Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive213

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

WP:RPP...[edit]

Resolved: not anymore --Jayron32 03:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

...is getting a bit backed up. More admin eyes would be appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like its up to date. Zero open requests as of now. --Jayron32 03:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Request to move/create page on my behalf?[edit]

Hi

I was trying to publish this page ([1]) when I received the following message:

The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism.

If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions:

* Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard. * You may also contact any administrator on their talk page or by e-mail. * Be sure to specify the exact title of the page you are trying to create or edit, and if it might be misunderstood (for example, an article with an unusual name), consider explaining briefly what you want to do. * If you wrote any text, save it temporarily on your computer until you can edit the page.

Thank you.

I'm not quite sure what the error is and would like some feedback and help with getting this page published.

Much appreciated, Gloria — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dionlineed (talkcontribs) 09:57, 27 April 2010

It looks like you've written a draft of an article at your userpage (User:Dionlineed), and it seems to show up just fine. It's unclear what you mean by publish, though - do you mean that you wish to move it to a new title? Which specific title gives you the error? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

How do I go about moving this article from my userpage to something publicly accessible on Wikipedia? I can't seem to make sense of the help instructions on my own. Is it a matter of waiting a few days to I get the "Move" tab on my userpage as I've read elsewhere? In the meantime, could you please or someone please review my article to make sure it's good enough for Wikipedia? Thanks! --Dionlineed (talk) 07:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Gloria

It looks like she wants to create Dance International (magazine), but she's getting a message saying the title is blacklisted. Maurreen (talk) 07:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know anything about the blacklist message. But I just clicked on the red link and there was no obvious problem.
Glorio / Dionlineed, do you want to try clicking on the red link in my post above, and pasting your text in there? Maurreen (talk) 07:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Or maybe you tried that already, I dunno. Maurreen (talk) 07:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Dance International does not exist. Wouldn't it make more sense for it to be there? Maybe that's why it was blacklisted? 124.171.194.6 (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No, the blacklist doesnt work like that. It's not "intelligent". In any case, I cant replicate the problem, so I have to wonder if maybe Dionlineed accidentally typed something different at first, and that it was that erroneous title which was causing the error. After all, she never actually said what the title she was trying to create it at was. It's either that, or there's something I've yet to learn about the blacklist. I've posted a link to this thread on MediaWiki_talk:Titleblacklist just in case someone there might be able to help. Soap 22:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
If you're still here, do you remember the exact title that you typed out when trying to create the page? Soap 22:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
They seem to have created the page at Dance international magazine. Soap 17:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Just an FYI, "Dionlineed" looks a lot like "Dance International Online Editor" which is skirting near if not violating WP:ORGNAME. Anyone who is working with this editor might consider discussing a username change. -- Atama 18:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I've raised the issue with Dionlineed, which you could have done, Atama. Mjroots (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty[edit]

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that:

1) Tenmei (talk · contribs) may edit Wikipedia under the guidance of his self-declared mentors (Nihonjoe (talk · contribs), Kraftlos (talk · contribs), Coppertwig (talk · contribs), Leujohn (talk · contribs), Jmh649 (talk · contribs), McDoobAU93 (talk · contribs)). The period of mentorship will last six months from the date on which this motion passes, although it may be extended with the agreement of Tenmei and one or more mentors. Tenmei is strongly encouraged to seek advice and guidance from his mentors regularly. Should they deem it necessary, Tenmei's mentors may return to the Arbitration Committee for clarification of any editing restrictions or questions with respect to the terms of mentorship. Editors who come into conflict with Tenmei are advised to contact the mentor(s) either publicly or via email.

2) Tenmei is reminded of the remedies from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty that apply to him. Specifically:

  • Tenmei is topic-banned from Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty for a period of six months. He is permitted to comment on the talkpage, so long as he does so in a civil fashion. (The six-month period will commence from the date on which this motion passes.)
  • Tenmei is instructed not to interact with or comment with regard to Teeninvestor or Caspian blue on any page of Wikipedia, except in the course of legitimate dispute resolution initiated by others.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK 15:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

linking a foto file to a name in an article[edit]

I have uploaded a self portrait of the artist Ernst Hacker to wikicommons the address is - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ErnstHackerselfportrait1.jpg i would like to link it to a mention of ernst hacker [in red] on the page of his friend and teacher Koshiro Onchi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kōshirō_Onchi i receive the message contact the administrator can you help pliny13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pliny13 (talkcontribs) 19:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a Commons matter. The photo is a self portrait which was made by someone who died in 1987. Therefore you could not have made it and it is not your "own work", and as such is a copyright violation. It may be possible to use it in an article on the artist himself under fair use rules, but almost certainly not on the article about Kōshirō Onchi. Mjroots (talk) 05:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

On the unwritten rule regarding a limit to number of unblock requests[edit]

I would appreciate any thoughts on this here. –xenotalk 19:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I must agree with your post Xeno. In my opinion the so-called "unwritten rule" is disruptive and quite frankly I've seen it abused too often against innocent editors. Caden cool 19:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Cheers, but please discuss there - not here. –xenotalk 19:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Eastern European mailing list[edit]

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

The current editing restriction affecting Piotrus (talk · contribs) is to be amended to allow Piotrus to raise issues and discuss improvements to articles otherwise under the ban on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland talk page.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (utc) 00:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Action required on geonotice request[edit]

I placed a geonotice request ten days ago to invite interested NZers to Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland 5. There has been no response to this request. Could an administrator please look into this request? This would be greatly appreciated as the meetup is this Sunday.. Many Thanks. Linnah (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Try inviting people who went last time, but otherwise, there is nothing an administrator could do. Sorry. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Yes we've invited previous attendees. Reason for asking here is there's a note in the geonotice page that says:
Notify geonotice maintainers
In case there is no feedback in a few days after posting the request, ask an administrator to take a look.
Hence the note here hoping an admin knows how to notify the geonotice maintainers. Thanks. Linnah (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
You might consider pinging someone recently active who appears here: [2]. –xenotalk 16:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I have attempted to update MediaWiki:Geonotice.js. I don't know how long it is reasonable to wait to see if the message appears correctly. Someone with experience in writing javascript might like to check what I've added since a mistake could be disruptive.-gadfium 20:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks gadfium and all who helped get the geonotice going. Linnah (talk) 07:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Help at Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts#Montenegrin language - There is a giant discussion there, and they are looking for some admin help to come to some conclusions. The first comment was on 14 January. Please take a gander. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:RPP...[edit]

Resolved

...Is backed up again. I'm doing my best but the assistance of another admin or two would be appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Just checked in. It looks up to date as of right now. --Jayron32 18:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:ITN/C[edit]

An issue has arisen at ITN/C over an admin promoting an article they had nominated. This thread is not to be taken as criticism of the promotion by myself, but IMHO the complainant has a point. The talk page of ITN/C redirects to ITN/C, so I'm raising the issue here.

