merging recently. There is no need to AfD the redirect as it is a valid redirect. Obviously, this is not a legitimate AN/I issue. Piotrus should actually attempt to discuss, as was suggested to him in the revert summaries (which he obviously read). He has also left a false and retaliatory edit warring warning on my page, when he is the one who has reverted 3 times (and he spefically states he left it purely as "tic for tat".[7]-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why Collectonian is so hostile to me and to this film, also I see he has reverted the creation of this article in the first place. I've removed the 3RR warning as I've not reverted thrice anywhere, just twice; on the other hand, Collectionian has indeed done three reverts on Bleach (manga). As I've pointed out on article's talk page (where Collectionian is yet to reply), the two previous movie installment of this franchise (none of which is significantly more referenced than my lastest version of the 3rd) had articles created few months before the movie even aired, none were ever challenged as unnotable. A movie which had hold a top 10 position in a national box office for 5 weeks seems rather notable, and I am sure there are non-English (Japanese) reviews and such. I am still assuming good faith, and I would hate to invoke WP:IDONTLIKEIT / WP:OWN seriously here... PS. I can't find any discussion of merge on the talk pages of two other mentioned movies, despite Colectonian's claim to the contrary. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Since AnmaFinotera Rd232 restored the article and opened a proper discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bleach: Fade to Black, I Call Your Name, I consider this issue resolved, no need to fan the flames any more :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I am not hostile towards the film at all. The create of the article, and many other versions, have been reverted by almost every editor in the anime/manga project at one time or another on agreement it shouldn't exist. The name isn't even real, its the presumed translation. I will invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because the other two did not get properly challenged when created is not a reason to try to claim this one is valid. They also were challenged late last year, but sources showed they have received enough reviews to justify the article. If there are Japanese reviews, please find them and point them out in the AfD since you have demanded it be taken there. And by mentioning you are invoking and neither applies. I am NOT the only one who reverted you, nor am I the only one who has said it previously. IDONTLIKEIT obviously is ridiculous as I am a heavily active editor in both the Anime/manga and Films projects (unlike you, by your own admission, indicating more of WP:ILIKEIT situation). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked user is back with a new account

Zoomzoom316 (talk) was indefinitely blocked (as noted on his talk page) and is now back, as Desi15 (talk) (he self-identified as Zoomzoom316 on Talk:Sino-Indian War‎). Bertport (talk) 14:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef and templated per WP:DUCK. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Nommagdor and Talk:Smiley face murders

Resolved

 – Blocked, Tiptoety ^talk 17:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Nommagdor has been making threats and violating the 3RR rule on the Talk:Smiley face murders page. The user is probably a sock puppet from earlier problems on the page based on his poor English and threats. Angryapathy (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked Sock account. Tiptoety ^talk 17:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Some advetising

A couple of days ago, there was some debate about X-Y country relations but we didn't come far with it. Now, a centralized discussion has been opened in order to create some guidelines when to have such articles and when not. Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations Feel free to leave comments. --Tone 17:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Spam template

Is it just me or is this a spam template? {{Modelref}}. It links to a load of arbitrarily selected sites including at least one that was previously blacklisted. Should we really be encouraging this kind of thing? Guy (Help!) 17:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well if the sites are legit, I don't see a problem. Anything blacklisted should be removed from the template of couse. There is at least one precedent with geographic coordinates that link to a truckload of map sites. If that worked, I'm sure the people editing movie articles would gladly have a template that links to imdb, rotten tomatoes, metacritics and whatever reference sites are commonly in use... Equendil Talk 17:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Links are not supposed to eb decorative, though. This amounts to an official endorsement of sites that are in some cases just paparazzi twaddle. Guy (Help!) 19:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Further, does this template just link to the site, rather than to the article subject's listing on the site? If so, I would be very much inclined to agree with Guy. J Milburn (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The template docs say that it links to specific model info if the necessary id's are given as parameters. Looie496 (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that is clearly an inappropriate use of external links. If the links are useful for references they should be present at at WikiProject Fashion, but not in a template like this. ThemFromSpace 21:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Open Proxy that needs to be blocked

207.97.213.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As seen here, the IP states that it is an open proxy owned by some company. Per our policy regarding open proxies, and the vandalism we've been getting from it, it needs to be blocked.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Port 80 is open, so blocked. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

While the diff is certainly evidence enough, who doesn't have port 80 open? Chillum 03:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Its actually a CGI proxy in this case, [8]. Mr.Z-man 03:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You can report open proxies at WP:WPOP BTW. Hut 8.5 19:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion request backlog

There's a big deletion request backlog. Any admins wanna pitch in? [here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/#Open_requests]. I'm particularly eager for someone with a legal mind and patience to look at this and provide some consistency.

While we'd love to help you, those deletion requests are on wikipedia commons and this is en.wikipedia. Not every admin who has admin access here has admin access on commons as well. User rights are typically restricted to the local project. You would be better off asking the admins at this noticeboard. Also, don't forget to sign your posts! :) Icestorm815 • Talk 05:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Blacklisted redirects to my page

Resolved

Ento-Ag (talk) 05:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Hello, I am trying to create redirect pages to a project page I am working on. The page I have is Sarcophaga haemorrhoidalis, I am trying to create redirects from s. haemorrhoidalis and s haemorrhoidalis. It says, "The page title or edit you have tried to create cannot be created or edited by you at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, used to prevent vandalism." Thank you.

I posted a message on Talk:Sarcophaga haemorrhoidalis before I saw this post, instructing how to create redirects. After seeing this request I went ahead and did it for them. Killiondude (talk)

Returned blocked user

• AncientUni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Is claiming to be

• LOTRrules (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Also known as

• 78.144.236.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78.144.24.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Who was indefinately blocked for nasty attacks against users.--Otterathome (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the relevant section of LOTRrules talkpage, the indef block was not overturned and the editor seems more concerned about being able to edit than to resolve the issues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Is now back as SonGoku786 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).--Otterathome (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

 Deferred Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LOTRrules, please :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of potential rangeblock of 70.108.0.0/16 based on major disruption

The range 70.108.0.0/16 has been confirmed to be frequently used by Lilkunta (talk · contribs) per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lilkunta/Archive and by a deafening quacking sound based on the near single-minded disruption caused by it. The pattern is clear. The user shows up at a random address in the range, and starts deleting WHOIS information from IP address talk pages. The WHOIS information is always removed from either one of the numerous 70.108.0.0/16 talk pages, or specifically from the User talk:173.79.58.33 page, or sometimes from other random IP addresses which are assigned to Verizon Washington DC pool. The IP addresses change often enough to be a nuisance that Whack-a-mole blocks are ineffective at stopping. This has been going on for weeks now. A 1-week rangeblock issued on March 31st was effective at stopping this problem. Since this is such a large range, I thought that we should discuss how best to handle this problem. Its been a nuisance for some time now, and I want to know what others think about solving this. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:ABFIL —Wknight94 (talk) 03:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

a) I think the abuse filter is the most wonderful invention since Wikipedia itself, and if it could stop this problem from happening, that would be Most Excellent In Every Way. b) I am a technical moron, and have NO IDEA how to use the abuse filter myself, so any help with doing so would be Most Appreciated. Free Barnstars to whoever makes this work!!!!--Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What should 70.108.0.0/16 be stopped from doing? If the answer is all editing then just block it. If you have more a more nuanced set of pages or edit behaviors, then the abuse filter may be useful. Dragons flight (talk) 04:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that it is a large range of addresses in a very active ISP; blocking essentially 65,000 Verizon addresses for a narrow set of disruptive behaviors by a single person may be excessive. A checkuser at the case cited above indicated that the range was "busy" which would seem to me to indicated that a rangeblock should only be considered as a last resort. The abuse filter may be useful, if it could stop ONLY edits by that range which removed WHOIS information from IP addresses, or a similar carefully targeted action to stop only this mess. Since this is really a single, narrowly defined sort of disruption, abuse filter may be the way to go. However, as I stated, I am completely flying blind in this department, so any help would be most appreciated. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Starting with User_talk:70.108.118.234, it basicly all started with 3RR violations at some articles, then it esclated to the IP (User:Lilkunta) removing the whois templates after they were put on after he was blocked for the 3RR violations. Momusufan (talk) 04:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

70.108.93.13, Here is clear evidence that he was removing those whois templates from his other IP pages. Momusufan (talk) 04:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the rangeblock should be instituted again as this user is clearly being disruptive by removing the whois templates, believing that the IP talk pages are his own, and in some instinces, making personal attacks especially to FisherQueen anytime she makes a response on the IP pages, see User_talk:70.108.118.234 and User_talk:70.108.93.13. About him thinking the IP pages are his own, he put a speedy up twice here and here. I do believe there should be an abuse filter made to stop people (mostly IP addresses) from removing whois templates once they are on the page. I think that is worth considering. Momusufan (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Also it is believed that Lilkunta is using 173.79.58.33 claiming it belongs to his apartment, see here. But how could it be assigned to an appartment when he is using the 70.108.0.0/16 range? Both are dynamic IP ranges. The whois info for the 173 IP says it's 173.64.0.0/12 but we could just block 173.79.0.0/16 if needed, see here A bit puzzling if I do say so myself. Momusufan (talk) 04:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There are several possibilities here. One could be that he is editing from a static IP address at work or school, and a dynamic one from home, or visa versa. I have not done any analysis of editing times from the two address sets, but one could make such a correlation based on that. The other possibility, if we take the claims made by 173.79.58.33 and by 70.108.0.0 is that the later range belongs to a different person than the former address; but that they are closely related. My speculation is that the 173.79.58.33 address is assigned to a public figure who does NOT want it known what his activities are at Wikipedia, and that the 70.108 range is used by someone he has asked to clean up his mess, such as a secretary or press agent or something like that. I have no proof of any of that, but it is my gut feeling. That has been my actual belief as to what is going on here since almost the beginning; but regardless the entire enterprise needs to stop. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well the checkuser case determined that Lilkunta was using 70.108.0.0/16 for his disruption, I seem to think that 173 is either him or one of his comrades wanting to "clean up the mess" like you said. Either way it's got to end. Momusufan (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, based on this unblock request, it may appear to be someone else saying "I was asked to delete". Momusufan (talk) 04:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

How about Special:AbuseFilter/145? —Wknight94 (talk) 04:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Filter is private so I am unable to see the details of it but "Socks abusing talk page privilege" seems like a good filter. Momusufan (talk) 04:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It's specialized for the {{whois}} removal but can be adapted. It's only logging now for testing purposes. How about disallowing any 70.108 IP from editing a different 70.108 IP's talk page? —Wknight94 (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that a 70.108 should not be allowed to edit another 70.108 page based on 70.108.93.13's contributions. Momusufan (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Special:AbuseFilter/145 looks good, let's wait until it logs something and see if it works alright. Cirt (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

While we are waiting to see how Special:AbuseFilter/145 works out, I have instituted another one week rangeblock - other admins please feel free to change it. Cirt (talk) 11:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The range is huge and checkuser says it's "busy" though. Perhaps we should wait for the abuse filter first. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, good point, unblocked, let's see how the AbuseFilter does on its own with this. Cirt (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Question: Would it be technically possible for the whois information be added automatically to every IP's talk page by wikimedia? Regards, Ben Aveling 12:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Typically whois information is only added to IPs who vandalize or are otherwise disruptive. –xeno (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be rather simple for a bot to simply track the recent changes for active IP addresses and add WHOIS templates to talk pages where there isn't currently one. However, as a matter of course, it is better for a human to do it as needed. For one thing, a bot would not automatically know whether {{whois}}, {{sharedIP}} or {{sharedIPEDU}} is most appropriate, and each of these would be used in different situations. I think the abuse filter cited abouve has the most potential, once it goes "live". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thinking aloud here, but could a bot use a 4th template with a (initially) unset parameter? My thinking is: a bot tags the page as being an unreviewed IP address, and lists the basic whois details. A human review would then come along and set the parameter to one of "whois", "sharedIP" or "sharedIPEDU" (automagically marking the template as "reviewed"). A script could list all un-reviewed pages. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

nudie pics on user pages

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

Being discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:WebHamster.

---

This is really going nowhere but the gutter. Take it to chatrooms, or else here. Durova^Charge! 22:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

G'day all - I recently had this chat with User:WebHamster, whose userpage features a nudie pic. I'm unaware of the practice / guidelines / policy in this area (nudie pics on userpages) so thought I'd come here for a pointer - is there some sort of generally accepted practice in this regard? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

ps. I generally think that we urgently need to tighten up policy and practice concerning sexual content on wikipedia - I've written an essay about it, if anyone's interested (this is not safe for work, and I'm advised to note that you shouldn't follow that link unless you are over 18, or the age of majority in your neighbourhood). Privatemusings (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

W8, but I thought that wikipedia is not censored? (not that I look at porn anything). I think that they should be free to do anything harmless on their userpages. --Montgomery' 39 (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

On what basis should it be removed? Editors of the encyclopedia are already familiar with the broad scope of the project, which includes articles on matters of a sexual nature (with images) and should have the sense to simply avoid pages that have material they find distasteful - and it isn't as if anyone need go to a userpage to contact the editor. Readers of the encyclopedia are extremely unlikely to go to an editors page, even if they know such things exist - and those that do know are likely as familiar as editors on the range of subjects and images provided on these pages and should be able to handle them. So, why does it need to be trimmed? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

gotta commend you on the use of the word 'trimmed' in this context :-) - I'm just genuinely after any pointers to current practice is all - is it fair to say that there's no problem with any pictures on userpages or in userspace? Seems so...... Privatemusings (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You tried to do this before and it didnt work. repeat after me: wikipedia is not censored. deal with it. //roux   22:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

First they came... Gwen Gale (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec*lots)I've seen this come up before, and the general consensus has always seemed to be that they're ok since Wikipedia is not censored. However I'm not sure I agree with this since there is a difference between not censoring ourselves from showing images that are relevant and simply hosting pictures, many or which are probably copyrighted anyway, a lot look professionally done, and several that don't are of people who most likely don't know there image has ended up here. Added to this the fact that most of these images are used nowhere outside of userspace, and there doesn't seem to be much logic behind keeping these. Having said that, are they actually hurting anyone? The whole 18 thing is a bit of a moot point since even the most innocuous of google image searches can have unexpected results(I'm reminded of a time back in college in a computer room lesson the results of an image search for a picture of some historical figure included a naked transexual man) and the internet is filled with easily accesible porn. Also, many of these images are on commons, who we have no control over--Jac16888^Talk 22:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I recall your ramblings about censorship before and as you were told then and above Wiki is NOT censored. BigDunc^Talk 22:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think we can mark this thread as resolved for no violation of any policies and thus no reason for admin intervention. If you think it should be removed, ask the user nicely or use WP:MFD but no policy forbids using such images in userspace like it does not forbid them elsewhere. If it violates WP:NOT#WEBHOST, WP:MFD is the way to go. Regards SoWhy 22:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless there's a copyright issue, I'm not sure why we should care. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Privatemusings's conversation with the user acknowledges that it's a political statement of opposition to the former president of the United States. So while it's a crude pun, It's arguably defensible. Stumbled across this conversation shortly after dropping a few boobies and tits on PM's own user talk (unrelated discussion, serendipitous coincidence). And Privatemusings seemed to enjoy the sight of them--so who are we to judge? Best, Durova^Charge! 22:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I do wish that people who leap to cite WP:NOTCENSORED would pause to reflect for a minute on what it says, and why. The explicit wording of the policy clearly emphasizes that it's about article content. The purpose of the policy is to prevent political, moral, or religious outrage from hindering our ability to present accurate, detailed, informative articles. Our goal of building an encyclopedia is paramount.

WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't say – and has never meant – that you can slap whatever you want up on your userpage. Note that the very same policy page, four sections down, addresses this point explicitly: WP:NOTFREESPEECH. While I don't know if it's written down somewhere, we ought to be applying a Principle of Least Astonishment to potentially shocking or salacious content. We don't offend unless it benefits the project. Pictures of boobies belong in our article on the breast — they have a valid educational purpose there, and our coverage would be incomplete (ha ha) without them. It is reasonable to expect such images in such articles. On the other hand, titillating photos on user pages don't serve to improve or enhance the project. They're no more appropriate than centerfold photos tacked up on your cubicle wall at work, and they have to potential to be similarly discomfiting to your coworkers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I just don't think it's a good idea to get into the area of determining what is and isn't offensive for user pages. If you want to say no pictures at all, that's one thing. But to say, "This picture is okay, but this one isn't because I don't like it," well, I just don't see that going anywhere good. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Chunky Rice. It's not our place to decide where that line gets drawn. That seems to go way past our remit as an encyclopedia. If it causes a disruption, then let's address that. Otherwise, let's live and let live. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

At the same time, I think we would be abdicating our responsibility to say that since there are likely to be some gray areas, we cannot choose to draw any lines at all. Once upon a time, Wikipedia was the side project of a couple of guys funded by an internet porn magnate. Now we're one of the most widely-read sites on the Internet. We're trying to be at least moderately respectable, and we're trying to recruit subject matter experts in areas beyond our traditional fields of pop music and Pokemon. At some point, that requires a bit of a review of our online 'offices'.

The stuff we could get away with as a (metaphorical) handful of buddies in a garage may no longer be suitable for a larger, broader organization — even one that remains volunteer-driven. There's a bit of a psychological disjoint that works against us here. Even though the Internet comes into our living rooms, dens, and home offices, it's essential to be aware that our actions have effects which extend far beyond the confines of our own homes. Our own personal standards for what is acceptable decoration on our own walls don't apply to (and shouldn't be imposed on) every other person who visits Wikipedia.

We are using the project's servers to maintain our user pages. The bills are paid largely by charitable donations. What does it say about us – and how might it affect our reputation or our ability to recruit experts – when some of our users feel that the best way to introduce themselves is with a front-and-center picture of a shaved pussy?

Editors who might be uncomfortable with nudity or profanity can still contribute to Wikipedia articles; we exercise sufficient good sense and restraint that it is obvious which articles they ought to avoid (vagina, fuck, fellatio...). Should they ever want – or need – to communicate or collaborate with another editor, we shouldn't be throwing them into a minefield. Why should I have to worry every time I click on a user's name that I'm going to end up having to explain something to my boss/girlfriend/teacher/sensitive coworker? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why your boss, teacher, or sensitive coworker is watching you edit Wikipedia. As for your girlfriend, I would hope that your relationship is strong enough that you could get past a situation where she walks in just as you click on a certain user's name...

I agree that we mustn't abdicate all responsibility, but I suggest that we draw the line based on a practical consideration rather than a moral one. I refuse to agree, for example, that explicit images of sex are more objectionable than explicit images of violence. (Thus, the comparison of a space with nude pictures to a "minefield" doesn't sit well with me.) This is not the kind of argument in which Wikipedia needs to take a stand. If an image is actually disruptive, then we've got encyclopedic reasons to remove it. Until then...

I have a lot of sympathy with what you're saying, but who gets to decide? If you leave it to community consensus, then we get what we have now. If you don't, then who gets to decide? The most sensitive? Those living in a certain jurisdiction? How do we draw these lines, once we decide to be arbiters of taste? Who says that a naked human body is obscene, while something else isn't? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

And yet I had userboxes related to masturbation, deleted not once but twice. Nice. It all depends on "who" you get at the particular moment, as to whether or not such content will be deemed unacceptable or not. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 00:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

As with all user page material, I support the inclusion of material that helps to understand the user, in the sense that it reflects their views, attitudes, interests, biases, or allows one to predict their behavior. These are all important for deciding how to interact with them and view their contributions to the project. User page images, even nude ones, frequently fall into this category. Dcoetzee 00:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not quite, Allstarecho. Principles do apply. This past week I advocated deletion of a breast cleavage userbox because it demeaned a segment of the population and served no encyclopedic purpose. If the image under discussion here had been part of an equivalent user box then it would have merited removal on similar grounds. Context matters: a photograph of breast cleavage would be appropriate in a userbox about breast cancer, and the political statement here merits broader latitude too. Barely passes the threshold, but makes it; poor taste though. Durova^Charge! 01:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Just as my userbox and its variations with an image of a man masturbating was appropriate about masturbation. They were originally deleted (by someone who has since had his adminship taken away via Arbcom for such controversial deletions) as being csd t1 but that only applies to templates so shouldn't have been deleted. Someone brought this fact up at DRV - but the fact is, it shouldn't have ever went to DRV because it shouldn't have been deleted in the first place, procedurally or otherwise. And I hate arguments about controversial userboxes that use the "it's not encyclopedic!" rhetoric. Of course it's not! Userspace isn't an encyclopedia! Duh! But I digress. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 02:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Your "duh" seems to imply that anyone who believes we should maintain an encyclopedic environment, even in userspace, is stupid. Do you really believe that? I've seen some pretty damned intelligent arguments against various kinds of userboxes, and I would not characterize the dispute as "duh", from either side. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not totally up the whole discussion here, but on these pictures that involve nudes, do we have anything resembling a confirmation that the subjects gave their images up freely for indiscriminate use on Wikipedia?--Tznkai (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

heh... course not! - I'd invite you to read my outrageous essay (full of nudie pics) and my proposal for good measure, Tzn, if you're interested in this stuff... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If the image is properly licensed, in this case GDFL, then such a thing doesn't really seem necessary. Tarc (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If I take a photograph of a random nude person and post it online, I can license it to GDFL or CC-SA-BY (or whatever it was) all I like. I can put it into the public domain. This doesn't immunize me from the moral or legal responsibility. Living subjects deserve protection.--Tznkai (talk) 03:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that I've seen what are basically creepy voyeur photos deleted from Commons for exactly that reason. Wikimedia doesn't need photos of random nude women sitting on beaches taken and posted online without their permission. Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

actually, Nick - commons currently hosts tens, perhaps hundreds of such images. Images taken in a public place with appropriate copyright status are routinely uploaded, or copied across from other sites. I don't think they're a good fit here either, and mention this in my essay, cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Can we suspend any discussion regarding Good Taste; I do not care for anyone tell me that a picture celebrating the human form is of lesser "taste" than My Little Pony images. For fuck's sake, can we treat each other as human beings capable of making their own judgements - and that includes the readership too. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Call it a "soft objection" then: nearly everyone at this discussion has seen how user space can fan the flames of content disputes. Even innocuous boxes such as This user is a Christian get mined for argumentation by people who construe That user is probably an evangelical fundamentalist Christian and that's why he disagrees with me! and saunter over to the admin boards to complain. Remember the big userbox debates of 2005? Politics is a hot button issue and this political statement is intentionally provocative. I don't try to shut down IRC but I never use it, I don't try to abolish all userboxes but I don't use any on this project, and I won't try to force WebHamster to stop using this image but I will speak my opinion and call it unwise. And if your opinion differs, please express it in civil language that demonstrates your professed respect for other people's judgments. Durova^Charge! 17:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Although it's a resolved discussion I'd like to put one little bit of my opinion forth. I would have no problem with my children (at any age) seeing this picture. It's a perfectly tasteful picture of a perfectly healthy woman. If other people have a problem with their children seeing it then I suggest that they don't put it on their user page. That way they can continue to circulate the stupidly asinine view that seeing naked people (whether in images or the flesh) is in some way harmful. I don't see it as harmful in any way and as such I will refuse to remove the picture until such time as I get bored with it or the rules are changed. --WebHamster 11:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

WebHamster, some people think this image is inappropriate. Your only stated reason for keeping it is that you like it there. Why are you placing more value on your whims than on the opinions of other people? If you want to make a statement, do it on your own homepage. Your user page doesn't belong to you. Frankly, you're behaving like a spoiled child, and if this is your attitude, maybe Wikipedia is not for you. Friday (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

{ec}I refer you to the penultimate userbox on my user page, use it in response to both your opinion of me and your opinion of my preferred usage of the picture. What "some people" do or don't think is inappropriate is irrelevant to me as "inappropriate" is a subjective term. I have my own criteria for what is or isn't "inappropriate", this criteria is based on what I consider to be an enlightened attitude that has not been indoctrinated by sensibilities that have a basis in religious dogma (this is the basis of all nudity/sex censorship). What right do others have to contradict my opinion? To use your argument, why do their opinions matter more than mine? Regardless, the contents of my user page effectively describe me and what I'm about without all the self-congratulatory bollocks seen on most editor's pages. --WebHamster 13:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

And Friday some people think it isn't. Everything you stated can be said to you too. If it is against policy then it should be removed, but at present and I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong it is not. BigDunc^Talk 13:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Friday, the majority of respondees do not think it is inappropriate - and other than personal opinion there has been no reference to WP policy that says the image is disallowable. Now, if you are unable to discern consensus, have no interest in citing policy and are in the habit of believing that your opinion outweighs that of other contributors - with no basis for that belief advanced - then perhaps you should take your own advice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to reach for policies and behave like lawyers. Gratuitous nudity on a user page? How does it look to the public? Is this what people expect from a reputable encyclopedia, or is this what people expect from some kid on myspace? The best answer here is clear; no policies needed. Friday (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

A user page, any user page, is not a part of the encyclopaedia. That's why it's called user space. The majority of user pages are non-encyclopaedic. If you don't like that then perhaps "maybe Wikipedia is not for you". --WebHamster 13:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Gratuitous? The image has a clear political message, which indicates to the readership not only WebHamster's political leanings but also gives some indication on how they choose to publicise it. It helps the reader understand the editor better - as such it is totally in compliance with WP:USER. "No policies needed"? How convenient, why bother with what is allowed when dealing with what is RIGHT. Why allow any other expression of opinion, indeed? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Have we ever considered an optional filter for images such as this? I don't have a problem with it, but I'm sure if I clicked on the userpage at an inopportune moment I might have some 'splaining to do. –xeno (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Aren't images like this supposed to be included in WP:BADIMAGES? I'm not involved in images a lot, so can an expert clarify? Chamal ^talk 13:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:BADIMAGES is there to prevent vandalism by way of image use. It's not there for purposes of censorship or making subjective decisions on what is or isn't a "bad image". --WebHamster 13:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Images only normally get blacklisted when they have been used for vandalism. If it was included on the list, an exemption for this userpage would normally be included with it. In answer to Xeno, Wikipedia:Options to not see an image is the best we have right now. I tend to think an optional user-contributed list could be set up with javascript. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

LHvU has it exactly right - userpages which help readers understand contributors better are a good thing - they enable readers to read contributions critically, to identify and allow for possible biases (which all editors have) and also give an idea of what modes of discourse will be productive when communicating with the contributor. The image appears to be legal, is not sexually explicit (nudity is not inherently sexual), and enhances the information available to readers and contributors about WebHamster's political beliefs. Therefore it should not be forcibly removed. DuncanHill (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Segue to copyright

Resolved

 – Free license confirmed.

• • Xeno, shuffling the posts slightly so the unresolved copyright issue doesn't get buried. Hope you don't mind. Durova^Charge! 19:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This has got to be the tamest image I have ever seen anyone get upset about, on Wikipedia or off. Chillum 13:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I will add that when a thread is active here, it is not (in my opinion) helpful or particularly ethical for an admin to fragment the discussion by commenting both here and on the user talk page of the editor in question, when that editor has been participating constructively here. I hope that he is not considering unilateral action. DuncanHill (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

May I also say, I also think that image is tame (even if it does look like a sneaky copyvio), happy, way heedfully cared-for kids see stronger stuff than that in European and American art museums every day. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting observation. Camera data is missing from the metadata, which is indicative of possible copyvio. WebHamster's upload notes state that it is a modified version of another file, but does not provide the filename of the previous upload. The previous uploader's username turns up no contributions on en:wiki, Commons, or the German Wikipedia. On the chance of a possible typographical error, I tried capitalization and hypenation variations--still with no results. No similar images turned up on a search of related Commons categories; adult volunteers whose orientations would find the search pleasant rather than cumbersome are invited to double check. Left a query at WebHamster's user talk page. Durova^Charge! 18:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not at all easy to get that kind of foreground lighting, of that high colour temperature, in front of an already bright background, without big reflectors bouncing daylight back onto the subject. Shoots with setups like that aren't wontedly released under CC or GFDL. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the original seems to be File:Brazilian Waxing.jpg. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The true original is here for folks who like bare breasts as well as bare mons venerii --WebHamster 23:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Gimped. Thanks. I don't think it's a copyvio anymore. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually it was Photoshopped, and was originally an exterior shot (for those that haven't tracked down or seen the original) ;) --WebHamster 23:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I use Gimping as a catch-all verb for photo-manipulation. Only so you know, I always thought it was an outdoor shot, from the light, but the photo manipulation brought about a lighting which could only otherwise have been done with reflectors, or very high colour temperature, expensive (and dangerous) movie lights. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. No more reason to doubt the license; full metadata there. Durova^Charge! 20:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

And the reason you doubted the license and didn't assume good faith in the first place was...? --WebHamster 23:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't worry about that, WebHamster. Almost any image that winds up being talked about on a project page will sooner or later have its licensing glommed at, en.Wikipedia is way stern about image licensing and copyright. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Good job it wasn't a "sneaky copyvio" then wasn't it? ;) --WebHamster 00:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The Gimping was deft enough to make it look (as I said) like it came from a budgeted shoot, hence maybe a copyvio. Moreover, the lenses on some digital cameras these days can yield very sharp images (one can see pores in the skin) which, only 3 or 4 years ago, would be seen mostly in professional work. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

