Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive138

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

Noticeboard archives


Socks and more socks

Resolved: Checkuser clerks will handle this. There is no need to post here. Jehochman Talk 03:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a noob when it comes to this sockpuppet business, but could someone take a look at the latest batch of results at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Boomgaylove and do whatever needs to be done with regard to the accounts that haven't already been blocked? Deor (talk) 05:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the following blocks need to be done after the confirmation that was given at WP:RFCU:
  • Confirmed sockpuppet of Boomgaylove that is currently unblocked:
  • Confirmed sockpuppets of Storyrates1987 that are currently unblocked:
Regards, — Κaiba 07:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
According to Thatcher in the same case, these accounts are also all confirmed as the same editor, but are still unblocked:
I have also updated Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Boomgaylove with additional evidence as it looks like yet another account may be related. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I see that Casliber has blocked the above; however, another unblocked sock farm has been uncovered in the same case:
Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

On-wiki discussion of GFDL/CC changes?

Is there any on-wiki discussion here on enwiki about the pending GFDL migration to Creative Commons changes that is being discussed on the Foundation mail list? Lawrence § t/e 18:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

not quite 'on-wiki' but I suggested this as a topic for a conversation at Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly - take a look, and join us if you're interested! - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Informal debate on wiki-nationalism

Have fun. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

MOWAAR DWAAHMAH! Tim Vickers (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, the ultimate aim is to try to ensure there's LESS DWAAHMAH! on Wikipedia. --Folantin (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Technical problem with article "air-raid shelter"


I was trying to fix some sources for this article when for some reason several sections, including the "references" disappeared in article although they seem to be in the editing page. Article needs help as I'm unable to fix it. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, there was a > missing from a closing ref tag, which made everything after the ref disappear. Fixed now! DuncanHill (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks, DuncanHill, I never noticed this. Great. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
You would think the software could warn people about this. I mean, if MSExcel can tell you you've missed out a bracket, can't Mediawiki do the same? Carcharoth (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
It would be very helpful, and enable editors to be more productive. DuncanHill (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Today is the day to revisit the topic of non-admin rollback....

Ok, so as promised I have went ahead and started a conversation in regards to rollback as promised a few months ago when the previous conversation was closed. Lets try and keep this drama free, and civil. You can find it here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback#Its that time.. Tiptoety talk 01:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Pedophile activism on Wikipedia

I noticed on AfD that there was an article called "List of films portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents." Then I noticed that there was an article called "List of *books* portaying sexual attraction to children or adolescents." The problem with the titles of these lists is that they are calling child sexual abuse "sexual attraction to children or adolescents." (Look at the lists, they clearly list sexual abuse.) Calling sexual abuse of children "sexual attraction to children" is clearly an extreme fringe definition of child sexual abuse from the pedophile point of view. It appears that there are five of these disturbingly titled lists, and that they used to all be titled "Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in <fill in the blank>." When and why then titles were all changed to reflect an extreme fringe pedophile activist point of view is not clear to me. I am also disturbed that the stated purpose of the Wiki Pedophile Article Watch Project is "Some Wikipedians have formed a project to better organize and ensure veracity and freedom from bias of information in articles involving pedophilia, child sexuality, and related issues," but that no one on this project has noted the extreme POV problem in the renaming/redefining of these articles to an extreme pro-pedophile fringe stance. I also do not understand why "pro-pedophile activism" is included in "Other resources" on the Project: I thought this was not the place for activism.

former titles of lists, currently how they are titled on Pedophilia Article Watch:

Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (boys) Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (girls) Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in films Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in songs Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in the theatre

Active link to one of the articles from the project site, so you can see that it goes to "List of songs portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents":

Link to Project:

-PetraSchelm (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is the appropriate place for this or not, but I don't think that the current titles of articles such as List of songs portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents are endorsing the pedophile point of view. It just states that the subject matter deals with sexual attraction to children and adolescents and that it may or may not involve sexual abuse.--Urban Rose 20:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, perhaps you should read the "songs" list? Here is the beginning of it, which gives clear examples:

"Alive" by Pearl Jam, from Ten A song about a boy who looks like his real father and is raped by his mother "Ambitious Outsiders" by Morrissey, from Maladjusted A song about child murderers scavenging suburban neighborhoods for potential victims, probably inspired by the Moors murders. "Amelia" by The Mission, from Carved in Sand A song about a girl who is molested by her father and he threatens to hit her if she tells. "Amy in the White Coat" by Bright Eyes, from There Is No Beginning to the Story A song about a father who abuses one of his three daughters.