To my mind, good practice would be that an admin who nominates an article at ITN/C does not promote the article to the main page, regardless of how strong the consensus is for promotion. Mjroots (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The talk page of ITN/C should redirect to WT:ITN, I'll look into that. Also, for the record, I didn't nominate the article, I just opined in the discussion to kick it off. The issue, for those who are interested, is at WP:ITN/C#MV Moscow University freed from pirates and this is the diff of the addition to T:ITN. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Apologies, HJM, you are correct in that you didn't nominate the article. however, this situation shoud be similar to AfD discussions - if you've !voted, you don't do the promotion (or deletion, as appropriate). Mjroots (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
would like to draw attention to admin instructions at Wikipedia:In the news/Administrator instructions#ITN.2FC. it says Consensus there is not as hard and fast as it is at AfD or RfA, so admins are advised to use their best judgment I think HJ showed good judgement in promoting the item and I don't see written anywhere that admins cant post items they have !voted on. the item has since got additional support.--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
would also like to say ITN items are more 'time sensitive'. while AfDs and RfA run for days ITN items can get 'stale' pretty quick. recently we have had a bunch of admins on ITN/C page but there have been times when admin involvement has been low. So giving the admin the ability to !vote and post an item makes sense ( rather than wait for another admin to come along). If we find an admin abusing his privileges (and posting items without consensus) then that can be handled as per existing policies.--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
There are plenty of venues which require uninvolved admins on the rush. They manage perfectly well without doing this. Because of that slack practice, valid objections now apparently don't exist if they come in after a quick vote count, where nobody says anything of substance, or gives the slightest indication they know what ITN is for, or how this is an ITN item. MickMacNee (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BQZip01[edit]

There is a dispute which has extended for over a year, and which has spilled over into WP:AN/I several times. This is why I raise this issue here. I started an RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BQZip01 nearly four weeks ago. In that time, I've seen considerable activity on other RfCs. However, on this RfC there's been virtually no activity. As it stands, there are no outside views by anyone. The other four currently active RfCs have an average of 7 outside views. I'm concerned that the basis of this dispute remains unresolved. I am not looking for yes/no people. I am looking for input, whatever your opinion may be. You are invited to participate in this RfC. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

  • One problem with contributing to this RfC is the response BQZip01 added to my question dated 20:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC):
I believe the Conclusion I offered above provides the most viable interim solution. I am working on an RfC/U at this time with User:Fastily and have ceased any sort of interaction until it has been submitted. I believe an amicable solution can be reached through this process.
Cirt's response to your question states the simplest solution: that you two avoid each other. However, BQZip01 doesn't believe this would work (IMHO, I also suspect that this won't work -- both of you are equally interested in the same matter, so neither of you will manage to do this), so until he proposes his own solution, no one can offer any solution except that you two avoid each other. Which has been suggested already. No, there is one other option: both of you be banned from dealing with Fair Use issues, which is an attractive solution because neither of you will like that, & neither of you can say you "won". -- llywrch (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I have no desire to 'win'. I brought the RfC to end the dispute, not to bludgeon someone into submission. I'm not after a pound of flesh here. I'm not looking to have BQZip01 blocked for prolonged harrassment of me. I'm not looking to see him warned. I'm not looking to have 50 bazillion people tell him he's wrong. By his own admission, BQZip01 stopped following my edits over the last month+. You know what? It's been (not amazingly, but predictably) quiet. If I were guilty of even a third of the things BQZip01 insists I'm guilty of, there'd be a horde of editors breaking down the wikidoor wanting to carry my head off on a platter. Yet, since BQZip01 stopped following me, nary a peep. For me, the solution is really quite simple. I stop following him, he stops following me. I haven't been following him since at least late last year. I've made a few mistakes in that I've responded to him on some occasions, especially when he's followed me. I'm trying not to repeat those mistakes. But, no matter how hard I try, it won't make a difference if BQZip01 doesn't make a similar effort. But so far as he's concerned, such an effort to avoid is against policy.
  • If you want to ban me from anything to do with fair use issues, fine. The project will go on just fine without my efforts in that arena. But, 90% of my work here is in fair use because I believe very strongly in the free content mission. I don't write articles, or major updates to articles. I'm just not interested in that, nor frankly very good at it. If I were banned from fair use management issues, I'd just quietly leave the project. If the project thinks that's a 'win', so be it.
  • I will say this; if after the RfC ends, BQZip01 resumes his hounding of me, I will continue the WP:DR process. That's not a threat. It's a lack of choices. I can't and won't continue on with having him as my personal adjudicator with no possibility of parole. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Then what is it you are looking for here? Things seem to be working out fine for you at the moment. If I had to choose between (on one hand) an RfC which attracted little or no comment yet peace & quiet from another editor, & (on the other) an RfC which attracted a lot of comment but no peace & quiet from that editor, I'll let you guess which of these pairs I personally would be happiest with. As for resorting to the WP:DR process after this RfC period ends if the dispute continues, that's what you're supposed to do. -- llywrch (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/B9 hummingbird hovering going stale[edit]

I initiated this RFC last week, and I'm fairly sure it could be considered "certified" at this point and can move forward, but I'm unclear on whether the filing parties should be making that decision. Anyone want to take a look and either move it over into the certified section so we can proceed or let me know what it is lacking? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done Looks ready, I moved it live. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Praxis intervention[edit]

Can someone take a look at this article, and its relationship to this thesis and this slideshow, both apparently written by the same person who created and wrote the article? I don't honestly know what to do about it, if anything -- is it a copyvio?, does it lack notability?, is it original research? -- but it certainly doesn't seem to be the kind of article an encylopedia aimed at the general public would have in it. It's more like the kind of survey article an obscure academic journal might have. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

There are more references to that usage in Google than just the one individual who did that article here, but I can't find any suggestion that it's more than 4-5 people who are actively using that terminology to define a field, which would make it pretty much out on the fringe even if they're practitioners in healthcare in good standing and not thought to be cranks.
Perhaps there are more references out there, if we find more evidence that can be revisited. But I think it's just a few diehard supporters of this model, and it's not really very notable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Re-used USA radio station codes[edit]

I have moved this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations#Re-used USA radio station codes. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Need help viewing deleted image[edit]