WebHamster, WP:AGF does not mean we assume adequate compliance with copyright law--only the intention to comply. The absence of adequate metadata or a contribution history for the username suggested the prior uploader's history may have been nuked. Uploaders have a proactive responsibility to demonstrate legality by providing adequate documentation. In the future you can avoid this sort of question by supplying the earlier version filename in the upload notes. Without that, there wasn't much to go by. Durova^Charge! 23:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It's just as well that I didn't AGF to your motives for looking in the first place then, otherwise my innate cynicism would have had nowhere to go now would it? --WebHamster 00:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Heehee, if more males realized how often Commons admins get tasked with confirming the license and personality rights for this sort of thing, they'd be lining up to volunteer for ops. As you might imagine, a lot of the people who upload this stuff are shaky on the technicalities. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 04:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• If people want to plaster their pages with naked photos of themselves, their friends and relations then let them, so long as they are not against the law, I don't see a problem - anything that brightens the gloom is welcome. Perhaps, you Durova coulp place the triple crowns over strategic parts? I may even upload one of myself, seated at my desk, quill in hand. Giano (talk) 06:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Botticelli's Bikini Babe

• A bit busy at the moment. Would a politically correct innovation on Renaissance art do? Durova^Charge! 19:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Very nice Durova; she's welcome to edit my page and pick up my quill any time. Giano (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Not here to work collaboratively

• It may not have been Hamster's intention, but by employing a custom sig that links only to his userpage, and not his user talk page, he is essentially forcing people to "walk past" the image while heading to his talk page (unless they take the time to manually key it into the address bar or search box). I have asked the user to amend his signature to provide a link to his talk page. –xeno (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No luck there... I must say this trend of users using lines such as "I don't want to be contact by other users" alarming, but "I'm not here to work "collaboratively" sends a pretty strong message, and it has nothing to do with the female anatomy. –xeno (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That is a concern. Also Jimbo has twice personally deleted full nude shots of women who put full body nude poses of themselves on their userpages. One was PublicGirlUK and I forget the other's username. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) You two may see WP as being a virtual open plan office with chest level partitions where one can talk to fellow 'workers' and "collaborate". I don't. I see an entry on my talk page as the annoying telephone call one gets when one is busy concentrating and doing something that is useful. This whole palaver, for example, came about after a user left an unsolicited comment on my talk page whilst trying to do some 'telemarketing' of his "essay" and then not liking the answer he got. If he'd never left that comment then several of us would never have wasted irreplaceable minutes of our lives on something that is truly inconsequential. --WebHamster 02:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that not being here to collaborate puts you at odds with the nature of this project. That might or might not cause trouble for you down the line. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I've been here for 6 years already, so that's probably a long line you are referring to. --WebHamster 08:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, it might or might not. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter one way or the other. The project doesn't need me and I don't need the project, either way neither will be missed. --WebHamster 14:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure they'll come after you - particularly now you have scored a little victory. The "bush" episode, and your comments about collaboration, will be dragged up whenever certain people feel they have a chance of getting their own back. DuncanHill (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you may be referring to User:Mcrazychick. Tiptoety ^talk 02:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• eh, if there's a positive to this whole situation, this Adblock with element hider is freaking great! No more shorn beavers, no more "peeking jimbo" (I mean he's handsome and all, but that peeking is just creepy). See Wikipedia:Options to not see an image I love it, thanks for pointing me to it zzuzzzzzzzz. –xeno ^talk 14:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a problem. Now he's ruleslawyering to explain why he's intentionally making his signature less useful to others? Again, this demonstrates a disregard for others that is fundamentally incompatible with a collaborative project like Wikipedia. Is there some reason we're still tolerating this guy? Nothing good can ever come from trying to appease people whose approach is "Unless you can show me a specific rule saying I can't do this specific thing, I'll do whatever I want, regardless of the effect it has on others." We've all seen this a thousand times before, right? Years of experience have shown that people like this do more harm than good at a project like Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, years of experience has shown us that incredibly anti-social people can contribute a lot to the project, and only really cause trouble when someone else decides that their anti-social tendencies are something to fight. If WebHamster were going around causing disruptions, that would be one thing, but he seems to be flying pretty well under the radar, unless we decide to focus our radar on one particular shorn beaver image. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Friday, you are clearly out to get WebHamster, why not stop making it so bleeding obvious? DuncanHill (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm "out" to try to get people to wrap their brains around the idea that we should expect editors to behave like reasonable adults. Whoever's unwilling or unable should be shown the door. A simple expectation of reasonable behavior would make everything we do work better. Friday (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

So by "reasonable behaviour" what you really mean is for people to do what YOU want them to do. For clarity I did NOT deliberately make my sig less "useful", I simply didn't give it any thought when I customised it. Which, incidentally, was long before I added the photo to my user page. Now I suggest you toddle off and do something much more useful like nabbing a true vandal or disruptive user. --WebHamster 15:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought about indefinitely blocking in order to assist him in his goal not to collaborate, but I didn't feel like wearing my shit-storm goggles. –xeno ^talk 15:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Now that would truly be a misuse of the buttons given to you. It's a shame that people in this thread don't see that the real disruption was caused by the troll who instigated this thread. Ho-hum. --WebHamster 15:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Calling people "troll" tends to improve situations... or is the opposite that's true? I forget. What's so bad about de-escalatory behavior? Is it just for sissies (and successful diplomats)? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec reply to Friday)Unfortunately, that would only work if those we entrust to enforce policy could be expected (better, required) to behave reasonably too. You have decided that WebHamster is "the sort of person" that you don't like to have editing Wikipedia, and I am certain that you will proceed to find fault with him whenever and wherever you can. I do not find your behaviour in this matter (including, as I mentioned above) your fragmentation of the debate to be indicative of collaborative working or a good ethical practice. DuncanHill (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It could be worse... he could be called Monday, and we all know what Mondays are like! --WebHamster 15:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it'd be helpful if WebHamster would put a talk page link in his sig and I do wonder if the lack of it's meant to lead more readers through that image, which I'd think of as untowards. As for the image, I'd rather it wasn't there but am wary of the kind of image content restriction which would be needed to get rid of this image. I do think consensus should have sway on something which has stirred this much kerfuffle. How about an MfD? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If it was up to me, all custom signatures would be dumped. That said, as long as they are allowed then I see no real problem with it - just a single extra click is no big deal. As for the image - to go to MfD at this stage would look a lot like forum shopping. DuncanHill (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's assume we went to MFD. Let's assume the user page was deleted. Look at his ruleslawyerish tendencies and disregard for others. All he'd do is make another user page with the same or similar image. The problem here is one of temperament. He thinks it's amusing to bring the project into disrepute. An MFD cannot solve that problem. Friday (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) 1. I'm not wikilawyering, I'm defending my actions and my 'rights'. 2. You are attributing emotions to my actions that you are guessing at yet stating it as fact. What does that say about YOU as an editor? 3. You're just pissed that you aren't getting your own way. --WebHamster 15:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No volunteer, none of us, has any "rights" on this private website. We edit content on these servers by the wholly arbitrary permission of the WmF, which they mostly hand off to community consensus. Any policy is only a means of talking about how to build the encyclopedia. If an editor loses consensus to edit here, there is no underlying right to fall back on. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That is entirely true. Nobody has the "right" to edit Wikipedia. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that he has brought the project into disrepute? Or did you just make that up? Please cite reliable sources when making such allegations against an editor. DuncanHill (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It's the Wikipedia version of "think of the children". Pedophiles pushing a pro-pedophile POV would bring the project in disrepute. Shaven vagina would not. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Keeping in mind, I have no worries about the image, but how the image is being used, how else might a consensus be gathered to rid the project of that user page layout? Would WP:Disruption be meaningful here? DuncanHill, as it happens, I "wish" custom signatures weren't allowed on en.Wikipedia, I see too many which distract, but it's unlikely they'll ever be banned. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The image is not disruptive or damaging to the project. The trollish behaviour of those seeking to impose a puritanical POV on the encyclopædia is what is disruptive. DuncanHill (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm ok about it if that's the consensus. How might such a consensus be gathered? Or are you saying that even trying to gather a consensus on this would be trollish and disruptive? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the thread here failed to shew any consensus for removal. To say "well it didn't get removed when we tried here, let's try somewhere else" is forum shopping. DuncanHill (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I can go along with that outlook. If this is the outcome, I'd say, short of someone with the admin bit citing WP:IAR then deleting and salting the page (not the image) pending further discussion, there isn't much further to go with this, other than asking WebHamster if he might be so kind as to put a talk page link in his signature. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Any admin who did delete and salt the page after this thread would shew themself completely unfit for the tools - to be honest I doubt whether even raising the possibility was an entirely constructive thing to do. DuncanHill (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It would sort things out in a hurry, wouldn't it? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it might "out" another arrogant & anti-community admin, but it certainly would do nothing to reduce conflict or drama - rather the opposite I suspect. DuncanHill (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think an MFD on the page, or an RFC on "potentially sensitive" images in userspace would be forum shopping. The noticeboards are a horrible place to gauge community consensus. As for asking him to add a talk page link, already done, and was brushed off. –xeno ^talk 15:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

He won't do what you want him to do, you can't get support here to force him to do what you want him to do, so you want to go somewhere else to try to get that support? It's running to daddy when mummy says no. DuncanHill (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'd say this brings us to the canny truth that en.Wikipedia thrives on conflict and drama, so long as it's kept at a dull roar. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The minor shitstorm there's been would be nothing to the one salting would provoke. I'm in complete agreement with WebHamster's view, and I think this whole discussion has been a pointless (but in a way rather revealing) waste of time. Nevertheless, in his position I would reluctantly agree to make that slight amendment to my signature to include a direct link to talk, just for the sake of a quiet life. I'm not WebHamster though, obviously. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering that we've set up a dynamic whereby he can't add the link to his signature now without caving in to others' demands, so I think the net effect has been to make him less likely to remove it. That wasn't a very clever dynamic to set up, it turns out. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No shit, Sherlock! DuncanHill (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a problem. Of course we all have to "cave in to others' demands" sometimes, this is wikipedia. I don't see a way to avoid this. I don't think it's practical to go tiptoeing around for fear of setting off someone else's petulance. Friday (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't have to cave in to others' prudishness. DuncanHill (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) Friday, I absolutely do not advocate tiptoeing around, and if you read that in my comment, then please read it more carefully, keeping in mind that I strongly oppose this "tiptoeing" of which you speak. There is an enormous gray area between "tiptoeing" and treating a situation as this one has been treated. Of course we each go along with others' ideas. It doesn't necessarily feel like "caving in" or "losing", unless someone has presented it in those terms. If you don't know how to make requests of others without seeming demanding, then I think you should work on that. Diplomacy is asking someone to do something in a way that makes them feel good about doing it. It has nothing to do with "tiptoeing" (spit), and everything to do with tact. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Are we really still talking about this? Chillum 16:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Now you are. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, time to close this circular debate. To sum up; an editor has a picture of Jesus on their userpage, which another editor - citing the potential outrage of non-Christians (Muslims, Hindu's, Jews, Diabilists, Atheists, anti-hippies, etc.) - believes should be removed. Other editors, some of whom enjoy pictures of religious icons and some who don't, do not see the harm in hosting the image. They also say that there is nothing in the rules that disallows the use of religious iconology in userspace. The complainant editor then suggests that this is an encyclopedia, and not a religion advocacy site, which is then responded with comments that noting someones interest in religous material may facilitate communications between adult editors. It is then suggested by the complaining editor that the account name of the offending Christ Worshipper takes you directly to the userpage, with no option to go directly to talk, forcing hapless/helpless individuals to gaze upon the picture of an unadorned Messiah if they need to communicate with the editor. It is then suggested that this simple act renders the editor as being someone less interested in editing than preaching to the unwilling. It is commented that the editor has only recently added a picture of Christ to his userpage, that his username had only directed people to his userpage some time before that, and that he had edited Wikipedia free of Jesus related questions for many years.
• I am uncertain that I have the chronology right, that I may have missed a few side issues, and there are one or two pretty insignificant points I have got wrong, but I think I have summed up the issue. I don't see much chance of discussion bringing any further resolution, so perhaps it is time to mark this as resolved. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • If my boss walks around the corner and sees a picture of Jesus on my screen while I'm messing around during a break, I for some reason think he'd react differently than he would to a picture of shaved genitalia. But lets just keep assuming it's just prudes that may not want this type of image popping up unexpectedly. --Onorem♠Dil 19:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • For the record, I really don't care what happens in this particular case, just wanted to point out a possible explanation outside of prudishness, because everyone seems to be arguing that prudes are the only ones who would be bothered by this. --Onorem♠Dil 19:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

    Thank you. I've been trying to argue that such stuff is childish and unprofessional, only to find myself being called a prude also. Aside from the giggle it gives me, calling people prudes doesn't help anything. Friday (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• It depends if your boss is then bothered by you then asking for a donation to help toward charitable work in Africa (or Brazil)... The principle remains the same, if it is allowable in encyclopedia space then it should be permissible in userspace - and thus it is not "prudes" verses "hedonistics", but those who seek to enforce their viewpoint over those who believe differently than they, against those who believe in freedom of expression (within the law). LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No such principle exists. For example, a picture that would be appropriate on a page on piercings would warrant instant removal from a user page. This image is milder - if it wasn't for the combination of signature and picture, I don't think we'd be having this discussion. That said, now that we're here, I think people are going to exercise their right to discuss this until WebHamster either decides that making people happy is worth a minor backdown, or until WebHamster, apologies, explodes. Regards, Ben Aveling 20:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

How about this debate continues until certain editors get a sense of proportion? As foir the sig, there is at least one admin with a sig that produces no link whatsoever. So long as he can get away with that (which is undoubtedly anti-collaborative, and requires far more than one click to get around) I see no reason whatsoever for WebHamster to change his sig. DuncanHill (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This entire debate is mind boggling. I'm sure the troll who originally started this $#@!storm is pleased indeed. And as a reply to the above speculation about your boss seeing a naughty pic on wiki, wouldn't s/he be more upset that you're editing wiki instead of working? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't assume that anyone here is trolling. WebHamster likes the image and thinks the joke is so funny that all visitors to his talk page should see it. Other people disagree. Regarding the hypothetical boss, I imagine the outrage would be cumulative. Regards, Ben Aveling 20:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. The person who "started" this isn't a troll. The probability that calling them one will help anything, anywhere is... 0%. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

As a reply to the hypothetical boss being upset about editing wiki, that's why I said, "while I'm messing around during a break." Even without that clarification though, my boss being upset and telling me to get back to work is quite different from HR explaining to me why I'm being escorted to the door, which wouldn't likely happen in reality, but I believe is what the employee handbook says would happen. --Onorem♠Dil 21:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

reverse the polarity please :-)