These are songs about child sexual abuse. The only point of view from which they are about "Sexual attraction" is the point of view of whomever is "sexually attracted," i.e., pedophiles. The lists define sexual abuse solely from the pov of pedophiles. It's pretty weird and creepy, imho. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, I always find it unusual when a new editor comes here and immediately starts listing articles for deletion. Nothing in particular but just odd. Since there's a ton of articles on AFD at this moment, I really don't see anything that requires admin intervention. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I brought it here when I realized there were *5* of these article, so it probably wasn't a productive idea to AfD the other 4--only one is up for AfD. The problem seems to be no oversight of POV pushing at the pedophile wikiproject; more eyes should be on it. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

PetraSchelm seems to be the one POV-pushing and WP:POINTing here, as User:Swatjester has [1] warned him/her about on user talk. And now taking it to Jimbo's talk page: [2] [3] Jfire (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Note, reverse the order. I was alerted to Petra by her(?) comments on Jimbo's talk page first, then warned her. SWATJester Son of the Defender 21:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

PetraSchelm is a very likely sock, and has within days of arriving on Wikipedia attempted to disrupt extensive discussion and consensus building (as noted by Jfire), without any regard for NPOV. The problem is not lack of oversight of POV pushing on the pedophile wikiproject; the problem is POV pushing from you. Funny that within just a few days of arriving here, you are familiar with fringe point of view policies, have nominated several articles for deletion, and managed to find the single most contentious WikiProject on Wikipedia. SWATJester Son of the Defender 21:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Petra, make yourself familiar with our polices and then edit contentious material with an eye to WP:NPOV. Don't expect an easy time but hard work does equal progress and the pedophilai articles are considerably more neutral than they were a year ago, IMHO. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
This is true. they were in bad shape. But note that reason that the work is hard is because it is difficult to maintain NPOV. Simply trying to force changes through by butting heads and shaking things up, doesn't work. SWATJester Son of the Defender 21:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Further comment, the article name seem to have been the subject of extensive discussion and consensus building, and the most recent changes were discussed at Talk:List_of_books_portraying_sexual_attraction_to_children_or_adolescents#Requested_move. As another editor noted, the discussion there was "as close to consensus-building as I've seen on Wikipedia", and that sentiment seems accurate to me as well. Jfire (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Pedophilia activism, on my Wikipedia? It's more likely than you think. William Ortiz (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Your Wikipedia? How about the entire community's Wikipedia (pedophiles and all). SWATJester Son of the Defender 21:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that's a catchphrase popular on the *chan picture boards. He's not really saying that it is his, rather it's meant to be taken with a heavy dose of sarcasm, like a display shock at something totally expected. --Dragon695 (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment, I have read through the discussion on what appears to be the very recent name change of all 5 articles from "Sexual abuse and pedophila in film/books/song/theater" to "sexual attraction to children in films/books/songs/theater," and all I can say is that the consensus was among a tiny number of participants, and their arguments don't hold up. Hence, more eyes should be on this. If the "consensus' on the UFO article is that UFOs exist, that doesn't make it so. The argument for changing the name seems to be that "sexual attraction" subsumes "pedophilia and child sexual abuse." Uh, only from the perspective of pedophiles. It looks like someone named Will Beback attempted rationality:

"If the concern is that people looking for books portraying those topics will have trouble finding the list(s), surely links to the "sexual attraction to children" list(s) from Wikipedia articles on pedophilia and on child sexual abuse would do the job. As Haiduc points out, those specifics are subsumed under the more general "sexual attraction to children". SocJan (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC) In my opinion, sexual attraction and sexual abuse are two different things. Some of these books are written from the adult's side and focus on the sexual attraction/pedophilia, while others are written from the child's point of view and may focus on the sexual abuse/molestation. The title should reflect both aspects. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC) Leaving aside the fact that this does not address the problem with integrating depictions of adolescent experience, where does this leave works in the style of "For a Lost Soldier," which depicts the youth's point of view as experiencing the sexuality as positive (whatever you or I, or even the author, may think of it now), and as reciprocating the man's affection? At best, this would impose a reading avant la lettre on works where it would be inappropriate. Haiduc (talk) 10:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC) I'm not familiar with that book, but if it depicts an adult's sexual attraction to a boy then I'd think that it could be described as involving pedophilia, regardless of the boy's feelings. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC) Not if the boy is above thirteen. The problem is that you are inadvertently excluding a whole range of adult/minor relationships, a range that is often legitimate in the eyes of the law, and that does not fit either the pedophilia or the abuse paradigms. Haiduc (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)"

-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the appropriate forum, Petra. Take it to Talk:List of books portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents.
Also, thinly-veiled accusations of paedophilia against other Wikipedians ("only from the perspective of pedophiles") are not acceptable, policy- or logic-wise. You've already been warned about this. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it's better to attract more eyes to this project, and hence this is the forum. Also, sexual attraction to children=perspective of pedophiles. Or is there another group of people besides pedophiles who are sexually attracted to children? The POV problem in the renaming of these articles, that Will Beback also pointed out, is that it is not "sexual attraction" from the pov of anyone *but* pedophiles. From the pov of children who are abused, and from the pov of mainstream society, sexually abusing children is sexual abuse, not sexual attraction to children. All these list clearly describe the sexual abuse of children. -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
If your aim is to attract more eyes to a given issue (in order, one supposes, to ensure that actions taken on insular pages are consistent with the will of the community), you would do better to raise that issue at the village pump or at the article's talk page, with, if necessary, a listing at requests for comment; this noticeboard is, as the header observes, "not the place to raise disputes over content", and exists principally to alert administrators to issues that might require their intervention as administrators (as against as "regular" users, in, for instances, disputes over content and policy like that which you outline) and to permit the coordination of administrator activities. Joe (I can has barnstar?) 22:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Will has been tireless in his own attempts to ensure that we have neutrality and quality on the pedophile articles. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I just found this thread. Thanks, SqueakBox, for your comment but it's not true. I'm tired of dealing with dealing with this stuff. Recently, SqueakBox has been far more active than me in dealing with this stuff but even as "tireless" as he's been I bet he's getting tired too. This is an uncomfortable topic that few editors or even admins want to touch. I was recruited long ago by User:Katefan0 but peronal invitations aren't necessary. I urge all editors and admins to consider adding the WP:PAW project to their watchlist or watchlisting some relevant articles. Without going into details, it's a probable fact that there are people who are trying actively to push a POV onto WP articles. The best way to handle it is with more eyeballs. Please lend yours.
PS: This PetraSchelm character seems odd and I suspect a troll. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking through the articles, they do appear to concern mainly sexual abuse. The articles seems to rest on the premise that sexual abuse of children is but one aspect of a more complete spectrum of behavior. Not only is this premise itself a contested point of view, but it doesn't appear to really reflect the content of the article or the reason the topic is significant. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