Could someone try viewing this version of the deleted File:DPVAboutBoxWithImage.png? There are two files in this image's history: the newer I've just deleted because it's not in compliance with nonfree criterion F7, and the older (to which the link goes) may be corrupted. While I expect that it's corrupted, I expect that it's possible that my computer is having issues; if you try to view this image, please let me know of the results. Nyttend (talk) 03:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't see it either. Wierd. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I get a "File not found" message. Perhaps something is wrong in the database. Ucucha 17:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I just get "this link appears to be broken" from my browser. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Unlike text, I believe deleted images are eventually removed from the server, so that may be what happened. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
However, I just deleted the entire history of the image yesterday — you'll notice that there's only one deletion in the file's log — and anyway I had this problem even before deleting it. Nyttend (talk) 04:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Not true. Prior to (IIRC) mid-2006, no deleted image was stored on the server; afterwards, every deleted image was retained. --Carnildo (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean? I haven't said anything about former deleted image storing. Nyttend (talk) 03:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

CAT:CSD stats[edit]

tools:~betacommand/reports/csd_over_time.htm is the graph and raw data going back to 2009-10-19 00:10 UTC. Just a few highlights. 27:30:43 is the average oldest item. 2010-05-02 15:10 UTC has the record for longest queue at 145:43:01. tools:~betacommand/reports/CATCSD.html provides a listing of csd items based on when it was tagged. βcommand 23:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Nifty, thank you. I use your listing by timestamp whenever I am sorting through nominations that are not attack or copyvio. Is there any chance of sorting this by category? My impression is that we are pretty good at G10s (I think about half an hour is the longest I have ever seen, with less than five minutes far more common), but A7s can hang around a few days. I think this reflects well on our priorities as a community, and more data is always welcome. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker blocked[edit]

I've temporarily blocked CommonsDelinker for the duration of the disruption at Commons to prevent further damage to the local project. Q T C 01:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Just curious, what damage was being done? I can't see anything glaring at first glance. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The bot is a delinker, it doesn't re-link. While commons wheel-wars over the recent image deletions the bot removes all traces of it from the local project. So even the images that were restored have disappeared from all articles until somebody goes through and reverts all of the affected edits by hand. Q T C 01:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Julian, see WP:VPP#New Commons interpretation of policies regarding sexual content. and the resulting WP:VPR#Re-upload Commons artwork that's been deleted by Jimbo Wales, if you're not up on the current drama. Equazcion (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Maybe this is thinking ahead too much, but once this settles I wonder if it wouldn't be possible for someone far smarter than I to write something to check all of Delinker's contributions since this began and see which edits, if any, removed an image now-restored. ~ Amory (utc) 01:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes if it keeps a record of all images it deletes. βcommand 02:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I actually came here to undo my post. http://toolserver.org/~delinker/index.php ~ Amory (utc) 02:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed the block for now so that at least the redlink removals will be consolidated under one account. Instead of a few dozen when users come across redlinked images. Q T C 03:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Upcoming Changes to the User Interface[edit]

As many of you already know, the Wikimedia Foundation's User Experience team has been running a beta program focused on improving the user interface for over six months now. More details may be found here, but our main goal has been to reduce the barriers to participation in Wikipedia by making it easier for new contributors to edit.

Since the start of the program, over 635,000 users across all Wikimedia projects have participated in this beta program - testing and providing feedback on the new interface. Roughly 80% of the test users who tried the beta are still using it (view details). On the English Wikipedia, almost 270,000 users have tried the test interface and about 84% of those users continue to use it. On April 5, the beta features became the default experience for users of Wikimedia Commons, a wiki similar to Wikipedia that hosts the millions of free image and media files within our projects. The summary of feedback from Commons users may be found here. The WMF blog and the tech blog also provide more information on this project.

This new user interface will become the default for users of the English Wikipedia during the second week of May. We are currently scheduled to make the switch at 5:00am UTC on May 13. Once we make the switch, all users will begin to see the new features [1]. These features include an enhanced toolbar, a new skin (which we named 'Vector'), and a number of other features we're very excited about (FAQs may be found here). If you prefer not to make the change, there will be 'Take me back' link to restore the original features. Those who would like to experience the new interface sooner may do so via the 'Try Beta' link at the top of the page.

We understand that the English Wikipedia relies heavily on custom user scripts and site-specific JavaScript. Information on how to test gadgets is included in the FAQ page. If you encounter issues using the new skin, please share your feedback.

We're looking forward to rolling out the new features next week. In the meantime, if you have any questions/comments, please share them here.

Howief (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation User Experience Team

It would be helpful to have a page with information about which of the most-used scripts - CSDHelper, AdminDashboard, CloseAfD, Huggle, Twinkle etc - are known to work (or known not to work) with the new interface. JohnCD (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I do believe most of the major scripts have been fixed to work in Vector. –xenotalk 20:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I've been using Vector with many of the common gadgets and scripts with no issues since it hit beta. — Coren (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Good. I hope on Thursday morning there will be a prominent notice for the benefit of users who may not have seen this announcement. One thing it will need to tell them is: "If you have scripts in a /monobook.js user subpage, you will need to make a /vector.js subpage (lower-case V) and copy the contents into it." JohnCD (talk) 10:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The trunk version of MediaWiki has had support for skin-independent user JS/CSS pages (Special:MyPage/common.js and Special:MyPage/common.css) for some time now. It would be nice if someone with the necessary access could deploy that feature (rev:63300 and rev:63338) to Wikipedia before the skin change goes live. (Disclaimer: I wrote the code for that feature, so I may obviously be biased about its usefulness.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Ps. Filed as bugzilla:23438. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2[edit]

This arbitration case has been closed. The following remedies have been enacted:

  • User:Alastair Haines is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year, and thereafter pending further direction of the Arbitration Committee under remedy 2.
  • Should Alastair Haines wish to return to editing Wikipedia after one year, he shall first communicate with the Arbitration Committee and provide a satisfactory assurance that he will refrain from making any further legal threats against other editors or against the Wikimedia Foundation. Should Alastair Haines, after being permitted to return, again make a legal threat or a statement that may reasonably be construed as a legal threat, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator.
  • To assist Alastair Haines in disengaging from Wikipedia, the case pages relating to this arbitration and all related pages have been courtesy blanked. As appropriate, other pages reflecting controversies to which Alastair Haines was a party may also be courtesy-blanked, particularly where the discussion is no longer relevant to ongoing editing issues. In addition, if Alastair Haines so requests, his username (and hence the username associated with his edits in page histories) may be changed to another appropriate username other than his real name. Editors who have been in conflict with Alastair Haines are strongly urged to make no further reference to him on-wiki following his departure.