I orginally dropped a note in to WebHamster asking if he might agree with me that a picture of a shaven vagina might not be such a great fit on a userpage - and I came here to see if there were any guidelines or practice in this area - it would seem there's little consensus forming happening, and a bit of bun fighting. I've made what I hope is an amusing, if a little crude, joke a couple of section up (I must add that I have no idea whether or not the model in question in the picture I've added is, in fact, Giano, but an editor down the pub told me it was.......) - really to illustrate the types of material wikipedia (and commons) has to quickly evolve to be able to deal with responsibly. It's my assertion that such imagery is really only suitable for article space (oh the irony!) - but at the very least it'd be great to see people putting down their tippy tappy guns (and jesus analogies - that's something I didn't expect!) and trying to see other perspectives. thass all. Privatemusings (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hell! how did you get that, it's an invasion of my privacy! Giano (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, guidelines exist. See: WP:USER, WP:SIG, and to add to the irony, meta:DICK. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Lets see what WP:SIG actually says about internal links shall we? It says "it is common practice to include a link to one or more of your user page, user talk page, and contributions page. At least one of those pages must be linked from your signature to allow other editors simple access to your talk page and contributions log." - so WebHamster's sig meets WP:SIG (unlike that of at least one admin). DuncanHill (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What is or is not permitted by policy is a rather different question from what is or is not a good idea. I would hope that we know better than to value the first of those standards above the second. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What I think is an amazingly bad idea is quoting a guideline to try to force someone to change their sig when the guideline actually says the sig is OK. That's either dishonest or careless. Another really bad idea is admins going after a non-admin for having a compliant sig when they aren't going after an admin with a non-compliant sig. That looks like double-standards. DuncanHill (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Being within the letter of the law is not the same as being within the spirit of the law. And anyway, you missed this bit: "Your signature should not blink, scroll, or otherwise inconvenience or annoy other editors." And this bit "In one case, a user who refused to alter an unsuitable signature was ultimately required to change it by the Arbitration Committee." I'd also like to echo something from WP:POINT: "two important aspects of Wikipedia should also be considered: it is inconsistent, and it tolerates things that it does not necessarily encourage." Regards, Ben Aveling 22:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

WebHamster's signature does not blink, scroll or otherwise inconvenience other editors. DuncanHill (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Running to Mummy

[9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanHill (talk • contribs) 22:03 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Notification of WikiProject Living people

In order to have an organized page centralizing all the tasks relating to biographies of living people, a WikiProject has been created. There are several areas in need of greater attention, each listed on the project page. This is a project-wide problem that needs everyone's attention. Please take a look and help where you can. لennavecia 20:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested interface change

I have posted a request that requires consensus first at MediaWiki_talk:Common.js#Requested_change_to_Monobook_skin. -- IRP ☎ 22:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Gay nigger Association of america

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rodney Lough Jr.

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

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

Well, at least they are honest...

Resolved

 – Some good ol' Engrish. :)

Okay, no admin action is necessary, but I just found these two edits really funny: [10] [11]. Obviously some off-wiki canvasing is going on where English is a second language. I already tagged the AfD, but just thought I would share a funny. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

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

My Rfa

Resolved

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

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

Spammy signature (not username, but signature)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Centrifugal Force

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author(s) of "Warehouse Cooperative School"

Resolved

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

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

Shared account?

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

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

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

Julie Bindel

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

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

---

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

To suppress or not to suppress: that is the question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Creating a redirect

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

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

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

Also, please create the talk page with content

{{WPAFC|class=redirect}}

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

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

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

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

name change

Resolved

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

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

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

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

Templates for speedy deletion

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

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

Mashkin threat on my Talkpage

Resolved

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

Mashkin (talk) wrote on my Talk-page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reporting myself for administrator abuse.

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

This user been reported at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Grant.Alpaugh

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block review please

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

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

Blatant abuse of rollback

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

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

---

Sherurcij previously had his rollback privileges removed for abuse, though they were subsequently restored [13]. Today, Sherurcij engaged in more abuse of the rollback feature to revert good-faith edits without explanation. He obstructed the enforcement of the biographies of living persons policy by rolling back my legitimate request for the speedy deletion of Arno Funke [14] (articles about living people of the form "X is a criminal" are absolutely unacceptable per WP:BLP, and are subject to immediate speedy deletion per CSD G10). Also, he used the rollback feature nine times to revert Sillyfolkboy's good-faith content edit to templates [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]. Given the extent of Sherurcij's misconduct, and the previous revocation of his rollback privileges for abuse, I ask that his rollback privileges once again be removed. Erik9 (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Actually, Sillyfolkboy's reflists were not transcluded in articles, because they were preceded by the <noinclude> tag [24]. And if you want to treat legitimate attempts at WP:BLP enforcement fully consistent with CSD G10 -- even if later found to be ill-advised, per discussion on User_talk:Erik9#Unsourced_BLP -- as vandalism, then the removal of rollback will be the least of the sanctions imposed on you. Erik9 (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFAR/Prem Rawat 2

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

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

Discuss this

Relocation of arbitration pages

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

Phase 1 (administrative pages)

Phase 1A relocates and consolidates the core administrative pages.

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

Phase 1B consolidates the core administrative talk pages.

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

Structure after Phase 1

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

Phase 2 (arbitration requests and cases)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure after Phase 2

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

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

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

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

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

Discuss this

Audit Subcommittee procedure, term lengths, and members

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discuss this

Move protected pages

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, I agree a month is good. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Temporary undeletion for Deletion Review

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

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

Problem with recurring sock puppetry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both accounts are part of the same SUL account,[25] so it looks like they are the same person. Redandgraychips (talk · contribs) looks like a sockpuppet. Hut 8.5 18:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I've found a few Truther websites which have recently posted criticism of the article: [ [26] (note the latter is trying to get people to add some text to an article). I think we're dealing with a load of people who read this and decided to edit the articles, which means this is meatpuppetry not sockpuppetry. Hut 8.5 16:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi. It's also been covered in the News in New Zealand: [27]. However, Editor Jehochmann has stated that the story may not be considered reliable, until it appears in the New York Times first. Such a high personal standard of reliability as he claims authority to dictate, is utterly unprecedented for wikipedia, also ignoring the fact that there could be any number of other reasons why the NYT won't print it without even addressing or rebutting any of the scientific methods used. No Time Toulouse (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Pardon me for interrupting the discussion, but it appears as if the sock/meat poppets are now targetting other Wikipedia articles. A user at 67.95.193.122 edited our article on Metastable intermolecular composite to include the material on "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe". [28] I reverted the change. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears that another possible meat puppet at IP address 222.225.181.137 is targeting other articles [29] [30] [31] [32]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

I am that particular user - just created an account now. I added a brief summary of the article as suggested by Themfromspace: "if this is so related, you should write it into the article and cite it as a source, this isn't appropriate in the external links section". As a result my ip has been blocked. I want to contribute to Wikipedia and don't hope my edit has been seen as vandalism. Please let's discuss which changes are necessary to my existing explation to be accepted in the WTC artice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johninwiki (talk • contribs) 04:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

User formally warned per Arbcom restrictions, also warned about spamming, using multiple IPs and 3RR. Acroterion _(talk) 12:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Palace station vandal -- admin help requested

See previous thread up-page; hard to get a response to problems posted that high, I guess. I've also contacted admin User:EyeSerene, who dealt with this user before, but I haven't yet received a response.

Those Kids (talk · contribs) claims to be a coworker with some vandals and has requested administrator attention a couple of times now. I don't have the knowledge or tools to tell him what he wants to know and could use some admin help. Thanks in advance. Powers ^T 12:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Commented in the thread above - let's keep discussion unified there. Cirt (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Long-term, very slow vandalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Query: Is it possible that the account Those Kids (talk · contribs) is not what they claim to be, but simply another sock related to above? Cirt (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, certainly, though I don't see any way to prove it one way or another. It's a public (or at least shared) terminal, so checkuser isn't going to be very helpful. Powers ^T 13:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah okay. Best to keep an eye on all the various accounts then, especially if Those Kids (talk · contribs) makes any non-constructive edits. Cirt (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

They've all been blocked except Those Kids, AFAIK, although they keep creating new ones. The issue is that Those Kids has concerns about our blocking operations interfering with his ability to legitimately edit, and I don't know what to tell him. Powers ^T 18:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Alastair Haines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We need to consider that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(unindent) Alastair has been unblocked by Coren :) Mathsci (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While recognizing that this is a good faith change, I disagree with it. As someone pointed out on WT:U, if a person has a company name as a username, then every signature they leave is an advertisement for their company. I would suggest that if the username = the company name AND they edit with a clear COI, then a block is warranted. If they are not editing with a COI, then we can discuss with them a username change. I feel that this is happening anyway, as many editors that report company/user names to UAA are being advised to discuss the name with the user. TNXMan 11:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

But if they are leaving the occasional company name in a signature, while generally improving the encyclopedia, is that really such a bad thing? —Wknight94 (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No it's not, if they are improving the encyclopedia. Like I mentioned, that's the time to start a discussion with them. However, if they are promoting a company with a company username, that warrants a block. TNXMan 12:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. And promoting the company can include editing articles in some way relevant to the company. Dougweller (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree here with Tnxman307 (talk · contribs) and Dougweller (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

So do I. And we're all agreeing with blocking because of problematic edits. It still doesn't address the usefulness of WP:UAA for cases like this, i.e. where the name of the account is grounds for a block. I know it's hard to separate the concepts - blocking for one reason vs. blocking for another - but I am seeing a lot of people being blocked for one problematic edit merely because of their username. An IP making the same single edit doesn't get blocked, but the person that gave us the courtesy of letting us know their affiliation is punished for that by immediately being permablocked with no warning - sometimes hard permablocked. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we've all agreed that a promotional username with no edits should not be blocked. However, how do we track those names while we wait on them to edit? I think this is where UAA comes in. Chillum has proposed an additional bot function at WT:UAA that would automatically re-report names once they edit. I don't think there's anything wrong with at least having these names available to review. To sum up, I guess my biggest concern is that if we change WP:U, we may start missing these usernames all together. TNXMan 13:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Is that really a problem that we would miss them? If and when they start editing problematically we have plenty of processes and tools to catch them then. These pre-emptive blocks basically does the opposite of AGF and BITE, which are two basic principles this project has had from the start. The promotional clause of the username policy is much more recent, it seems to be from sometime in 2007. henrik•talk 13:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said on the policy talk page, there are some good reasons for allowing that username: The main reasons is makes COI edits much easier to see and confront and reduces newbie biting. Secondly, the issue of usernames as advertising: I don't think that spammers will be able to profitably use usernames as promotion vehicles while simultaneously not running afoul of any of our other polices. Basically, my feelings on the matter is that given the advantages in transparency and friendlier welcome to new users we shouldn't be over-sensitive in interpreting things as advertising. henrik•talk 13:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy#Disagree_with_change. Cirt (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

As one of the top contributors to UAA, I suppose I should chime in here. I only block promotional accounts if it's clear that they're being used only for promotion of their company. I have been noticing a trend as of late, where accounts with no edits are being blocked as promotional. I'm afraid I disagree with the Jcbowman2i block, as you wouldn't be able to tell it's associated with a company had you not been familiar with the context. I think that it in general, the username policy covers the clear-cut cases fairly well, but we do need more of a definitive rule regarding the gray areas. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that company names should be allowed at all. It just makes no sense to me. Wizardman 14:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Some arguments for allowing them are given above. It makes COI edits much easier to see and confront and reduces newbie biting. Saying "fine, you can edit the article about your company as long as you hide your affiliation" which is what today's policy amounts to is what doesn't make any sense. henrik•talk 15:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Deceased editor - User:Teenly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm sorry to say but there is something very unlikely about this whole scenario. The post announcing her death [33] states that Teenly was six and half years old and had been editing WP (as an IP to begin with) for two years. With all due respect, four year old to six year olds do not have the necessary skills in language, writing/spelling and knowledge to edit Wikipedia in the way that Teenly has and in particular to make edits such as these [34][35][36]. Somebody (or multiple people) are spinning yarns here. Comments? --Slp1 (talk) 13:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think they read very much like something a child would write. I can't guess at age - I would have supposed older, but I can see it being possible given the situation Teenly is said to have been in. - Bilby (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You do get quite intelligent six-year-olds.  GARDEN  13:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You might be right, but I have worked for years with kids in this age group in the field of language and literacy, and my opinion is while the language structures used are (deliberately??) childish, the vocabulary level is extraordinarily high, and there are virtually none of the spelling errors that one would expect given the written language used. The one of the texts she wrote was at a Reading Level of Grade 9, though this is probably a bit inflated, I suspect.[37] One of her chats with Fenneck[38] is at a Grade 4 Reading Level. The ability to actually compose and write texts at these levels would not come till considerably later in grade terms. My suspicion is that this part of an elaborate game. Not sure that whether it matters in the general scheme of things, but anyway I thought I would give my opinion. --Slp1 (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have known children of comparable ability at that age, not as unusual as some people think. DuncanHill (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm going to assume good faith, as much of humanity would at such news, and accept that we have physically lost an editor even if there is a fractional chance it might be a game.  GARDEN  14:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a reasonable question - in general I'd agree that six is a tad young, but I'm assuming that the editor had the books open to the appropriate page when editing and relied fairly heavily on them, they were particularly precocious, and were writing on a much-loved subject area. In which case it isn't impossible, to my eyes, but potentially worth questioning. - Bilby (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It's very possible to get intelligent six year olds, especially when they receive a bit of help from their parents. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Children raised by or among older than usual adults also seem to have larger vocabularies and more sophisticated language than other children, as do children who spend more time with adults (especially garrulous ones, as older people can be when presented with an attentive audience) than with other children. DuncanHill (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

All of the above are indeed possible; I note from her talkpage that Teenly was an orphan (so no parents), but was raised from the age of four in a residence for people with special needs. In this case, she might indeed have had access to more adult language models than your average child, and therefore more sophisticated expressive language including vocabulary and grammar. While there continue to be multiple aspects of the tale and edits/interactions of Teenly and her friends which strike me as odd, I'd agree that it's best to assume good faith. I only mentioned it in case there are further developments where it would be helpful to have some of these questions recorded.--Slp1 (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I'll just add these 2008 conversations,(both blanked within 15 mins of each other on March 21st 2009 by separate editors) about codewords, agents, missions, and impostors etc[39][40] between editors who have recently asserted that they are the director of Teenly's special needs residence [41], her music teacher[42], and another resident who knew her.[43]. --Slp1 (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess the next step is some sort of confirmation, and I don't particularly mind being taken for an elaborate joke if I exercise my compassion and good faith along the way. Anyone know any of the users involved?--Tznkai (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:RIP

I've added a proposal to discuss possible practices to be followed at: Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians/Proposal to establish practices to be followed for deceased Wikipedians — Ched :  ?  16:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't this probably belong above? --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 16:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Dunno ... It's not to discuss any one individual, but rather the establishment of policy or guideline in general. Not something I've attempted before, so I'm very open to getting feedback all the way around. — Ched :  ?  16:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"What harassment is not"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seems like an eminently sensible idea to me. Perhaps it should mention the issue of looking through another editor's contributions (not prima facie harassment, but one of the more common causes of allegations of same)... though that might be too specific. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Obvious Support — I've tidied up the page while reviewing. Terima kasih. Jack Merridew 05:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible COI involving a British government minister