So I'm confused. PetraSchelm claims that mainstream society doesn't view pedophilia as sexual attraction to children. If so, then what is it? No, mainstream society does view pedophilia as sexual attraction to children, but it views actually performing sexual acts with a child as "wrong".--Urban Rose 00:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Certainly in the UK a pedophile is synonymous with a sex offender who commits child sexual abuse either directly or through viewing child porn, as well as the more traditional "attracted to children" definition. Really this is an issue for the pedophilia articles rather than the admin noticeboard. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Folks, please review and watchlist List of songs portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I just removed all those entries which were not sourced to credible independent secondary sources (i.e. removed unsourced, sourced from personal observation of the lyrics, blogs, web forums, freewebs and the like). It is now standing at one entry: Don't Stand So Close to Me by The Police, which is unquestionably a song portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents as is well established form credible sources within the article. I am confident this set of edits will be reverted, because poeple want to keep the list and the list only has one entry after the removal of unsourced or inadequately sourced entries. Guy (Help!) 10:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, except technically couldn't it be perfectly acceptable to source from the lyrics using the song as a primary source? By personal observation do you mean contentious interpretation? (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
No, because it requires a value judgment: is lyric X about subject Y? Where the subject is contentious, solid sourcing is absolutely necessary. Guy (Help!) 12:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Plus, of course, there is the small issue that that particular song specifically namechecks Vladimir Nabokov, who was the author of Lolita - the subject (of sexual attraction) being a pubescent girl, and therefore unrelated to paedophilia; which is the attraction toward pre-pubescent children. Therefore the schoolgirl mentioned within the song is not a child, so the song does not belong is a paedophile related category (although if there is a category related to "lolitaism" then that is appropriate.) I raise this point (or WP:POINT, if you prefer) to illustrate precisely why the subject of paedophilia needs to be handled so carefully, much of what is written in the popular media regarding, and supposed examples of, paedophile attraction is not - it is something else which is equally impermissable upon being acted upon, but does not equate to the encyclopedic definition of paedophilia. Hence it is imperative that accusations are not bandied around, and those experienced Wikipedians who have taken on the editing of this thorny subject be allowed to calmly and objectively do their work. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Mikkalai is abusing power


He has protected the page Bender, Moldova and got it protected a second time. The correct name of the article was Tighina previously.

Mikkalai abused his powers in previously protecting the page. Refer to the Wikipedia protection policy at Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Move_protection:

"administrators should avoid favoring one name over another, and protection should not be considered an endorsement of the current name."

However Mikkalai has stated on the talk page that: "This is the official name of the city, according to the evidence presented. Period" in order to justify his actions.

There was previously a proposal to move the page, however it ended with no consensus. This definitely doesn't favour either name. He is now going around threatening to block people who change it back to Tighina.

I believe that if he wants to move the page, despite the recent "no consensus" verdict on the move proposal, he should start a proper debate on the talk page rather than act in a way such as that of a dictator with the moral high ground. Rapido (talk) 10:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I live for the day that we get a comment about Mikka from someone who was not engaged in edit-warring to promote a particular POV. Let me go and see if the day has arrived... Nope. Copy-paste moves are Bad, ethnic disputes are not best solved by edit warring. Guy (Help!) 12:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, if by POV you mean only mainspace-related issues, and not philosophical differences regarding RfA, here's at least one: Mikka can be unfriendly as hell and frequently displays behaviour fully and utterly incompatible with a position of trust in this project. However, I agree that the issue at hand happens to be purely content-related. Dorftrottel (harass) 15:48, April 8, 2008
    • Make that two, I can't disagree with anything Dorftrottel just said. (1 == 2)Until 18:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Discuss it on the talkpage and come to a consensus on the name according to the best sources available. Moving it back and forth is counter-productive. While I don't necessarily think the protection was good, I'd be in favor of leaving it in place to prevent a move-war from going on. ^demon[omg plz] 14:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
From what I can tell, Mikkalai was asked about the protection, then removed it. Mikkalai then requested protection via RFPP which I granted, as there was an active dispute about the pages title. It is currently protected for about 19 more days. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
With two threads in a row claiming it, "Abuse of Power" is becoming the new "Wikistalking"--do we maybe need to invoke WP:CLINGPEACHES?Gladys J Cortez 17:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Admin abusing power = admin doing exactly what they should do, except they did it to me... 22:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Seems like all the admins are having a good laugh about what other admins do, no matter whether it's right or wrong, and despite whether it might be disruptive to Wikipedia. It also seems to me that administrators are considered more important that other editors, which surely should not be the case. I don't consider anything has been resolved here. Rapido (talk) 08:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Admin...well, not abuse...regarding spam talk pages

More like "foot-stamping", "because I said so", or, maybe, "vague-handwaving-attempts-at-bullying".