For the Arbitration Committee, ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Did I violate WP:UNINVOLVED?[edit]

Can someone please give me their two cents on whether I violated WP:UNINVOLVED by protecting the page Phi Gamma Delta after I had expressed a strong opinion on the issue. I think this falls within the grounds of "any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion", but I've gotten flack in the past for using sysop powers in a situation where I was involved, so I'm now pretty cautious about when I use them. —Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 21:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. It's clear and blatant edit-warring by what is obviously one person on a rotating IP address; absolutely a valid use of semi-protection that "any reasonable administrator" would have implemented. ~ mazca talk 21:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree — I'd be very hesitant to condemn you if you'd been the only one to revert continuous vandalism, but when several other people are reverting the vandalism, there's no question that you did what any reasonable administrator would do. Nyttend (talk) 21:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Good call, in my opinion. You last edited the article 4 days ago, since when there's been a lot of vandalism which was reverted by other editors. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Nice to see the frat I am looking into is getting attacked. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
It seems very reasonable to partial-protect even after voicing an opinion in this case under the "any reasonable administrator" bit.
Ktr101 - I don't see it as an attack, it appears simply to be some folk (or a single person) pushing the PoV that the Greek letters should not be used in a WP article, in keeping with the firmly expressed wishes of the fraternity.- Sinneed 15:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, everyone. —Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 21:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to turn on revision deletion immediately (despite some lingering concerns)[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to turn on revision deletion immediately (despite some lingering concerns). –xenotalk 01:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

WOW[edit]

So I directly point out vandals after warning them and nobody seems to care. How many times can people deliberately mess up an article before getting IP banned? 10? 20? 1000? No wonder there's so much vandalism here!!!!!!!!!!!! This is why nobody views Wikipedia as a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr cleaner upper (talkcontribs) 02:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You reported them to WP:AIV immediately after issuing a vague warning—and in most cases without cleaning up the vandalism! I think every report of yours but one has been turned down for insufficient activity or insufficient warnings; the other one persisted in vandalizing well after your warning. Once they were given a final warning {{uw-vandalism4}} and vandalized again after that, I blocked them. —C.Fred (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Mess up pages on any other website and you get kicked out. For some reason this encyclopedia seems to have lower standards. Fuck this. Have fun letting idiots ruin pages, I'm outta here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr cleaner upper (talkcontribs) 02:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I went ahead and indef'd the reporting account as disruptive and bad faith. MBisanz talk 03:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Why did you do that? This newbie correctly identified several vandals and posted to there page to that effect. He/he didn't quite know what they where doing but it was well intended. The uncivil rant here is hardly a cause to indef block them especially without warning. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Tend to side with SunCreator here: common frustration, poorly voiced. Not a reason for blocking.—Kww(talk) 17:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree, but I'd like to know why Beyond My Ken thinks it's a possible sock.[3] EVula // talk // // 17:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Basically, the contribution history: rather than starting off slowly and building confidence, which I think is typical of a newly created account, they came on like gangbusters. It's nothing I looked into very deeply, just a feeling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
So, it would appear that we may have lost a potential vandal fighter. The newby should have been encouraged and educated, not blocked. Mjroots (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Having looked at their reports to AIV, none of them (well, perhaps one) would have been eligible for blocking - they all had 1 or two edits (a couple had 3 or more) and no warnings. The reporter may think that we should block on the first edit that is vandalism, but that is not the way it works - unless it is necessary, we tend to give warnings (I'm typing this in case the reporter reads this) - s/he asked How many times can people deliberately mess up an article before getting IP banned? 10? 20? 1000? - none of these IPs were anywhere near that, almost all of them did it once or twice (and I looked at their deleted contributions too). I feel that the block was inappropriate, and as Mjroots says, they should have been encouraged and educated. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I've asked MBisanz whether he would reconsider the block. Mjroots (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Support block. This is a common kind of troll, the overly aggressive vandal fighter. I refuse to believe that someone can go from the sandbox to AIV on their third edit without something odd going on. And follows up this request with a post to this post ANI (again, how do you possibly know how to find this within two hours of editing here). Either it's a troll or someone with such a short fuse at having to follow the basic protocol that either way I doubt they'd last long here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The behavior of this account, doing improper AIV reports on creation and then complaining they weren't being acted on, eliminated my good faith that this was a new user just trying to help out. MBisanz talk 20:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I know what MBisanz is talking about because I saw some of the Mr cleaner upper reports, but I don't think an indef is appropriate. For obvious reasons it will cause them to run to another IP/account and just continue, and there's a possibility that they're just an occasional IP vandalism undoer (lots of these most people don't see) that's frustrated and learned a little bit but not the whole picture (our documentation is hard to find). What if we unblocked, left some very clear direction, and then watched them like a hawk. I'd be willing to do the last (let me know if others agree to this) and report back here if there's an issue with that. Shadowjams (talk) 07:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with that, and I'd also be willing to explain to him about how to use the templates in the correct way, and when to post at AIV. He'll need to learn to keep his temper in check and not rant at admins for perceived non-action. If there are further problems, the block may be reimposed, for what admins giveth, admins may taketh away. Mjroots (talk) 09:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I again ask, if someone's response to these comments on their talk page is this comment about how "nobody cares!!", what more should be expected? I can't think of any editor who could legitimate move from comments on their talk page to a rant at ANI without something going on. And people can't say this post here then this wave bye-bye isn't at least questionable. Whatever, if the editor is remotely interested in editing here, fine, but it seems like they quit almost 45 minutes before MBisanz even got involved. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm dropping it, really. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I understand that, I'm almost there with you (remember I tried early on, I think before this AN even came up, to discuss this) ... I'd say one more chance. But if that chance doesn't work then that's it. Because I think everyone here recognizes that this is clearly someone who knows what they're doing early on (indenting talk comments...). Shadowjams (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Shadowjams, the editor may have been editing for a while as an IP before creating an account, hence the knowing what they are doing. There are some IP editors who fight vandals. Mjroots (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Mark Aldred again.[edit]

Mark Aldred is back as {{Masamako (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)). Geoff B (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 19:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arab Cowboy[edit]

Can an administrator please review Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arab Cowboy and see if socking is going on? This SPI case has been sitting for almost a month, and the filer has objected to my closing it due to lack of activity. In my opinion, SPI cases should never be left to sit indefinitely like this one looks like. –MuZemike 21:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Open BVE temp history merge[edit]

Please could somebody history merge the left-over Open BVE temp into OpenBVE and delete it. —Sladen (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done NW (Talk) 01:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser registration requests[edit]

There are requests at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage for approval that are over 48 hours old. Thanks in advance! --Pumpmeup 01:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

 What happened to that weekend? Rodhullandemu 01:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Elena Kagan[edit]