There have been a number of potentially problematic edits to Paul Myners, Baron Myners recently by Lordmyners (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the user has been warned about this, but I think it would be a good thing if a few admins were to keep an eye on the situation. DuncanHill (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• I should add that there have also been attempts to insert a negative point of view into the article by anons. DuncanHill (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, this could be problematic. The anons issue should be reduced given that the article's now semi-protected, it may be helpful to inform him of that. I've left him a note pointing him towards Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects. – Toon^(talk) 12:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed some unsourced material and did some minor cleanup [44]. Cirt (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I think this is definitely a case of more eyes = better for everyone. DuncanHill (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries. :) Cirt (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Haven't we taken the wrong tack on this one? I find it incredibly hard to believe that Lord Myners would actually edit a Wikipedia article. Sure, it could be someone in his employment, but I still think the templates we have at our disposal could use fixing. As a sidenote, do we have a policy on impersonating people? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

We should bear in mind that Lord Myners isn't one's typical idea of a Lord (old gentleman in a mansion with a butler and a croquet lawn). He's a top city executive who was made a Lord so he could join the government - for better or for worse - and help out in the economic crisis. There's no particular reason to assume that he wouldn't edit a Wikipedia article. That said, he probably knows how to use capital letters and spaces correctly (Lordmyners). ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Of a fashion we do: WP:REALNAME. Joe 18:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Being a highly skilled financial executive is no guarantee of editing skills or typing ability - some of our most intelligent editors have great trouble with the mechanics of editing. And being the adopted son of a butcher and a hairdresser is decidedly atypical for a peer. DuncanHill (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You might be surprised to learn that there are members of British peerage that are regular editors and account holders. Out of privacy I won't name names, but Wikipedia has, to put it as simply as possible, a diverse number of editors. In every sense of the word. Keegan^talk 21:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Reported user to WP:UAA [45], essentially in-line with WP:REALNAME, cited above. Cirt (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've emailed the user requesting that he clarify if he is, in fact the same person and asking him to reply to editors on his talk page. – Toon^(talk) 20:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Another user page image fight brewing - admin eyes please

Resolved

 – No intervention required. henrik•talk 17:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

And this time, over an even less theoretically offensive image than User:WebHamster. On that one, the final consensus and therefore at the moment de facto policy (because that's how we roll for policy creation, with precedent becoming practice being policy, and this isn't even vaguely the first time this has come up with this conclusion) is that users have a wide allowance of what they can display on their pages, per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:WebHamster. Please review editing history on User:Christopher Mann McKay/toc as seen here. User:IronDuke appears to be unilaterally trying to remove the image I have included in this section.

Please also see the discussion on User talk:Christopher Mann McKay and comment there or here.

Admin eyes and senior opinions needed here, because I'm sure we're frankly sick of Puritanical or various "This is offensive to x beliefs," buffet-style dramas from this stuff whenever someone finds a given image on some userpage they think is unhelpful. This has been I believe established again and again as fine--regardless of Jimmy Wales's personal view, which consensus has overruled on this--and let's just get this taken care of. This type of fight is completely unhelpful, and efforts to clean up other's user pages of random images is completely unencyclopediac. rootology (C)(T) 15:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh god, not again. Do we need some kind of "Tolerance 101" to help people understand that disagreeing with something, or finding it annoying, or even being offended by it, is not a good reason to suppress it? DuncanHill (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Put me on the other side of this one =0 –xeno ^talk 15:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't existing policy already on the side of "don't put polemical and divisive things on your user page"? This has nothing to do with Wikipedia. People can make political statements on their own homepages- here, it's just trouble we don't need. Friday (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Editors who declare their political affiliations strengthen the encyclopædia by enabling readers to critically read their contributions. Editors who suppress the display of political affiliations damage the encyclopædia by hiding the inevitable biases that we all, however hard we try otherwise, bring to our work, and thereby depriving the reader of information which could improve his understanding. DuncanHill (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Has it become more difficult to obtain a facebook account? — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it's just become fashionable to try to control other editors' userpages if you disagree with their politics. DuncanHill (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Jeez Louise, have we got nothing better to do than to worry about images on userpages? DuncanHill has it about right. Better to know what each editor's biases might be than to force their suppression. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if IronDuke and others spent more time editing articles and less time editing other people's userpages, it would help the encyclopædia. DuncanHill (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Can't disagree with you there. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Tempest in a teapot... There is nothing particularly offensive about the image, and last I heard, it wasn't illegal to disagree with American foreign policy. There are better things to worry about Resolute 16:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any policy which would stop one from putting this on a user page. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Although personally I don't care too much, I would think that this is covered by WP:User#What_may_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F point #9. (Techincally this is a guideline as opposed to a policy.)--Cube lurker (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

True, it's not policy but also, what do you see in there that would make it fall outside the guideline? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said Point #9: Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia; in particular, statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive.

I'm sure someone will quibble with semantics, but it seems to me to fall under this category.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Point of order: Policies aren't magically above guidelines. One instructs, the other advises. BB isn't less important than the mediation policy. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. Again? Just act like adults and move on. Avert your eyes, if necessary. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be great if it was possible to navigate away from a page you didn't like by a single mouseclick? That would stop people being forced to stare at pictures they find annoying/upsetting. DuncanHill (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. If someone is offended by someone else's userpage, perhaps they should just, I dunno, not visit it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to comment at Wikipedia talk:SIG#Require link to usertalk page in signatures?. Some users don't give us a choice... (unless users are expected to be proactive and manually type user talk:(username) into the search box in fear that an anti-american or potentially compromising photo might pop up). –xeno ^talk 16:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC) does not apply to the present case

This editor's signature does include a link to his talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I added the <small> disclaimer afterwards. Just noting that EVula's suggestion isn't always possible, at least not without some additional effort. –xeno ^talk 16:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Good gravy, folks, this is an image we use to illustrate Anti-Americanism. Much more offensive than putting up someone's ladybits (leaving the lame Bush joke aside). If any user who likes this image where it is and is feeling particularly WP:POINTy, try putting up a Sambo image on your userpage and suggesting you don't like the way certain black people behave. The rest of your wiki-life would be measured in minutes, if not seconds. IronDuke 16:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You may have missed the fact that "American" point of views are not a special thing here, and we have no special deference to any nationality or ethnicity. They're all the same, with no special value one over the other. Are you going to also insist on removal of any pro-Israeli imagery if found on a user page, if it offends Arab users? If the answer is not "Yes", this discussion is at an end. rootology (C)(T) 16:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

False premise. IronDuke 17:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense. It's no false premise. Why are you unwilling to answer this question? You are noted (as all of us are) for our own biases, agendas, editing trends and styles. You would not apply universal and matching standards to all others? All Policies and Guidelines here apply 100% uniformly to any and all users, regardless of who they are. Do you disagree? rootology (C)(T) 17:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah ha! Now I have you! You just said if I didn't answer "Yes" the discussion was over, and yet here you are still having it. I want to feel I can count on your word... ;) IronDuke 17:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Foiled by wordplay, I am--languagefail. But seriously, Duke--how can you apply the policy standard to one side of a political spectrum but be unwilling to say that same standard should apply to all of them? If an Arab user strongly objected to a pro-Israeli image like this tomorrow, would you support him in getting it removed, as you are trying here? Why not? What do you see as different between the situations, of these scenarios? rootology (C)(T) 17:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• I like it; but I like mine, more. Cheers, Jack Merridew 17:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Jack, you are clearly belittling creationist believers (or possibly Darwinians) by having a picture of a monkey on your userpage, this is highly offensive to somebody or other, I demand you remove it immediately! DuncanHill (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• O'RLY? ;) see this diff. Note the edit summary top-right, and then visit the prior version to see what I cut. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• First they came... Gwen Gale (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• 1.5 hours to Godwin's law. Not bad.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Godwin's law is utter codswallop. It's the mistaken citations of that sad tale which get so boring. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone needs to read the wiki article. The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases in direct proportion to the length of the discussion. I just thought one and a half hours was impressive to hit that point.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm ok with that side of it :) By the bye, the article is stronger than it was the last time I read it. What I'm not ok with is when it's invoked online to stop a conversation cold: "You brought that up, so following Godwin's Law of online gotchas, you 'lose'." Gwen Gale (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Not my intention. (Plus I'm not quite arrogant enough to think I can stop this freight train. This is going to be around for a while.)--Cube lurker (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries! Gwen Gale (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Chillingly appropriate. Once it starts it's almost impossible to stop. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

For once, agreed! IronDuke 17:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with DuncanHill's reasoning above. I'm from the US, and do I love the image? No. Should it be censored, in turn diminishing WebHamster's Christopher Mann McKay's free expression? Absolutely not. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no reason to remove an image from userspace. As EVula said, if you don't like someone's userpage, don't visit it. It's the same reasoning given to those trying to censor articles. hmwithτ 17:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

  It wasn't the rodent this time. –xeno ^talk 17:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

  lol typofail. Didn't even realize that I typed his name. Clearly, that debate is still fresh on my mind. :) hmwithτ 17:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI

IronDuke has asked Mr Wales for his opinion [46], always a reliable way of avoiding drama. DuncanHill (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

So will the community just do the opposite of whatever he happens to say, like last time? =] –xeno ^talk 16:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's the thing. Jimmy can bend the rules, but he's as bound to consensus as we all are. Even his administrative actions, if someone challenged them, can be forced to be overturned if taken to the Arbcom. I'm amazed at the pointless things people think he will burn capital on. rootology (C)(T) 16:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The whole point of policy about these kinds of images/comments is whether they are divisive or offensive. Stuff like "I hate X" gets removed for that reason, not because of the opinion. (Which means if someone had a "This user hates Mondays" userbox on their page, it'd be deleted by a humorless Admin.) If IronDuke thinks people would be offended or provoked by this content, then the proper steps he should take are not asking Jimmy Wales, but to open an RFC on the matter. (For the record, I find the image interesting & was more interested on where it appeared than that it was on a userpage. And had I put something like this on my userpage, I would have reworded the caption differently, e.g. "Not everyone agrees with US policy abroad or at home.") -- llywrch (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"Daddy, Daddy, I don't understand what the big boys are saying. Please make them stop." --Malleus Fatuorum 17:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Point of order

STOP BICKERING!

Take the drama to ANI where it at least blends in! The amount of disrespect slung at each-other over (repeat after me) legitimate disagreement is pathetic and unwarranted. If you don't have something useful to say, (arguing over Godwin's law doesn't count as useful, for example) shut up!--Tznkai (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• What admin action is required here, though? None that I can see. Black Kite 17:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. Archive this. If ID continues to edit war on someone else's user page, block him. Everyone else ignore/rejoice/mourn the image as befits your inclinations. Protonk (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict) Yeah, none. No page to protect, no user to block. Perhaps the users should seek some form of mediation, though. Mark as resolved, and move along everyone. hmwithτ 17:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FYI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – already dealt with a while back

In case it matters, "This user hates the USA with a passion! This user believes the world would be a better place if most Americans were murdered :)" (Bold added). Know where I found it? Christopher Mann McKay's userpage. Still feel like defending this user's right to free expression? IronDuke 17:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This was reverted and handled when the incident occurred.--Tznkai (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Free speech is okay unless it's against America. Lovely. (Just felt like making a point here; I know that the only rights on Wikipedia are to fork and to vanish) Sceptre ^(talk) 18:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Free speech's protection on Wikipedia is inversely proportional to its inflammatory nature. The specific subject matter (hatred of the U.S) is less important than the manner of expressing it (wishing murder upon others). Even under the strictest of scrutiny (to borrow from American Jurisprudence) there is certain crap we don't have to deal with.--Tznkai (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the outlook of the editor and speaking only about the image itself, it has more to do with a claim the American government bombs innocents. For some Americans (and Wikipedia editors), that notion is inflammatory. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

With regards to free expression, yes I would defend that. With regards to Wikipedia, that statement was clearly inappropriate and the user was blocked as a result. It's been dealt with. This section should also be closed and archived as unnecessary drama. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not drama. It's Wikipedia, but I'm happy to archive the thread. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have we got an essay...?

There's something that I've observed around here, and I want to see whether others see it similarly, and whether maybe we've written it down clearly somewhere. I'm posting here rather than somewhere else, because I suspect a lot of other admins deal with this sort of issue.

So... lots of editors have conflicts with other editors. These conflicts often transcend particular content disputes, and spill out across many articles, project pages, talk pages, etc., etc. People deal with these conflicts in one of two ways: (1) Treat it as a personal conflict, and try to get the other person to stop what they're doing, in any of various ways. (2) Treat it as a content dispute, or multiple content disputes, and simply work on those.

I've been advising people that option #2 is a lot smarter and more effective. It seems to me that when one puts away the accusation-gloves and acts as an editor, and no more than that, one succeeds, while if one pursues a sort of "suit" against the other party, one becomes hopelessly embroiled in he-said/she-said, accusations and counter-accusations, who's the good editor/who's the troll,.... drama.

The trouble is, this is counter-intuitive. People believe that Wikipedia is made of rules, and that if someone breaks them, you can expect some kind of enforcement to happen. This ends up not being very true, which upsets people. I wonder if we could prevent a lot of upset-ness by explaining this fact of wiki-life somewhere, and pointing people to it, preferably before they're all upset.

Opinions? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe these are obvious, but Wikipedia:No angry mastodons, Wikipedia:Ignore personal attacks and Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic come to mind. In an ideal world, we could liberally trim the off-topic parts of people's posts, but in real life I suspect this would create as many problems as it solves. Friday (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... "Ignore personal attacks" is good, but nobody believes that it works. They think it gets to a point where they have to stop ignoring them, and then they become sad... I dunno. Can we get a "check your pride at the door" essay? Nah, we'd lose 99%, then. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)I believe this is the core message given by WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY WP:AGF and WP:IAR and a number of other core policies. Granted, the meaning of those acryonyms has since been lost and its turned into some sort of post-modern joke, a series of trump cards in some sort of argument game. I'm not sure if it can be taught by an essay, because the fundamental problem is getting people to think instead of link.--Tznkai (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, people respond badly to those. Tell them, "NOTBATTLEGROUND", and they say, "he started it" (which I thought we all had beaten out of us as children - no adult should ever say that). Tell them "NOTBUREAUCRACY", and they argue from some sense of personal entitlement anyway. Tell them "AGF", and they quote the line that we stupidly, stupidly, stupidly let in that suggests there are times to stop assuming good faith. Tell them "IAR" and their heads explode. I dunno. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Not that this influences responses in a meaningful manner, but one of the big points of BATTLE is to say that "he started it" isn't an acceptable excuse. I do feel that you are running your head against a pretty intractable issue and not one which is intractable for lack of an essay or three. People can be jerks and while they are jerks they have the ability to endure against well meaning but minimally committed editors. In the short and medium run, tendentiousness and wikilawyering pay dividends (just like they do in most social systems). In the long run they may not, but that depends upon getting caught. Align yourself along a fault line common to many members of the community and you won't get singled out as "that crazy guy we indeffed for being a total jerk". you'll just be one more editor fighting over this AfD or that flag or that home remedy. There are only two real responses: get out of those areas and edit things that make you happy or toughen up and prepare for a shitty time which might not vindicate you in the end. Protonk (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

So we chill. en.Wikipedia is driven by editors with sundry PoVs who have hope their takes'll stick. We do what we can, to make it all helpful in some way to readers. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... It's a real specific message I'm thinking of. Namely - the best way to beat your harassing, stalking, bullying, rule-breaking personal adversary is to not try and get them disciplined. Trying to get "justice" tends to lead one very quickly to sadness.