I've made it my business to tag for speedy deletion spam disguised as user pages (such as Cheap keyword advertising (talk · contribs) and Adnet-keywording (talk · contribs), to name two of many such examples). As part of that, I leave a notice on their talk pages -- because if I don't, a bot will leave a generic spam-warning message anyways, so I leave my own warning template ({{spam-warn-userpage}}). Of course, this means that the spam name lives on as a real page for Google to pick up, so I also add {{temporary userpage}} so that the talk page will eventually be nuked itsownself.

Well, Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and a few others have apparently gotten a bug up their butts by the fact that I tag indef-blocked, about-to-be-indef-blocked, or obvious spammer user talk pages with {{temporary userpage}} and Ryan Postlethwaite has ordered me to stop. When asked why, he simply says (to paraphrase) "because I said" and (directly) "This is disruptive because these talk pages shouldn't be deleted". Many admins have deleted such pages in the past as being, well, "inactive and containing no versions requiring archiving", as the tag itself says. When asked to expain why I should stop doing something supported by actual practice and is just good housekeeping generally, he falls back on demands that I "stop wikilawyering" without giving me the slightest reason why I should, why I'm doing anything wrong, or why he's not pestering the admins who perform the actual deletions. The closest he's come is the question begging assertion that "[t]his is disruptive because these talk pages shouldn't be deleted."