According to several major news organizations this person will be nominated to the U.S. Supreme court tomorrow. There are already some forum-style discussions on the talk page. I suspect a deluge of vandalism as soon as the nomination is made. The page was reported at WP:RPP and has been move protected. I am not sure what Wikipedia policy is regarding these types of events but I feel admins should be made aware. --N419BH (talk) 03:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The talk page should be watched as closely as the article for BLP issues and NOTFORUM needs to be enforced. Jonathunder (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Problems with IP2Location link[edit]

Resolved

The IP2Location (seen as GeoLocate) link is seen at the bottom with WhoIs tags and others on all IP user talk pages. Problem is IP2Location has been down since Friday (maybe longer). Not sure what the problem is over there but it is effecting on finding out where users are located. This could cause problems for people who are looking for a location on someone for a threat situation or other problem. I request that the IP2Location link be changed to something else (possibly TrustedSource.com) for the time being while the problems at IP2Location.com are worked out. It would at least give us another source to find information. - NeutralHomerTalk • 04:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Oversight mailing list moving to OTRS[edit]

Beginning 15 May 2010, the English Wikipedia Oversight mailing list will be migrating to the OTRS mail management system hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. The primary purpose of this move is to better track requests as they come in, and to ensure timely and consistent responses. This move comes after the German and French oversight lists moved to OTRS in the past year; both have found that it has assisted them in better responding to requests. Over the next week or so, oversighters who have not used OTRS before will be learning the fine points of that system, but the Oversight team will endeavour to maintain adequate responses to the system. The team has also prepared an introductory manual to assist with the transition, which discusses use of both the OTRS system and the Oversight tools.

The major effect on non-Oversighters will be the change in email address to which requests should be sent. When that change is made, we will widely publish the new email address for everyone's information, and we will encourage regular correspondents, particularly recent change patrollers and new page patrollers, to update their contact lists. The current Oversight-L mailing list will remain accessible for approximately two weeks after the changeover; after that, it will become a closed list where oversighters will discuss complex cases or review best practices.

For the Arbitration Committee and the Oversight team,
Risker (talk) 04:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Today's front page image[edit]

File:Moscow Victory Day 65th anniversary logo.png has no source and no copyright information whatsoever, as far as I can see. It is protected, but should either be fixed or tagged with {{di-no source}} accordingly. ╟─TreasuryTagSpeaker─╢ 07:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Technically, WP:ERRORS is the venue for this, but you've got my attention. It's because it's a temporary upload from Commons, courtesy of User:MPUploadBot. I'll copy the tags over from Commons. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I deleted the local version because it's protected on Commons. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Fair dos, well done! ╟─TreasuryTagballotbox─╢ 08:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Abbreviation (BRD)[edit]

Not sure if this is the right place for this, but what does "BRD" mean? (see this edit [4]). I'm not here about the removal of the material, I was just curious if "BRD" stood for something inappropriate. -OberRanks (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

See WP:BRD. Deor (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Editors who want to WP:OWN articles consider it inappropriate. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
That said, that link is actually an example of the ever popular BRRD method.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
As opposed to the also ever popular BRRRRRRRRRRRBB. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! - let's all take the time here to remember how confusing it all is.  Chzz  ►  21:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

───────────────────────── OberRanks, "BRD" stands for "Bold, Revert, Discuss" - a suggested method for editing article. We encourage editors to make bold changes, but if another editor removes the edit ('reverts' it), then it is time to stop, and discuss the matter with that person and other editors, to try and form a consensus. This avoids edit wars.

I'm sorry to say that we Wikipedians use these 'in-house' acronymns far too often. If you ever come across another, try typing "WP:" followed by the letters into the Wikipedia search box and hit the enter key. For example, if someone writes "COI", type "WP:COI" in the search box and you will be linked to the page on the conflict-of-interest policy.

And no, this isn't the right place to ask - next time, put {{helpme}} on your own talk page, followed by your question. Then again, we like to IAR.  Chzz  ►  21:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! -OberRanks (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Steve Smith and plagiarism[edit]

See here. I would prefer to have discussion centralized there. Steve Smith (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Grundel Guard and Grundle Guard[edit]

Please delete Grundel Guard and Grundle Guard; these were created as frivolous redirects (to Helmet) by a vandalism-only account (User: Yohann4) several years back, and were not caught in all this time! In case you were wondering, grundle is a slang term for perineum, which clearly indicates that neither redirect was legit, and that both were simply vandalism. I have since blanked both pages and ask that they be deleted.Stonemason89 (talk) 01:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Just tag the pages with a speedy deletion tag and they will eventually be bagged. This thread really isn't needed as this is for urgent matters. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, will remember that next time. I was not aware, prior to this discussion, that non-admins had access to speedy deletion templates. Thanks for clearing things up!Stonemason89 (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Question about AGF and Userpages[edit]

An editor whom I won't name (unless I am required to do so) has a list of editors on his user page, all of whom have apparently crossed him at some point. His wording is as follows: This is a list of editors I've observed or interacted with who are actively detrimental to Wikipedia. Most are unabashedly pursuing their own agenda, but a few seem to think they're contributing when they're actually being destructive.

I am not on this list, but it does include a couple of decent editors that I know. Is this kind of thing allowed? It seems to me to be an unsubtantiated attack on a number of editors who have no right to reply, and it hardly assumes good faith. I'd be interested to know what policy might be on this. Apologies if this is in the wrong place. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Such lists are pretty disruptive, and counter to the spirit of colleageality which is supposed to prevail here. Since the editor is retired anyway, I've been bold and deleted the list. (If the editor wishes to keep such a list, it can easily be done off-wiki without disruption.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll go further than that. Such lists breach WP:NPA. Who is the editor in question? Mjroots (talk) 06:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Found it! EeepEeep (talk · contribs), who claims to have retired at 23:59 on 7 May 2010. If this editor remains retired then no further action is required. Should they revert the deletion of the list, then they should be blocked for WP:DE, warning or no warning. Mjroots (talk) 06:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
While the editor claims to be retired, they are still editing mainspace pages and talk pages to argue against a certain page move (see Talk:Newman/Haas/Lanigan Racing#Requested move). Right now their attitude is starting to become a little uncivil... TheChrisD RantsEdits 11:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Deletion of list has been reverted. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 11:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I should add that that I am no longer uninvolved with this editor, since I am arguing against his obstruction of the above-mentioned page move. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
"Enemies lists" are not allowed, so I've zapped it and advised him not to put it back. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Well he is spot-on with a name or two in there, but yea, we can't have this. What's the procedure here, block until hr agrees to not restore it, or just goto MfD? Tarc (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
It's always a matter of opinion, as some editors get along with editors that others' don't get along with. If someone wants to maintain such a list, there's nothing from stopping them from doing so - on their own PC. But that would defeat the purpose, which is to slam somebody. Now, if he were smart, he could have maintained the list with the heading, "My Favorite Users", but again that would defeat his purpose. In any case, he hasn't edited since yesterday, but if he does it again, I think a lengthy block is called for. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I hide my list in plain sight at Enemies list ;-) TFOWRThis flag once was red 17:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Aha! So he had a few wikipedia editors on that list, yes? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
This thread has just been brought to my attention. Much to my surprise, I was on the list; thanks to those of you who found it and deleted it.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Ahem. So is my watch list a violation? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
That's an enemy's list? IMHO, it looks like a summary of a random moment from WP:AN/I. If you want a real enemy's list, you have to increase the vilification & make it sound like you're watching them because they're going to do evil -- not as if they need help. -- llywrch (talk) 04:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Manufactured evidence of COI[edit]