When I tell people this, they don't believe me, and I wish I could point somewhere and say, "no, really. Trying to get behavior policies enforced is pure folly." People hate that message. They refuse buy it. I dunno... -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:BETHEBETTER(WO)MAN? Its implied or explicitly written on at least half of our relevant policies. Sorry to be so pessimistic, but I'm not sure if the point can be made.--Tznkai (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a good thought, but I share your pessimism. I've occasionally tried to convince people that quoting policy at all to users you have a conflict with is a generally bad idea, with very little success. henrik•talk 21:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I like the way you're thinkin'. It's really WP:DTTR, in a way, but nobody heeds that advice. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep. I've yet to see anyone become convinced over the error of their ways by their opponent simply saying WP:OR WP:SYN WP:V WP:OMG! henrik•talk 22:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) We have numerous policies, guidelines and essays, all of which have evolved piecemeal over the years to meet specific issues. Now we have the benefit of hindsight, would we have this misch-masch if we were starting from scratch today if we were failing and needed to start afresh? I doubt it, but evolutionary processes tend to be somewhat haphazard. In the case in point, there's probably a page somewhere here that can be cited to support reversion of any edit that another editor deems unhelpful. Unfortunately, I don't see a consistent set of policies and guidelines ever achieving any consensus here beyond the most obvious ones, and I think we must learn to live with what we have. Rodhullandemu 22:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Yes. Meanwhile look at the mainspace. It's rather helpful (never mind the codswallop at high traffic humanities articles like Abraham Lincoln). Nobody said it was easy. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think "Just ignore them and they'll go away" only works for thicker skinned individuals. What GTB proposes would work for only the hardiest of WIki-souls, in my experience. One thing that drives contributors away is the level of spleen and viciousness currently tolerated here. IronDuke 22:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anything remotely like, "just ignore them and they'll go away". I guess my communication skills are not quite up to snuff, because that sounds terrible to me. I'm talking about effectively beating the living shit out of them, by focusing on content. I'm talking about winning personal disputes. The strategy is very counter-intuitive, and people don't get it. That's my issue. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC) I see how my comment supporting IPA above could be taken that way. My actual point goes a lot further than that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Haha! Looky. WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT are thy friends in building this tertiary source, but it's canny swayed by how much time one can give. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I know I can be dense... should I have understood this comment? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit some articles and never mind the fuss cuz otherwise, it'll drive ya daft :) Gwen Gale (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry. I'm doing my usual article work. I also like to work in dispute resolution, and the prospect of being driven daft isn't enough to discourage me from that. (Frankly, you can't drive me daft. I'm within walking distance already.) -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't trying to scold you and it's a cheer to hear you're but a stroll away. ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess what I'm saying is, you're dead right about how much the wiki-justice system lets people down, but can't we improve it? When users are bullies, they should be made to stop. Not everyone responds to well-reasoned entreaties. IronDuke 22:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I dunno. I'm not talking about "well-reasoned entreaties," at all. I didn't say that. I'm talking about ass-kicking winning - tearing their throats out and drinking their blood, via an intense focus on content. I don't know how to make it clearer. The wiki-justice system lets down those who seek justice. Good work.

People who forget about trying to get justice, end up getting it. The system works; it just works once you stop expecting anything from it. Once again, Wikipedia only works in practice, not in theory. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

As for improving our "wikijustice system"? No. We shouldn't do that. This is an encyclopedia, and if we try to be a court, we'll be a terrible one. The only way to get WikiJustice is to stop trying to get it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Look at it this way, Wikipedia is a (mostly) helpful encyclopedia, thrown off from a MUD, how wonderful! Gwen Gale (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I appreciate that, Gwen. I'm not sure what you're getting at here? Are you suggesting I forget about this topic and do something else? I'm pretty happy with the way the project is going, and I'm trying to figure out a good way to communicate something I've observed. Is that a bad thing? What are you saying here? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the notion of "ass kicking" (I'm only sayin'), most folks are ok but it's also true many editors don't understand what truly spins this website and lots of readers are much smarter than they think. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't like it either. I only use such language when it's clear that I need to use terms with which I don't agree. Here's how the conversation goes: "He's not a troll, just work with him"; "He's a troll"; "No really, he's acting in good faith; maybe he's just wrong"; "HE'S A TROLL! BLOCK HIM"; "Hey man, to him, you probably come across as a troll. Can we just try working together? Please?"; "HE'S A TROOOOOOO0OL!!!!!"; "Ok, fine; he's a troll. Here's how we beat him - pretend he's not one."

In this case, as has happened before, people think I'm advocating some kind of spineless placation or "making nice". When people think I'm coming from that angle, despite my attempts to make it clear that I'm not... then I switch languages, to make it clear that's not what I mean. I don't believe in kicking anyone's ass, but that's the only thing a lot of people will hear. Do you see my problem here? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

So stick to WP:RS and forget your woes. It may take a few years (or generations, heh) and there'll be canny setbacks, but WP:NPOV does tend to out. If you get bored with the blatherskite, it's ok, find articles nobody cares about and build those instead. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(<-- unindent) Gwen, why do you want me to forget this and walk away? I'm trying to make the world a better place, and you tell me to stop worrying? I say I'd like to be better at resolving disputes, and you say "don't bother"? I don't get it. I'm trying to learn a little bit more about the best way to help my fellow humans, and you're discouraging me. Why? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) You can't help them until they want your help. Lead by doing, stick to the sources, show them why an encyclopedia isn't a blog. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Gwen... I'm talking about people who approach me for help. I really don't get why you want me to stop trying to find a better way of communicating about dispute resolution. Why is that a bad thing for me to think about? What's up? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I never said I want you to stop trying and I never said, or meant to say, what you're doing or writing is bad. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I do appreciate your concern for my mental well-being. Any of us who goes off the deep end will be lucky to have someone standing around with a life-preserver, and I appreciate that you seem to know where those are kept. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hypothetically

So, GTB, if I go and undo your next fifty edits willy-nilly, and revert each time you try to restore them, how will your intense focus on content help you? What would you do? IronDuke 23:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That's easy. I'll get other people. If there's a disagreement about content, and talking with the other editor about it is unsuccessful, then bring other people to the situation. I would neutrally ask the question in a venue such as the village pump, and then find out how it goes. If they agree with your reverts, then my edits were bad. If they agree with me, they'll remake my edits for me, and they'll see your problem behavior without my saying a word against you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC) I hope you don't imagine that I haven't thought this through? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

How is this different different from meatpuppet recruting. telling editors to back off because I have more freinds and they can never win an edit war is not away one should show his dominance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.204.198 (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)And if I continue to revert your friends/newfound allies? (I'm sure you have thought it through, that's why I am eager to know your mind.) IronDuke 23:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, you may have noticed, but one person reverting against an army doesn't last long. You'll violate 3RR, or if you try to lawyer that, you'll still be edit-warring, and one of the dozens of people noticing the drama will point that out, and you'll get blocked, without my ever speaking a syllable against you. That's unless there's more support for you than for me, in which case my edits were bad in the first place. Then I'm stuck trying to convince people that I'm right, and I have to step down until I can find some. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup, no winning against tag-team reverters. You'll fail 3RR first every time. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 23:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No. You can win against them; just don't try to do it alone like a fool. People want to "win" without any help, and they end up shooting themselves in the foot over and over again. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sometimes. But sometimes things don't go quite according to that roadmap. Sometimes people agree that you're right on content, and make a few comments to that effect, but they don't bother actually joining in the content dispute. Or they do join in to re-make your edits, but after a few days they drift off to more rewarding wikipursuits while IronDuke (in this scenario) retains his laserlike focus. Or your noticeboard post is seen by a handful of folks with whom you've crossed paths, and who have more than average motivation to involve themselves - and they join the content dispute on IronDuke's side (in this scenario) because they don't like you. These things all happen. I think GTBacchus' suggestions are good ones - they are the Right Way To Do Things - but it's naive to pretend that they either work or else You Were Wrong In The First Place. There are lots of ways this mechanism runs off the rails in practice. MastCell ^Talk 23:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

And that's why I'm an eventualist. At the very least, when I'm approached for help, which happens, I'd like to be able to tell someone the Right Way To Do Things, and then help them do that. My purpose in starting this thread was to find maybe some better sentences or paragraphs with which to help teach them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) MastCell puts it more eloquently than I would have. I'd only add that you are, finally, hoping that the very wiki-justice system you decry will take over at least in an informal sense, e.g., that I will be blocked. That would be the best outcome, but why can't it be formalized or codified in any way? Why is that worse than just hoping to find a random admin who agrees with you? IronDuke 23:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries, IronDuke, if someone gets all pointy there'll be plenty of admins to block them. We only see the worst of it here, there are hundreds of thousands of articles which do ok without winding up on AN or ANI. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but that's just begging my question. Why is informal better than formal? IronDuke 00:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

(<-- Outdenting, and edit-conflicting) Good question, IronDuke. I think the reason we don't try to make the justice system more robust is twofold: (1) Trying to use a structure that was lab-grown as an encyclopedia-making machine is going to be awkward at best. (2) Trying to determine who is right and who is wrong (i.e., needing to be blocked) is almost always difficult. When it's easy, it's dealt with quickly. The difficult cases are where it's very clear that editor A thinks editors B, C and D are wrong, and that editors B, C and D think editor A is wrong, but it's not at all clear who's actually right!

The most effective way that I've seen to tease out and separate the good from the bad is by getting to work on the article, and then our content policies kick in. Our content policies are much stronger than our behavior policies. Also, when we argue in terms of behavior policies, the conversation tends to drift further and further away from encyclopedia content. When we focus on content policies, we stay on-topic. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

1) Well, it's all pretty awkward here, no? 2) Well put, but I think it doesn't work in practice, In practice, you end up with good, smart people screaming at each other. IronDuke 00:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Now I know we're on the same page. That's exactly the problem I'm talking about. I dream of finding a way to let good, smart people know that there's a better way. To an extent, Gwen's right. "Example is the school of (wo)man, and (s)he will learn at no other," to quote and de-sex the philosopher. I wish I were more of an article writer, but when I'm not working DR, I tend to WikiGnome, stub-sorting and completing boring page-moves... What's a gnome to do? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

As unpleasant as it would be for the first few months, and in spite of the probably decent number of users we would shed, I sometimes wonder if a mercilessly enforced-by-blocks "niceness" policy, where behavioral policies were enforced with a Judge Dredd-like single-mindedness vs. all users, from the new IP to the WMF staff itself, with no free passes for anyone ever, would be the best long-term solution. Just throwing that out there for discussion. It's an idle thought sometimes. I.e, an IP, user, or admin tells someone in any way, "Fuck off," he gets a 24 hour block first time. Again? The IP, user, or admin gets 48 hours. Again? IP, user or admin gets 72 hours. Always escalating. It's not that hard to use the "preview" button. Again, just a random thought. rootology (C)(T) 23:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If it weren't for everything in me crying out against it, I would love this idea, and marry it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

And I would jeopardize our friendship by banging your hot wife.--Tznkai (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC) I am slightly ashamed to make that reference in public.

I confess, I'd be interested to see this tried for a bit, Never happen,though. IronDuke 00:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You would be left with a project run by a few very polite unassertive people and an encyclopedia full of shit with no one to call it out. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

... and it would be called Citizendium. ZING! MastCell ^Talk 00:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ouch ;) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Step a little closer and tell me I'm polite and unassertive, bee-yotch! ;) -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Or, more politely, anyone who doesn't know how to be assertive without being a dick is a fucking idiot. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I should remove the above statement as a personal attack, but I am going to let the user who made it do that....as they should know better. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 21, 2009 @ 00:30

I don't know who I was supposed to be attacking, but I thought it was a funny thing to say, and I was clearly wrong. I apologize, and strike it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 21, 2009 @ 00:33

And thank you, for helping demonstrate that good-faith editors can quickly get past an unintentional offense. That's kinda the only point I've ever wanted to make. Cheers to you. You're not a bee-yotch at all; that's struck, too. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Non-arbitrary section break

Has everyone gotten everything off of their respective chests? This thread has devolved into a primal scream therapy session. Is there anything left to discuss, or can we close it? Keegan^talk 05:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, maybe not harsh, but is this resolved? Keegan^talk 05:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for the vote of confidence, that dispute resolution is even worth talking about. I'm inspired. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not that GTBacchus, it's that this is not the place for dispute resolution. If y'all get into a tussle, let's use a different space for it. I think we can all agree on that. Keegan^talk 06:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Umm... there's no tussle. I was trying to use this space to see what other admins had to say about smart dispute resolution. Was this a bad place to ask that? Where's better? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Now you have too much experience to ask what I'm going to assume is a rhetorical question. This thread has gone well beyond its intent, is my point. Maybe my point it worthless. Either way... Keegan^talk 07:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

User:165.228.204.166

Does anybody have any idea what 165.228.204.166 (talk · contribs) is doing? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a bot editing while it's logged out. Makon blocked it for 48 hours. Icestorm815 • Talk 02:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know bots could do that. I sort of thought by definition a bot had to be logged in to function. HalfShadow 02:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

A bot = a very fast mechanical editor. So a logged out bot looks just like any other IP, can edit pages but can't create pages. Hope that clarifies things. 17:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The Eric West Festival of Sockpuppetry

Can someone uninvolved keep an eye on the foolishness currently going on at Articles for deletion/Eric West before it deteriorates any further? – iridescent 18:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it fair to just see who can come up with the most socks and go with that? – Toon^(talk) 18:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly the way we generally do things. – iridescent 19:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

School being vandalized by college

I have requested semi-protection, but I thought some admin eyes here might be worthwhile too. The article on The John Fisher School appears to be the target of sustained blanking of portions of cited material by various IP's, all resolving to Queens College, City University of New York (actually I think one was Columbia University, so I suppose he may have been visiting a chum). I thought that this might ring some bells with someone. DuncanHill (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. –xeno ^talk 19:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to comment that this is a content dispute stemming from some overduly weighted POV dubiously sourced from a local paper. I believe you can look at these contribs as symptomatic of the problem. There is further discussion of the origins of the contested content on the talk page. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The IPs have also vandalized talk pages, and display a pattern of editing that suggests to me that it is a Wikipedian with an account attempting to distance himself from his edits. DuncanHill (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

zzuuzz, would full protection be more appropriate (until the content dispute is worked out)? what I saw was IPs blanking without edit summaries, so I took it for vandalism. –xeno ^talk 19:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