Perhaps a word with him (and others, perhaps) to actually do more than wave his hands and issue threats would be helpful here. Such as 1) why it's important to save these pages; 2) why it's disruptive to tag them; 3) why he feels the need to throw his weight around regarding something this ridiculous. --Calton | Talk 15:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've let Ryan Postlethwaite know about this report, so I imagine he'll stop by to explain what's so urgent about keeping those talk pages. I can't see any convincing reason for keeping them myself. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Isn't this the same as, or at least very similar to, another discussion on this board a few days ago? Were any conclusions drawn from that thread? The public face of GBT/C 15:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
No, not at least what I can recall. Rudget (review) 16:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
My problem with Caltons tagging is that there is nothing to say that we should delete user talk pages for users that have been warned once or twice about creating non notable pages. Many of the users that Calton has tagged aren't even going to be blocked - he's tagging talk pages that aren't his, aren't of blocked users to be deleted for no reason whatsoever. There is no harm at all keeping talk pages of users who have one warning to their name and who have the possibility of contributing constructively in the future. {{temporary userpage}} isn't the most friendly template we have, it's bitey and suggests to our new users that they aren't even allowed their own talk page. We should educate new users, not warn them and have their talk pages deleted. The reason why I decided to throw my weight around is because 5 users have now asked Calton to stop this, but he refuses every single time. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad somebody else has asked Calton to stop, because I was preparing to do so myself. There is absolutely no reason to be tagging these pages into CAT:TEMP. There is no reason these pages need to be deleted. Pages in CAT:TEMP are usually only pages of indefinitely blocked users, where there is no benefit of keeping them. I've seen Calton say that he's just tagging the pages, and if they shouldn't be deleted then it is the problem of the deleting admin. That is unacceptable. Wasting time to fix the incorrect tagging is not necessary. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Wait until after an indefinite block before placing this category, which is part of the indefblocked template anyway. I'd even suggest nominating the "temporary userpage" template for deletion. What else is it used for? User nominating their own pages for deletion can use db-author or similar tags. And even when this category has been placed, circumstances may change. It seems Calton is being impatient and jumping the gun. He should calm down and wait for blocks to be placed before completing paperwork like this. Carcharoth (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I don't know of any instances that the tag is actually used (appropriately). Indefinitely blocked users are placed in the category, like you say, with various templates including {{indefblocked}} . - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Look closer. Indefinitely blocked users are placed in the category only if the blocking admin actually adds the notice, which they sometimes don't. See Anglo American Autos (talk · contribs), Jtplasticproducts (talk · contribs), and Ravensbruck films (talk · contribs), to pick three very recent examples. So unless I keep track of which ones AREN'T given the notice, pages with the spammy names remain in perpetuity. This is not "jumping the gun", it's back-up for the about-to-be-indefed and reality for the one-shot spammers. --Calton | Talk 12:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And if Calton must tag such pages, he should design a more specific tag. eg. This user is a spammer. Or something. But phrased more politely. And better designed. Carcharoth (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad someone finally mustered up the time to leave Calton a message, his taggings have long been an annoyance when going through CAT:CSD. Calton, surely you can find something more constructive to do than tag userpages for deletion? John Reaves 16:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Way to go Ryan! There is no need to assume bad faith and tag other users pages as such. Pages should only be tagged if they are indef blocked. And yeah, the conversation in regards to this a few days ago was heading that direction as well, but no clear consensus. Tiptoety talk 17:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
You mean the user talk pages, no? I definitely saw correct user pages tags for spam G11.--Tikiwont (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
No we are not talking about taging pages for deletion, but placing {{temporary userpage}} on them. Anyways Calton could spend the time he takes tagging the page to try and help the new confused user. Tiptoety talk 18:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah; I've seen those as well... So let me just add, that his userpage taggings for blatant spam are something useful, which he may want to consider when deciding where to spend his time.--Tikiwont (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I terms of useful things you could do for the encyclopedia, that's pretty low on the list. It seems to be some sort of personal mission he has. John Reaves 18:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
My view is that his taggings of userpages for blatant spam coupled with reporting the usernames at WP:UAA does constitute a useful contribution to cleaning up one particular part of WP. I've yet to decline a delete or UAA report that Calton has made, and I can always tell when Calton's been busy from my watchlist (suddenly it says that UAA is backlogged with 9 or 10 names remaining!). However, I agree that adding {{temporary userpage}} is unnecessary and even a bit BITEy. (a) The username-softblock notice contains the same category, so the earlier tag is unnecessary (b) the tag doesn't speed up deletion of the talk page, as the talk page of an unblocked user won't be deleted, and (c) slapping the category on the talk page of a newbie editor who (AGF) doesn't know our stance on spam userpages is a tad harsh for my particular tastes. BencherliteTalk 18:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, Calton tagged this users talk page with {{temporary userpage}}, I removed it and look now, he clearly did not understand that we had a username policy, and that he could not create promotional pages. Just a little WP:AGF can go a long way. Tiptoety talk 18:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad I just saw this, I logged on tonight to create the same thread myself. I raised this issue last week on here in another discussion but it was a little off topic. See this thread User talk:Rjd0060#What_do_you_suggest_we_do_to_address_User:Calton.27s_tagging.3F and the many discussions on Calton's talk page that it refers to. Amazing that Calton brought this here! This is very problematic as admins often assume the pages in CAT:TEMP are indef blocked and even if they check everything carefully it greatly increases the backlog unnecessarily. Adding {{temporary userpage}} is more than unnecessary, it's very harmful. The only reason the tag exists in the first place, as far as I know, is to deny trolls the pleasure of a big orange indef blocked tag. Many of the users Calton tags aren't even blocked, let alone indef blocked.--Doug.(talk contribs) 02:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and Huzzah! to Ryan for forcing this issue with Calton.--Doug.(talk contribs) 02:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Calton, surely you can find something more constructive to do than tag userpages for deletion?

If forcing you to delete spam is difficult, perhaps you, too, could find something you're more comfortable doing. There are plenty of admins willing to do the housekeeping.

There is no reason these pages need to be deleted.

Of course there is. General housekeeping, elimination of spam names (like User talk:Cheap keyword advertising and User talk:Anglo American Autos, and, like the immediate cleaning of subway cars that NYC used to do, discouraging the creation of further such pages and attempts at spamming by removing rewards for doing so. Kind of like, oh, revert, block, ignore, right?

Amazing that Calton brought this here!

No, not amazing at all: I got tired of the fact-free attempts at bullying, occasional outright falsehoods, content-free complaints, and the general empty sputtering. Which continue. Speaking of which...

Adding {{temporary userpage}} is more than unnecessary, it's very harmful.

I'd say that begging the question is downright harmful when it comes to honest debate, don't you?

Yeah, Calton tagged this users talk page...