Hi I'm Becky Northey, I edit on Tree shaping article and there is a section on my partner and I. The issue of COI was brought up to SilkTork *YES! about my editing on Tree shaping. He responded by removing the COI tag stating "The COI is not clear" here is the diff

Duff has edited the section about my partner and I, adding references from a site (treeshapers.net) that he knew I created. After having done so he accused me of quote "your site....disproportionately represented in the references section". Here is a brief version of my reply, Duff you have added 11 links to the site, not me. Finishing with "Don't make changes and then say goodness me it's too heavily weighed this way. Please don't do this again." Here is the link, please go to near the bottom of this section where Duff Oppose my suggestion.

(I'm summarising here) He accused me of manipulating the article to my own benefit again here. I had reposted my earlier comment in case he missed it in the length of the talk page, asking him not to do this again.

Tonight I went though the history and found the page, were Duff created the evidence. Here is the diff last block of red text. In Duff's next edit he adds the same reference multiple times in our section here. Here is the page before [5].

Duff has an agenda to reinstate the article back to its original title. Even though multiple editors at different times have stated that the original title was not neutral. Duff has manufactured evidence, to prove I have a COI. Blackash have a chat 15:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest applying Hanlon's razor, and just getting back to discussing the article. Yes, Duff made a mistake, and yes, Blackash has a COI (simply by being part of the article's topic).
No admin action is needed here. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
It was no mistake but part of a planned tactic, to bring into question the validity of any information that I have or will find about Tree shaping and associated issues. Blackash have a chat 23:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Reading the tag at the top, is this the appropriate forum for this discussion? This is the first time I've dealt with such an action, so I'm not sure if I'm expected to respond or not. Planting evidence is a pretty serious accusation. It is also an unbelievably clever and wickedly ironic pun, in context. My agenda is better writing, a better article, and a better Wikpedia. I prefer to work on just the article and I continue to seek consensus at Talk:Tree shaping on a variety of apparently-contentious issues, including now the precise nature of my stupidity. I sincerely apologize for any good-faith-based misunderstanding, which I am prepared to assume is what has occurred. I am also prepared to fully defend my own good faith in the appropriate forum, if we truly need to spend that time in that way.Duff (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Blackash has confusingly interleaved her later comment here before my response, with incorrect indentation, and in the wrong forum for such a dispute. It contains another serious accusation, both of which are also posted on the talk page for the relevant article. Both are untrue. I want both accusations retracted and the matter resolved in whatever manner is appropriate.Duff (talk) 03:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is frequently misunderstood. Some editors feel that if someone has an interest or association with an article topic that is a conflict of interest. It is not. It may be a "potential" conflict of interest, but we would need the mind police to discover someone's potential intentions, so we look at the actual edits rather than any assumed intention. Most Wikipedia editors have a potential conflict of interest as we tend to work on those articles whose topics connect with us in some manner - we write about the place where we live, the writers, musicians and films we respect and enjoy, our own areas of expertise, which includes our own occupation or academic subject area. We invite experts to write for Wikipedia, and experts in a field may be expected to hold their own biases or personal enthusiasms. However, we also expect from all Wikipedia editors a certain degree of responsibility, and an awareness of our core policies. Mostly, people do conduct themselves in a reasonable manner. Yes, there is some bias - particularly Wikipedia:Systematic bias - but we are aware of that, and we try to deal with it individually and collectively.

Of more importance, relevance and accuracy than trying to second guess someone's intention is to look at the article in question to see if the article is promotional in nature, or biased. When I was involved in the article I felt it was proceeding in a mostly neutral and factual manner - though there was a slight cause for concern over the use of the word "arborsculpture" as that word was coined by Richard Reames, and is associated with him and his books. However, examination of the evidence showed that the word was also being used by some sources as a generic term for tree-shaping, so limited and careful use of that word was acceptable. However, caution needs to be applied and a watch kept on Tree shaping and related articles to ensure that there isn't inappropriate over-use of the term.

Other than keeping a weather-eye on the use of the word "arborsculpture" I agree with Quiddity that there is nothing else here that is cause for concern. SilkTork *YES! 08:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed community ban on LS[edit]

  • Note The below discussion is quadruple nested, you must click 'show' four times to be able to review it. MickMacNee (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Drama over. Okay, now we break out the Lolcats
  • Public interest note: the below discussion is triple nested, and requires clicking 'show' three times to be able to review it. Larry Sanger is not a troll, but apparently this unique method of archiving is required to deal with a proposal to ban him. MickMacNee (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
    • This discussion can be restarted by anyone at any time if they think it truly merits more discussion (but please, not just to vent). If someone does restart it, I suggest we move it to an AN subpage. NoSeptember 12:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I think the kittens and puppies and triple nested archiving is evidence that discussion of the merits of the community banning of a common or garden troll, is not simply going to be allowed to start, let alone allowed to restart. The issue will just remain unresolved as an open sore on the project, like a few other perma-problems AN/I never deals with. MickMacNee (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Drama over. Okay, now we break out the puppies
Drama over. Look at the kittens since the puppies are all sacked out from a long day
Drama over. NW (Talk) 03:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The actions of LS in regards to Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia and the alleged omission of "pedophiles operating on Wikipedia" has been subject to community disapproval. In light of the recent indef block for disruption and subsequent unblock of LS, I am putting this matter for community discussion. Personally, I have no opinion on this issue. Please discuss. —Dark 02:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