@zzuuzz - the blanking I first saw had to do with the admissions policy, and a quick read of the OSA adjudication seems to suggest the local paper reported reasonably accurately. Unfortunately I can't find a way to link to the report otherwise I would do so on the talk page to help interested editors. Just add that this is the third time it has been protected over this. DuncanHill (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. –xeno ^talk 19:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

  I wonder if we might somehow obtain a copy of the referenced newspaper article to ensure that it accurately reflects what is being reported in the WP article... –xeno ^talk 19:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks, I'll take either semi- or full-. I just wanted people to be aware of my view of this. While the IPs have been vandalising other pages, the changes to the school page are outside the realm of vandalism and classify to me as mainly content dispute. Well truthfully I see them as a vast improvement to the current version. I'll see if I can whip up some changes for the article to balance the POV and hopefully calm the whole thing down, or at least move away from the 'revert revert' thing. I was planning on doing this anyway. @DuncanHill - It's a possibility this might be a user with a name. I don't know if any passing checkusers want to go on a fishing expedition? or whether we could narrow the names down. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh and btw re the bullying, the penultimate Ofsted report is worth reading. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
    • If the IP changes are in good faith, semi would be inappropriate as it would disenfranchise them so I think full is best. I'll keep an eye out for edit-protected requests. –xeno ^talk 19:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
• I've found a link to the online version of the second reference here[47]. Different title but all the quotations are there. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Valid page move blocked

Resolved

 – Moved by Bencherlite. hmwithτ 20:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I have requested that Doctors and Dentists Review Body be moved to Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration. This move was blocked due to bad characters, possible vandalism etc. The new name is the official title of the Body. The apostrophes are part of the official title. The old name is a vernacular form. Please can this page be moved? DZNRKkCV 19:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DZNRKkCV (talk • contribs)

Moved, having seen that the documents at the website use the longer version. Bencherlite^Talk 19:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

In the future, you can easily request a page move at WP:RM. hmwithτ 20:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

oddness with IvanTyrrell (talk · contribs)

This is not a pressing concern, but it might be nice for an admin or two to add this user to their watchlist. aside from some obvious COI issues which are being addressed elsewhere, Ivan has redirected his userpage and user talk page to mainspace twice (both times with Idries Shah articles that he's created: Seeker After Truth and A Perfumed Scorpion). I fixed it on the talk page here and Jayen466 (talk · contribs) fixed it here, and the only edits to his user page are Ivan adding a redirect and Jayen fixing it (for some reason, the time I fixed the user page redirect - on the 13th - doesn't show up in the edit history). First time, I figured he made a newbie mistake, and I corrected it and explained the issues to him. second time might still be a misconception (though I'm having a hard time seeing how one can redirect both the user page and the talk page without knowing full well what's happening). if he does it again... --Ludwigs2 16:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

See WP:FTN#Human givens etc for possibly related discussion. Looie496 (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The Pirate Bay... (and related)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(break)

Follow up: To follow up on the Children of Hiroshima movie torrent link issue, as of right now it looks like the movie probably is in the public domain. I personally can't verify it because I can't read Japanese and research it further. The issue really boils down to who retained the copyright to Children of Hiroshima (Gembaku no ko). Kaneto Shindō produced the film in 1952 through his production company and if the copyright was retained by the production company, the film is indeed in the public domain. On the other hand, if Kaneto Shindō personally retained the copyright, then the film is not yet in the public domain. Japanese copyright law states that works published by corporations prior to 2004 are protected for fifty years following publication or production. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

• download the whole film through BitTorrent (details)

ALT 2:

• download the whole film through BitTorrent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Going by what we already link to and use similar external link templates for, I don't think relevant and non-copyright infringing torrent file links (like those already in use) will be a huge problem. Links should go to the release notes page anyway as sites do not usually allow direct links to the torrent metadata files (this is done to prevent URL rewriting and abuse of their sites by others). Tothwolf (talk) 09:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

ATL 3 There is the warning for readers, that the link contans advertisement and there is also written public domain to prevent its accidentaly removing by wikipedians.

• ALT 3a:
• public domain film Children of Hiroshima at BitTorrent (details) (The external links contains commercial advertisment.)

or

• ALT3 b:
• public domain film Children of Hiroshima at The Pirate Bay (details) (The external links contains commercial advertisment.)

The link or only the warning text can be written by a template, so such links could be easily checked and they could be replaced with better ones if there better ones became available. There is also used different kind of warning (explicit content) in wikipedia about external links that could be problematic. Is this ALT3 Ok? --Snek01 (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Pointless without Mike

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(outdent)

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

The citation you just removed here, [48] which was used for this text:

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

...and the citation link you removed [49] (which is not a direct download link to the torrent file) contains:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

usabasketball.com

I have to change work sites so could someone check out the external links listing. I see that Google] seems to have a problem with the site. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait, what exactly is wrong with it? hmwithτ 16:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Google is reporting that the site attempts to install malware on visiting computers. Exxolon (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I think I should utilize my ability to click links more often. Thanks, Exxolon. hmwithτ 19:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Should we remove them from articles & blacklist? Or are we waiting for more evidence? hmwithτ 20:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Site has been removed from the Google Safebrowsing list. It has been fixed whatever it was... spryde | talk 12:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

user page aout of scope

Can someone check page User:Hartlepooldockers which are out of scope--Musamies (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a page being used as a sandbox to develop Hartlepool Dockers. –xeno ^talk 14:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Editor has now been blocked for username. DuncanHill (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Close on TfD?

Could someone look to see if Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 6#Template:NYRepresentatives might be ripe for a close. It's been a rather unpleasant discussion with, IMHO, tenditiousness to replace the template on many articles. I'm not sure if there is strong leanings toward keep or delete but at least the rather pointy arguing and editing may stop if teh discussion itself closes. -- Banjeboi 09:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Had a look and closed it - might need a hand on the busywork though Fritzpoll (talk) 10:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! No idea what busywork? Do you mean removing the links? or something else? -- Banjeboi 11:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure I'm meant to log it somewhere, and have lost track through a variety of pages as to how to actually do this. As well as that, the template needs to be untranscluded prior to deletion. I'll see what I can do Fritzpoll (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You might plead non-techy on the VPTechnical board, I thought we had a bot that could do these things. I'll check in here but feel free to ping my talkpage if you want any help. -- Banjeboi 22:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request at User talk:Anuttamadasi

This user has requested unblocking. I ruled against an earlier request but he has one open now that's been up for almost 2 days without a result. Basically the story is that this user was involved in some edit conflict over International Society for Krishna Consciousness, and ended up recruiting a meatpuppet off of some kind of forum. He has apologized, he has expressed a willingness to seek adoption, and has agreed to not make article changes before finding this mentor. I think he may be somewhat confused about certain policies, and User:Wikidas seems to have a big problem with him, but Wikidas is the editor he was warring with. The meatpuppet remains blocked. I am starting to feel like unblocking would be good... but with the request open 2 days without any substantial response, I wanted to check with the wider admin community first. Mangojuice^talk 16:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support unblocking. The user has apologized for his past blunders. The purpose of a block is to stop disruption. If the user can work without causing any disruption, he should be unblocked. Yep! I'm willing to give him another chance. AdjustShift (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Support unblocking. Give him another chance. John Carter (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Cautious support but with a short leash. There were a lot of complaints on his userpage over quite a short time. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose for now - unless he will give assurances about his future behavior. See a note I left for him to express my concerns. From the tone of his Talk page, it sounds like he will resume fighting for the truth as soon as he comes back. Only, with better references. It is better to leave the great causes at home if you want to edit here. I suggested that he voluntarily limit himself to articles where he doesn't have a strong personal POV. EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've unblocked. Ed, sorry if you disagree but with 4-1 in support of unblocking including me, I feel this is reasonable. I'll keep an eye on him. Marking as resolved. Mangojuice^talk 20:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

He just sent me an e-mail saying he's still blocked. Maybe there was an autoblock as well? John Carter (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

AIV backlog

Resolved

There is a backlog at AIV. Just to let the admins know. Momo san ^Gespräch 貢献 18:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's all taken care of. AIV gets looked at often so backlogs are often cleared quickly. Icestorm815 • Talk 18:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Next time provide a link. Admins are a lazy bunch =0 –xeno ^talk 18:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Since there were nine IP reports when I got there, I think my "block" button must have been smokin` by the time we had everything processed. However my favourite decline was for the IP address who's most recent warning was received 377 days ago. — Kralizec! (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Disco Steven Lua

Yesterday, I indef blocked Disco Steven Lua after I discovered that the account was used for vandalism and trolling.[50] After the indef block, Disco Steven Lua created many socks. Below are the socks of Disco Steven Lua, confirmed by CU Luna Santin:

1. Chachamim (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
2. SuperPhuckingDickAssBoi (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
3. Vesuvius13 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
4. Calvinist425 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
5. Stormwolf (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

I think we should community ban Disco Steven Lua. Thoughts? AdjustShift (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on the ban issue, I'm very suspicious of This Is Not Connected (talk · contribs), who does actually appear to be connected. Anyone agree?--Jac16888^Talk 20:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like another sock of Disco Steven Lua. CU is needed! AdjustShift (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we even need community consensus for a ban. Tag the sockmaster and sockpuppet userpages appropriately, protect them, and see if any admin considers unblocking. Let them come to AN and get consensus for the unblock.

As for CU, write up a report to WP:SPI and see if there is a stable underlying ip that can be zapped. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged the sockmaster and sockpuppet userpages appropriately. Sockpuppets of Disco Steven Lua can't edit their talkpages. AdjustShift (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The sockpuppets aside for a moment, why was the main account blocked a day after the user said he had quit Wikipedia? Blocking someone a day after the fact seems a little like punishment waaay after the fact. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 21, 2009 @ 23:04

Neutralhomer, please analyze the edits of Disco Steven Lua. He was involved in vandalism and trolling. He was repeatedly warned by other users to stop. And this was his final message on his userpage. The user was not blocked a day after the user said he had quit WP. He was blocked on 20 April, the same day he left those abusive messages on his userpage and talkpage. The purpose of the block was to stop disruption. If the user was not abusive, and probably left a polite message, he wouldn't have been blocked. The actions of the user indicated that the user was here to cause disruption. AdjustShift (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

OK...I guess I was trying to find some good in the user. I tried to help him a couple times and I really thought it was going to work. Thanks for the response. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 22, 2009 @ 22:32

• Support Ban Clearly a vandal and troll that was only here for disrupting Wikipedia --Skater (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse ban - The fact that after all his disruption, he created a sock named SuperPhuckingDickAssBoi (talk · contribs), was all I needed to see. --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 17:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• After doing some analysis, I've concluded that User:This Is Not Connected is also a sockpuppet of Disco Steven Lua. Other editors and admins can also analyze the edits of This Is Not Connected. It is quite obvious that this user is here to cause disruption. AdjustShift (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support Ban - With the sockpuppets, no good can come from that and the last comment on the main account shows that he really wasn't here for good (like I hoped he was). - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 22, 2009 @ 22:35
• Comment I notice that on This is not Connected's talk page that Disco posted asking him not to vandalize his page, and It's been a few hours since I've looked at this but I think he did it with his other socks as well. Might be a giveaway for more socks if they are found.--Skater (talk) 00:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Case milestones on the agenda

As promised earlier, the Committee's agenda has been updated to indicate milestone dates for the Aitias, Ryulong, and West Bank - Judea and Samaria cases. We anticipate that all future cases will be tracked in this manner.

For the Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Procedure for temporary removal of permissions

The Arbitration Committee has adopted a procedure for authorizing the temporary removal of advanced permissions in cases where the Committee must undertake such removal expediently.

The use of this procedure by the Committee is not intended to constrain the authority of the Wikimedia Stewards to undertake emergency removal of permissions on their own discretion, pursuant to the relevant policies governing Steward actions.

The procedure was adopted by an 9/0 vote, with two abstentions:

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

For the Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Interim appointments to the Audit Subcommittee

The Arbitration Committee has appointed Mackensen, Thatcher, and Tznkai to fill the non-arbitrator seats on the Audit Subcommittee in the interim until elections are held. Together with the three arbitrators whose appointment was announced earlier, these editors will conduct investigations into CheckUser- and Oversight-related complaints, as well as providing feedback to the Committee regarding the provisional procedures established for the auditing process.

For the Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Administrative advice sought

If Joe Smith, a non-famous person kills Jane Kozlowski, another non-famous person who advertised on a website, isn't the article supposed to be called "The Murder of Jane Kozlowski". I read that it wasn't supposed to be called "Joe Smith". Please advise and educate me. That's all. No blocking or other action requested, just advice. User F203 (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a content dispute that does not require administrator intervention. Perhaps you could discuss it on the article's talk page. Nakon 23:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Or try the helpdesk. PhilKnight (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

In fact this arises from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Markoff, and the proper place to discuss it is there. Looie496 (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Generally yes; the relevant guideline is WP:ONEEVENT. The question is whether or not the incident is more notable than the participants. We have no biographies of Madeline McCann, Carlo Giuliani or Tim McLean for good reason. Skomorokh 01:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It also depends on the events surrounding the death. We have articles on Matthew Shepard, Leo Frank and Mary Dyer. --Moni3 (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The Dyer article is a biography, but those first two look like coatracks for the events. Skomorokh 15:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Missile issues in East Asia article

Recently, an article entitled Missile issues in East Asia was created. There are several issues with the article:

1. The title of the article itself is non-neutral.
2. The lead violates NPOV as well.
3. The first (and largest, in terms of prose) section deals entirely with the INF treaty between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union. What does this have to do with the subject of the article? A casual reader of the article should expect to have this question answered, but this section fails to do so. To top it off, the section even says that it has nothing to do with policies of Communist governments of SE Asia.
4. The next section simply mentions the fall of the Soviet Union and makes a claim that the "Cold War" is still going on in the Far East.
5. The rest of the article consists of two tables stating what types of weapons China and North Korea have in their article.
6. In a nutshell, what you have left is an article that, by its title, lead, and prose not consisting of unrelated material, is saying "China and North Korea are pointing missiles at other countries ...and this is bad!" The former portion of such a statement may indeed be true, but the latter portion, no matter how much you agree with it, is still a biased remark.

Not knowing exactly what to do, I thought it best to bring the article to the attention of an admin who was part of the WikiProject International relations (discussion entry here). The article was redirected to Ballistic missile, and an edit summary explained why (article's revision history). The original author simply reverted the redirection, and reverted once again when it was redirected again (with an explanatory edit summary).