You mean for the role account for a public relations firm, whose only contributions were to add a section to an article promoting one of his clients -- even adding his own name? Role accounts get blocked: this isn't even a slightly difficult concept.

As for Bencherlite's comments, thanks. The reason they come in clusters is that I only really have time to check in once or twice a day, so I look at what "New pages" throws up, and lo, plenty of material to work with. As for his specific points

(a) The username-softblock notice contains the same category, so the earlier tag is unnecessary - Only if the blocking admin actually adds the notice, which they sometimes don't. See Anglo American Autos (talk · contribs), Jtplasticproducts (talk · contribs), and Ravensbruck films (talk · contribs), to pick three very recent examples. So unless I keep track of which ones AREN'T given the notice, pages with the spammy names remain in perpetuity.

(Speaking of unnecessary, I've noticed that User:Doug is going around removing the {{temporary userpage}} tags from pages which have had the block notice added. Given that said pages remain in the same category whether or not the {{temporary userpage}} tags are there, this strikes me as unnecessary to the point of spitefulness -- or is there some subtlety that I'm missing here? Like his cries of "Huzzah!", maybe?)

(b) the tag doesn't speed up deletion of the talk page, as the talk page of an unblocked user won't be deleted

Who's claiming that {{temporary userpage}} =/= "speedy deletion"? It's not what it says on the tag itself -- it says after some vaguely defined "reasonable period of time". Without the tag, that "period of time" = "never", so between "never" and "reasonable period of time", I opt for "reasonable period of time".

(c) slapping the category on the talk page of a newbie editor who (AGF) doesn't know our stance on spam userpages is a tad harsh for my particular tastes.

I'd say it bears no relation to their activities, nor is it message to them: it's housekeeping. --Calton | Talk 05:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Just blank the page. It won't have the spam (and if it's on a user page it shouldn't be crawled anyway) and most people won't fight about it. Besides, I would rather the edit available if I see that the user is spamming everywhere so I can block him for much longer time (rather than having to look through their deleted edits). Who cares if the history remains? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. A little education: a blank page still exists as a page, a deleted one doesn't; existing pages get picked up by Google, non-existent ones don't. Your logic, frankly, could apply to any and all pages of oft-created spam, and yet, surprisingly, someone came up with the universally used "protected titles" solution instead. If "blanking the page" was sufficient, why was "protected titles" necessary? --Calton | Talk 12:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