  • I think a topic ban on articles about Wikipedia should suffice. He's obviously ignoring WP:COI by insisting that his own criticism (even if reproduced by mainstream media) should be included in some article here. Pcap ping 02:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Lets not escalate this pissing match.--Tznkai (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • With Pcap on that -- topic ban him from Wikipedia-related articles. That is, unless there's evidence that he's causing problems elsewhere. He seems to have a clear axe-grinding mission on Wikipedia-related articles. Equazcion (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - When you're in a hole, stop digging! -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I have an opinion, and it's this: another fucking disgrace. When will you clowns ever learn that the way to deal with criticism is not to suppress it? Malleus Fatuorum 02:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
    • You mean the same way you've learned that the best way to convince people is to insult them? We can't all be that quick to learn sir. Equazcion (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I mean the same way I've learned that arse-licking deceit is the only currency of value here on wikipedia. Malleus Fatuorum 03:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
        • I see no evidence that you've learned that. Equazcion (talk) 03:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
          • Stay on topic please? What Malleus did/did not do is not relevant. —Dark 03:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I sure hope not. I'll be brief: Wikipedia should be open to criticism, even on the site itself, since external criticism often isn't taken well by Wikipedia editors. I hate this "you're either with us or against us" mentality. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
No no. Lets not play that game. This isn't about "criticism," this is about a grudge.--Tznkai (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
This isn't even about a grudge, it's about a competitor slinging FUD allegations of felonious acts by Wikipedia as a way of promoting his competing project. Unfortunately, a siteban won't fix this, and the press will just use it as an excuse to bash us, so it would be counterproductive. Gavia immer (talk) 03:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 Note: I can already predict in advance that this thread will not be productive or end well. MBisanz talk 03:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
We really ought to just close it now... NW (Talk) 03:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Hell, I could predict that just from the thread title. Gavia immer (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
What's going on at wikipedia? Jimbo is almost desysoped, and now that... Oppose the ban.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Maybe the founders should stop acting like they still own this place? Pcap ping 03:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Maybe some administrators ought to consider the wisdom of extracting their heads from their arses once in a while. Malleus Fatuorum 03:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Horrible idea, unless we want a Fox News report on Monday turning him into a martyr to a cause, "S objected to Wikipedia hosting child pornography. The project responded by banning him permanently". All this accompanied by pixelated images from Commons, interviews with outraged experts from Family Research Council, Jimbo and Foundation donors being asked to explain their support of (child!) pornographers, and FBI spokesmen questioned on whether a formal investigation has been started. Are we ready to let pique and lack of common-sense sink this project ? Abecedare (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • What a pile of shite; We are a free content encyclopedia. This does not imply any form of free speech. In particular, we do not, and should not tolerate, any form of disruptive editing that is only directed towards making political points. That is why I blocked User:Larry Sanger indefinitely, and I thought I explained why I had done so, in the clearest possible terms. However, my block was reverted, with no particular reason being given for the continued reason for his input here. If you do not want me to continue to be an admin here, please make it plain; otherwise, please feel free to take the appropriate steps. Rodhullandemu 04:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I do not want you to be continue to be an admin here Rodhullandemu. Uncle uncle uncle 04:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I DO want you to continue to be an admin. I just don't want you to indef block Larry Sanger. The project can take the criticism. Or, if it cannot, that would be good to know too. ++Lar: t/c 04:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I do not want you to be continue to be an admin here Rodhullandemu because I see no understanding that the block was wrong--Mbz1 (talk) 04:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I do want Rodhullandemu to be an admin around here cause Larry Sanger has tested the patience of Wikipedians with his run to Fixed News and his lying we support child porn. That is some shit we hear out of ED members, not our own. His disruptiveness needs to go and fast. I wholeheartedly agree with with Rodhullandemu's block of Sanger as well. - NeutralHomerTalk • 04:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, if you don't want me to continue to protect this encyclopedia against abuse, from whatever direction, please take the appropriate steps. We are here to provide knowledge, and I stand by my record on that. I think it stands up to any analysis. Up to you. Rodhullandemu 04:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support community ban. The guy is a boring troll. At least the other trolls around here who waste hours of other people's time, contribute articles once in a while. While he is actively disrupting articles to further his own agendas, there is not a single reason he needs an account here, he has more than enough places he can spread The Truth and Fight the Good Fight. He doesn't want to be here, we don't want him here, a community ban is a win win situation, and the encyclopoedia certainly benefits. Everything else is just noise. P.S. Loving the kittens. Very relaxing for a Sunday lunchtime. MickMacNee (talk) 11:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
    • So Critic = Troll to you? *Dan T.* (talk) 12:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
      • He went past "critic" a long time ago. He is a troll, by anybody's definition. MickMacNee (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
      • m:What is a troll? is good reading too. Admins can passively aggressively silence this discussion by triple nesting this thread with all the kittens and puppies they like, they are not acting in the best interests of this pedia by preteding this guy is not a troll deserving of a community ban. Rod for arbcom tb, who have banned many a troll like Sanger in the past, and where Sanger will probably end up if normal admins don't get real pretty damn quickly.) MickMacNee (talk) 12:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Criticism is far different than trolling. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm unhappy the kitty snaps have been hidden/nested/whatever. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Me too. The kitties demand justice and equal treatment, not to speedily hidden under dogs! Pcap ping 17:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Check the image on the right.©Geni 18:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
heh, at first glance of the small version I thought that was a dog wearing a tux--Jac16888Talk 18:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I propose a community ban on those animals. They are too cute, and must be punished.Love, Nekami 20:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Support ban of the first and third...the other two show true community spirit! Ks0stm (TCG) 21:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
(engage offtopic/silliness warp drive) Only the 4th shows the true spirit of wp:NPoV! ...though ...arguably the image is still slanted to favor the puppy, as it has much more coverage in the image and thus lacks balance. ;0)~ There is probably also some nefarious plot by left-handed admins, as the feline is on the LEFT paw of the canine. *disengage*- Sinneed 22:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
If you feel the dog's viewpoint is disproportionately represented you are of course free to improve it. Wikipedia is the collection of puppy and kitten images that anyone can edit! - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I think it is time we stopped using either Seth Finkelstein or Cade Metz as sources for commentary about Wikipedia as both have a long-standing agenda against the project and very clearly selectively use only those sources that support that agenda. Guy (Help!) 01:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Are you suggesting we use LS as a source instead? Otherwise, I don't see how your commentary is related to the topic above... Pcap ping 04:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales desysopped ?[edit]

Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I was just reading the news bar on BBC World and read something about Jimbo Wales' user rights being revoked because of the way Wikipedia covers porn or something in this direction (the message was not so clear to me). What is this all about??? Count Iblis (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't think so - not here, anyway [6]. There is more on this at the pumps (where it probably belongs), e.g. Wikipedia:VPP#New Commons interpretation of policies regarding sexual content.xenotalk 15:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
That link doesn't seem right (Wikipedia:VPP#New Commons interpretation of policies regarding sexual content.). Maurreen (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
That was more in regards to Count Iblis' question "What is this all about???" - I figured he arrived late to this party and wanted to see who spiked the punch bowl. –xenotalk 16:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Shame. This thread title got my hopes up. Resolute 15:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I haven't yet read the BBC story (just got online and haven't looked for it). The summary is that there's been a big row at Commons over pornographic images, and there were questions and complaints raised about my specific actions there. Because I don't think that's worth fighting about, I voluntarily removed all my powers to actually *do* anything using the "Founder" flag. Instead of focusing on that, what I want is to drive forward a healthy discussion about the reform of Commons policy so that it is no longer abused as a free porn hosting facility. That's not an easy discussion to have, for a number of reasons. But have it we must.
I am still an admin here in English Wikipedia, and nothing about that is changing. By my own pledge, I do not use block powers here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Damn, just when I was going to suggest that you donate your mop to the Smithsonian. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I am happy to see you have respected the community on this, Jimbo, and even happier that rash action has finally given way to rational discussion. Wikimedia has tended to get those actions backwards in recent times. Resolute 17:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
[7], read the box at the top--Jac16888Talk 15:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes (well sort of), Jimbo resigned all of his global "founder" rights associated with active powers (delete, protect, block, etc.) as a result of m:Requests_for_comment/Remove_Founder_flag, the conflict on Commons, and discussions on Foundation-l. He retains the passive powers (e.g. view-deleted). He separately remains an admin on this wiki, but no longer has that power globally. Dragons flight (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Off2riorob, did you mean to post an from article December 2008? Perhaps you meant this one. ~ Amory (utc) 16:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • He globally turned off much of what the "founder" bit allows him to do as to content, but still has the bit itself. He still has technical accesss to quickly turn it all back on himself. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
    • No he doesn't. The power to edit his own rights was subsequently removed a few hours later at his own request. Dragons flight (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Actually, I removed it all myself.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Isn't this what dragons flight meant?--Jac16888Talk 16:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
          • Yes, until Laaknor's action Jimbo still had the ability to edit his own rights through the sysadmin flag. Dragons flight (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Missed that, striken, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
You can see the logs here [8]. DuncanHill (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Wow, a mainstream news article about WP that does not make me rage with inaccuracies. I think I may actually pay my licence fee this year. 86.41.61.203 (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

@Jimbo - you are spot on with this. A child's right to be free from abuse trumps any other consideration in this debate. If a so-called "consensus" develops that protects those who would bring harm to children, then the consensus should be broadened to include those who might not normally concern themselves with these issues. Ronnotel (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

    • And if a consensus develops that pictures of bestiality, sado-masochism, hard-core porn and so on should be hosted on wikimedia servers in vast quantities and without even the basic disclosure and licensing requirements (certification the subjects are over 18, gave consent, etc...) user to regulate the porn industry, what then? Do we learn that this is an ungovernable asylum, or do we learn that it needs a dramatically different governance structure? What's your next move then, Mr. Wales? Throw your hands up and accept the will of the pseudo-libertarian rabble The Community?Bali ultimate (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Ronnotel child porn is not the topic of this debate. Commons has a fairly good record of acting against that.©Geni 17:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Huh? From the article linked to above: "The page . . . has been blocked because it includes an image of a controversial album cover. That cover shows a naked child, and even back in the 70s it proved too distasteful for many, and was withdrawn in a number of countries." Ronnotel (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Ronnotel, the Virgin Killer album cover (which has never been found to be illegal anywhere) is not what the current shenanigans are about. Read the current BBC story linked above, which relates to mass deletions af a wide range of images, including historic artworks, from Commons. DuncanHill (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I really, really, REALLY don't feel like being in the middle of a Wikipedia Coup d'état. Also, I think He's in the right- Commons is a valuable source for free images... legal, tasteful (Or it should be tasteful), images. --Rockstonetalk to me! 21:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Reality, unfortunately, is not always tasteful. Also, what is tasteful and what is not varies from person to person. We should document reality according to reality itself, not censoring it on the basis of our taste. --Cyclopiatalk 00:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, reality for instance also includes images of gangreen and of blown up soldiers in wars. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 00:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Quite so, and images such as these are both completely tasteless and demeaning to their subjects, yet appear to be essential for some admins closing noticeboard threads. DuncanHill (talk) 00:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Unless your post is intended to be satirical, which I don't see, "taste" is a matter of personal opinion and preference, and the idea that kittens have "rights" that can be "demeaned" is just ludicrous. Rodhullandemu 00:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh dear god, yes it was meant to be satirical, and was a reference to the recent silliness from admins closing the proposal to ban the other-co-founder. I would add that I never suggested that the kittens' rights were demeaned, rather that the kittens were demeaned. DuncanHill (talk) 00:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
That doesn't have a lot to do with the uploading of endless pictures of users' own genitalia, or pictures of sex acts with people of uncertain age which are not used on any Wikimedia project. Guy (Help!) 00:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh no, genitalia! Whatever will we do!? Badger Drink (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I think Guy is saying that editors should upload pictures of other people's genitals, not their own. DuncanHill (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
No- I'm pretty Sure Guy is saying that there's no educational value of uploading these images- especially if they are of questionable legality. --Rockstonetalk to me! 00:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I was trying to avoid pointing out that Guy was poisoning the well by his implication that all the deleted images were either uneducational, illegal or unused in projects. I made a little joke in the interest of trying to calm things own. Hey ho. DuncanHill (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Is he saying that? Surely, in penis, it makes sense to have an image of the real thing, circumcised and uncircumcised, to illustrate the difference in an educational context? The real difference arises when we attempt to depict an immature penis, from birth, through development and puberty, to adulthood. Medical textbooks don't have a problem with that, but we are not a medical textbook; traditional printed encyclopedias also shy away from crossing that bridge, but they are generally targeted to "family" audiences. The question is whether we should be honest about the world we try to reflect here, or apply censorship, for whatever reason; and the day we do that is the day I quit here. Rodhullandemu 00:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not referring to those instances- rather, I'm referring to shock images- images that will never be used- and images illegally depicting minors. Images that have little or limited Educational value. --Rockstonetalk to me! 00:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Which we already can and do get rid of. Unfortunately, Jimbo and some of his cheerleaders decided not to bother to check if images were being used appropriately and just went on a deletion spree, accompanied by a threat from Jimbo to desysop admins on Commons who objected. DuncanHill (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Lets not be hypocrites here. Commons hosts thousands upon thousands of images of no educational value unrelated to sex - including hundreds of images of editors themselves. This purge had nothing to do with lack of educational value, and everything to do with the perception of a certain segment of the media within the United States, and how certain people within Wikimedia reacted to that perception. Also, as much as people like Guy would love to obfuscate the reason for the outrage at Commons and other projects, it has very little to do with removing porn of no educational value, and a lot to do with the incredibly poor judgment Jimbo used in indiscriminately deleting large blocks of images without checking for value, wheel warring