This may well be an "article in progress", but for the reasons above, it inherently violates WP:NPOV. As it is now, it is nearly essay-like, and also has problems with WP:VERIFY, and is in desperate need of cleanup and possibly expert attention. I feel any other attempts on my part will just result in the original author reverting a redirection again, and, because of this, I don't know if deleting the article (nominating for PROD of AfD) entirely while redirecting or merging portions to other articles dealing with launch capabilities of Far East countries will resolve anything.

Seeing as how this is a noticeboard for redirection issues, I figured I should make this statement here. I want to avoid any kind of "warring" with the article's original author; I think his intentions are well, but I'm guessing English isn't his first language, and he isn't quite ready to create articles just yet for English Wikipedia. I've left him a message on his discussion page for an unrelated matter, and quickly came to realize that a language barrier would make communication more difficult if I attempted another discussion, particularly regarding this matter. Just thought I'd run all of this by here and let the admins handle it (if this is the wrong place for this, please let me know where I should forward notice of this situation). Remember, the article creator will disregard a simple redirect and will revert the article back into creation. Happy editing. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

redirection is editing. The place to discuss it is on the article talk page. If you cannot reach a conclusion there, ask for a third opinion, or an RfC. DGG (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Even if you think a discussion will be problematic, we require you to attempt one on the editor's talk page or the article talk page. Coming here without having tried to do one wasn't helpful...

I both started that discussion on his talk page and re-did the redirect. Please follow up on the editors' talk page or article talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is the word 'kinestik' banned/blacklisted/censored?

Resolved

 – Not an issue requiring admin tools. Euryalus (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

WHY IS THE WORD KINESTIK BANNED/BLACKLISTED/CENSORED? I'm writing from the United States wher the Constitution guarantees the RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. When I see the words: "global blacklist" I shutter. Please allow me Communist Chinese editors to place a link in an article. I have multiple degrees and will not vandalize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterbadgely (talk • contribs) 21:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

WHAT? I CAN'T HEAR THE TEXT! seicer | talk | contribs 22:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It isn't. It is in fact in the article Use forms of explosives. Why do you say it is? If you can point toward a specific situation, typing in regular letters, not all caps, someone might be able to answer you. John Carter (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I would be concerned if it were on any of the blacklists. As far as I can tell, it isn't. It's a commonly available brand of binary high explosive, I created the Use forms of explosives article and put the entry in there for it. Peter, what did you see that made you think it was banned somehow? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing that he tried to add a url that has that in it and is on the blacklist? --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Neither the enwiki nor meta blacklists have the text "kinestik" listed. Nor anything that should pattern match to it, though I might conceivably have missed something. But I checked those both before posting here... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

i think this is in regard to his being reverted and getting redlinks here. untwirl(talk) 23:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I just created Kinestik as a redirect, and nothing bad happened. Peter was trying to create [[Kinestiks]], though, and I'm not going to do that. Looie496 (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, when I attempted to add a forwarding link, a communist Wiki message came up indicating that the link may have been on some idiotic global blacklist. We must remind our Chinese Communist counterparts that we in the Western world do not take kindly to blacklists of any kind. Anyway, thanks for finding an adequate link, even though it isn't the actual ATF link for the actual brand name material with photos. That, apparently, is censored. Sorry for the caps, but this blacklist crap is disheartening.(Peterbadgely (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)) peterbadgely

lol wut? Viridae^Talk 01:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no blacklisting of this word, as demonstrated by Looie496. Did you perhaps misread the message that you get whenever you click on a red link like this one? It's merely stating that no article currently exists, and that you need to register to create one.

Or was there a specific external link you were attempting to add? If so, it may be on our spam blacklist if it's a link that we've had people spam here before. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it was the latter--that is--spam (not the kind with green eggs). Why would a very nice ATF page be on a spam / global black list / (tomaito/tomahto) list. It was a great secondary source. (Peterbadgely (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC))peterbadgely

• note I refactored the title to remove the ALLCAPS. Enigma^msg 01:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The word "Kinestik" is not on an article blacklist and has now been created as a redirect. I can't find any evidence there is an ATF page relating to Kinestiks, though there's various mentions of Kinepak. Peterbadgely, can you provide a bit more info on the link you want to add so your original question can be answered? Also, references to the "Chinese Communists" who run Wikipedia are entertaining but make it a little hard to take your issue seriously, especially as Wikipedia is hosted in Florida and not (say) Beijing. Can we perhaps tone down the rhetoric a little and stick to whether a valid link is blacklisted? Euryalus (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Also for the OP, WP:FREE might be a good article to read. Livewireo (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, sorry; just a little dark humor to break up a day of editing. Florida is a very nice state--also non-Communist--well---parts of it anyway. The link I was having problems with is:

[51] Page 4 on the pdf displays the brand named item Kinestik and shows photos. I had no idea what they looked like and I think the page is helpful and verifiable. When I attempted to redirect, I received the dastardly message, which led me to this administrative page. Sorry for the authority complex, and I hope you can help. (Peterbadgely (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)) peterbadgely.

I'm well known around here as a critic of blacklists and other forms of censorship, but I too urge you to tone down your rhetoric; shouting about how your 1st Amendment rights are being violated by a bunch of commies isn't the best approach to take, especially when it seems like what you've run into isn't any actual ban or blacklist but merely some technical misunderstandings. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, WP:FREE, which is not to say there aren't lots of communists lurkin' about here, who have not a clue that they are communists. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the commentary criticizing my commentary. I suppose a little dark humor is not understood or appreciated here. However, that being said--My issue is not resolved. Why is the above page on some global blacklist/ban/spam/"technical misunderstanding"/etcetera? Why is : [52] a page which one can not redirect to for the term Kinestik, when it is a verifiable publication by the ATF, and actually contains a picture of the brand name device? Rhetoric (and apparently tongue and cheek humor) aside, I'd appreciate some enlightenment. Oh, and I'd like to apply the "Just Kidding Clause" to all the Communist comments. (Peterbadgely (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)) peterbadgey

What do you want to do? Speak straightforwardly, please. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps we still are not understanding your issue here. Are you wanting the kinestik link to redirect to the [uaemt.org PDF on explosive materials? — Kralizec! (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we are finally getting somewhere - he's trying to use an internal link to have an external link rather than an article? something like that? --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't kidding. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, damn commies and pinkos lurkin' in every woodpile. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 19:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Spare me. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you made the irrelevant and quite odd remark. Did you really think it would pass unnoticed and uncommented on? If you don't want your political opinions scrutinized, don't make them in places they're not called for. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 23:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, Kinestik is an RD. I don't grok the encylcopedic worry here. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Paterbadgely - the uaemt is fine as a source though if you were using it as a reference you'd need to note it was simply the place you saw the original material, which is from the ATF. I think the problem is you were trying to create a redirect not to another Wikipedia page but directly to the uaemt. There's some details on redirects at WP:REDIRECT but there's basically two options for Kinestik - either a redirect to another article (as it is now, redirected to Use forms of explosives) or an actual Wikipedia article on the subject if you or anyone else wants to write one.

I hope this and the other comments above are helpful. None of this is an issue requiring admin tools so I've marked the thread as resolved. Feel free to stop by my talk page if I've misunderstood the issue or can help with anything else. Euryalus (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletions now seven days

Recently the rules regarding AfDs were changed to enforce the seven day rule more efficiently. Apparently this was also extended to Prods, per a discussion here, which didn't generate very many opinions. Since then the rules regarding prods have also been updated to enforce this seven day rule. While I'm not completely against the idea (I just see it as unnecessary), the discussion wasn't well known about, so I'm posting here to get more opinions. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree; there was no consensus for such a significant change. Also, I'm not entirely sure what the benefit is. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus, and I oppose the change. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest adding further comments at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion, to avoid having the same discussion in two places. Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This page is more widely-viewed, though, so I personally think it's beneficial to discuss it in a couple places. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

well, it can be notified in several places, but there should only be a single place for discussion. WT:PROD would seem to be the appropriate one, treating this as the notice. The basic rationale is the same: to permit people who come only occasionally to have a chance to improve articles. I am pretty puzzled why anyone should be opposed, when we still have Speedy. DGG (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The potential benefit would be the same as in the AfD proposal that passed with strong consensus: "it allows participation from all users, who may only edit at weekends/certain times of the week." Please note that "more participation" does apply to PROD as removal of the tag is the same as saying "no it shouldn't be deleted without discussion," which is a form of participation. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• The point of PROD is for uncontroversial drama-free deletion. If something becomes controversial by waiting two days, it was probably not a good candidate for PROD. I don't see a problem here, though I do wonder about some of the more acrimonious AfDs if left to run longer. Guy (Help!) 02:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is the word 'kinestik' banned/blacklisted/censored?

Resolved

 – Not an issue requiring admin tools. Euryalus (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

WHY IS THE WORD KINESTIK BANNED/BLACKLISTED/CENSORED? I'm writing from the United States wher the Constitution guarantees the RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. When I see the words: "global blacklist" I shutter. Please allow me Communist Chinese editors to place a link in an article. I have multiple degrees and will not vandalize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterbadgely (talk • contribs) 21:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

WHAT? I CAN'T HEAR THE TEXT! seicer | talk | contribs 22:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It isn't. It is in fact in the article Use forms of explosives. Why do you say it is? If you can point toward a specific situation, typing in regular letters, not all caps, someone might be able to answer you. John Carter (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I would be concerned if it were on any of the blacklists. As far as I can tell, it isn't. It's a commonly available brand of binary high explosive, I created the Use forms of explosives article and put the entry in there for it. Peter, what did you see that made you think it was banned somehow? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing that he tried to add a url that has that in it and is on the blacklist? --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Neither the enwiki nor meta blacklists have the text "kinestik" listed. Nor anything that should pattern match to it, though I might conceivably have missed something. But I checked those both before posting here... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

i think this is in regard to his being reverted and getting redlinks here. untwirl(talk) 23:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I just created Kinestik as a redirect, and nothing bad happened. Peter was trying to create [[Kinestiks]], though, and I'm not going to do that. Looie496 (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, when I attempted to add a forwarding link, a communist Wiki message came up indicating that the link may have been on some idiotic global blacklist. We must remind our Chinese Communist counterparts that we in the Western world do not take kindly to blacklists of any kind. Anyway, thanks for finding an adequate link, even though it isn't the actual ATF link for the actual brand name material with photos. That, apparently, is censored. Sorry for the caps, but this blacklist crap is disheartening.(Peterbadgely (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)) peterbadgely

lol wut? Viridae^Talk 01:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no blacklisting of this word, as demonstrated by Looie496. Did you perhaps misread the message that you get whenever you click on a red link like this one? It's merely stating that no article currently exists, and that you need to register to create one.

Or was there a specific external link you were attempting to add? If so, it may be on our spam blacklist if it's a link that we've had people spam here before. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it was the latter--that is--spam (not the kind with green eggs). Why would a very nice ATF page be on a spam / global black list / (tomaito/tomahto) list. It was a great secondary source. (Peterbadgely (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC))peterbadgely

• note I refactored the title to remove the ALLCAPS. Enigma^msg 01:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The word "Kinestik" is not on an article blacklist and has now been created as a redirect. I can't find any evidence there is an ATF page relating to Kinestiks, though there's various mentions of Kinepak. Peterbadgely, can you provide a bit more info on the link you want to add so your original question can be answered? Also, references to the "Chinese Communists" who run Wikipedia are entertaining but make it a little hard to take your issue seriously, especially as Wikipedia is hosted in Florida and not (say) Beijing. Can we perhaps tone down the rhetoric a little and stick to whether a valid link is blacklisted? Euryalus (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Also for the OP, WP:FREE might be a good article to read. Livewireo (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, sorry; just a little dark humor to break up a day of editing. Florida is a very nice state--also non-Communist--well---parts of it anyway. The link I was having problems with is:

[53] Page 4 on the pdf displays the brand named item Kinestik and shows photos. I had no idea what they looked like and I think the page is helpful and verifiable. When I attempted to redirect, I received the dastardly message, which led me to this administrative page. Sorry for the authority complex, and I hope you can help. (Peterbadgely (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)) peterbadgely.

I'm well known around here as a critic of blacklists and other forms of censorship, but I too urge you to tone down your rhetoric; shouting about how your 1st Amendment rights are being violated by a bunch of commies isn't the best approach to take, especially when it seems like what you've run into isn't any actual ban or blacklist but merely some technical misunderstandings. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, WP:FREE, which is not to say there aren't lots of communists lurkin' about here, who have not a clue that they are communists. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the commentary criticizing my commentary. I suppose a little dark humor is not understood or appreciated here. However, that being said--My issue is not resolved. Why is the above page on some global blacklist/ban/spam/"technical misunderstanding"/etcetera? Why is : [54] a page which one can not redirect to for the term Kinestik, when it is a verifiable publication by the ATF, and actually contains a picture of the brand name device? Rhetoric (and apparently tongue and cheek humor) aside, I'd appreciate some enlightenment. Oh, and I'd like to apply the "Just Kidding Clause" to all the Communist comments. (Peterbadgely (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)) peterbadgey

What do you want to do? Speak straightforwardly, please. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps we still are not understanding your issue here. Are you wanting the kinestik link to redirect to the [uaemt.org PDF on explosive materials? — Kralizec! (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we are finally getting somewhere - he's trying to use an internal link to have an external link rather than an article? something like that? --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't kidding. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, damn commies and pinkos lurkin' in every woodpile. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 19:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Spare me. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you made the irrelevant and quite odd remark. Did you really think it would pass unnoticed and uncommented on? If you don't want your political opinions scrutinized, don't make them in places they're not called for. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 23:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, Kinestik is an RD. I don't grok the encylcopedic worry here. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Paterbadgely - the uaemt is fine as a source though if you were using it as a reference you'd need to note it was simply the place you saw the original material, which is from the ATF. I think the problem is you were trying to create a redirect not to another Wikipedia page but directly to the uaemt. There's some details on redirects at WP:REDIRECT but there's basically two options for Kinestik - either a redirect to another article (as it is now, redirected to Use forms of explosives) or an actual Wikipedia article on the subject if you or anyone else wants to write one.

I hope this and the other comments above are helpful. None of this is an issue requiring admin tools so I've marked the thread as resolved. Feel free to stop by my talk page if I've misunderstood the issue or can help with anything else. Euryalus (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Understanding how to properly respond repeated malicious editing

I am relatively new at Wikipedia editing but am very concerned about repeated attempts every few months to insert malicious content and references containing libelous comments into the William Agee article by editor(s) who appear to have an axe to grind. I don't understand the proper method to use to bring pressure to bear so that this activity will cease. I would have deleted 9 of 10 new references containing poorly sourced, libelous comments that are not needed for an accurate biography of Mr. Agee. However, the references didn't appear on the edit page and thus seem to be locked. Can they be unlocked so I can remove them? Or can someone else with more authority review my talk page and respond in a helpful way? Thank you for your time. Grateful41 (talk) 06:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)