To follow up on one of Calton's points, if the blocking admin fails to add the notice, then surely two things should happen - (i) it should be brought to the blocking admin's attention and (ii) someone should add the notice. As far as I can see, neither uw-ublock or uw-uhblock need to be added by an admin, as there is nothing in their wording to imply that they have been added by an admin. If, however, the notice isn't added then we end up with the clearly unacceptable position where we have a user who is blocked (potentially only soft blocked) without knowing why they've been blocked, not being given the notice that tells them how to go about getting unblocked and changing their username, and then (if the {{temporary userpage}} tag is placed on the page) having their talk page deleted a while later.
Despite having had my fair share of run-ins with Calton in the past, I find myself taking a fair bit of issue with some of the comments above. Calton's work tagging spam userpages for deletion is valuable - anything which keeps the encyclopaedia spam-free is a valuable contribution to the project overall, in my view, and I don't agree with those who see it as being less valuable than any other housekeeping task. And although we've disagreed in the past over articles in the mainspace he has tagged for CAT:CSD, I don't think I've ever had reason to decline speedy deletion of a userpage which he has tagged as being spam.
If you doubt the accuracy of his taggings, I suggest a quick look back through his contributions. The sheer quantity of those userpage links in his edit summaries which are now red are testimony to the accuracy of his tagging. The few that are blue have either been recreated by the users concerned, or were merely blanked by him rather than tagged for speedy. Display the most recent 500 - there are dozens, if not hundreds of properly deleted spam pages. It is an unarguable fact that there is a constant stream of new editors who ignore the warnings about creating spam pages and go ahead and create them anyway. His reasons for taking on the tagging of those pages as a personal tas are irrelevant - the fact remains that he is one of the few people does, and I think he deserves credit for the thoroughness and accuracy with which he attends to his chosen task.
Despite what Ricky says above, user pages and user talk pages both turn up on Google searches - search for "Wikipedia Gb sockpuppetry" and my userpage will be the first result, and my user talk page the second. I have no reason to think that a spam userpage created by a spamming-SPA would also not turn up, but as Calton's work seems to ensure they get deleted pretty quickly, I can't actually find an example of it to cite here.
I also second Bencherlite's comments about his reports to WP:UAA - I can't think of a single instance where I have not soft- or hard-blocked a report he has made there.
As for whether he should be adding {{temporary userpage}} in the circumstances discussed above, I don't have a particularly strong view one way or the other. Where the username is such that he knows he's going to be adding them to WP:UAA, and that they will in all likelihood be blocked, I would prefer that he didn't, and that instead he kept an eye on the usertalk page to double check that the uw-ublock template has been added by the blocking admin, and add it if it hasn't been. A little more work, perhaps, but it avoids the unacceptable situation I started off this (now exceedingly long) comment with.
The question is probably more relevant, therefore, only where he comes across as user whose contribtuions are spam, but whose name isn't. Personally I'd treat them much like a user whose contribution was nonsense - warn, then maybe monitor their contributions to see which direction they go in. Judging from the above there are views on both sides of the above - whilst the last of these discussions didn't reach a resolution, I'd hope that this one could so that we can all get on with what it was we were doing in the first place. The public face of GBT/C 12:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I've been going through the past couple weeks of Calton's {{temporary userpage}} tags and found I'd estimate about 10-15% of the tags are to pages of users that have never been blocked let alone indef blocked (I can get a hard count with some work, as I've removed the tags with an edit summary that says this). Nobody is questioning Calton's speedy deletion requests (although there is a comment on Calton's userpage about this - that's an entirely different issue). The problem is that this is sort of like a PROD in that the deletions occur after an extended period; however, only pages of indef blocked users should be in CAT:TEMP, that is very clear and {{temporary userpage}} puts pages in this cat - that's the whole point of the tag. --Doug.(talk contribs) 14:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated Template:Temporary userpage for deletion (please see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 10#Template:Temporary userpage) - all comments welcome. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)



Good size backlog, has been there for a while now. Could use some help please. Tiptoety talk 23:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty much cleared up now, only a few left hanging around. Thanks for all the help guys! Tiptoety talk 23:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
For the future, generally putting pages into Category:Administrative backlog will catch more admins. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The category tracker is back

Template:Category tracker <--- HERE.

Since the old one hasn't updated in months and STILL appears on several admins' pages, I hacked up a new one using the magicness of magic words. A few comments:

  • This uses expensive parser functions. Don't put this on pages that have lots of these.
  • There are some nonsensical values. Some explanations in order of decreasing likeliness:
    1. A type of cleanup that lacks a category like Category:All pages needing cleanup (an example would be articles to be merged). You'll need to create one, edit the (protected) template and then update the tracker. GOTO 2.
    2. Database lag. Purge the cache and/or wait for the job queue to go away.
    3. Persistent database lag. This would need a null edit to fix, but you don't want to pad your edit count in this way (it's boring).
    4. A MediaWiki bug. Report it here.
  • There are no statistics on the numbers such as mean, range and z-score. They will have to be manually done, so no funky colors (my understanding of wiki markup doesn't go that far, but it's possible. See first comment).
  • Updates in "real time", but see #2 above.
  • I'm too lazy to write any formal documentation, categorize or do other pretty things.

I just copied and pasted the list of categories on the old category tracker, minus a few. If there are others that are worthy of inclusion, just add them. MER-C 07:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Nice. I'll need to figure out why it's giving -3 members in some categories, but seems very cool. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Bug reported. MER-C 13:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Big backlog at WP:AIV


Reports keep piling on, could an admin "take care" of them. Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 13:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved for now. Thanks. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

IP evading a permanent ban

I put a month-long block on the following IP: Looks to me like a clear-cut case of evasion of a ban by User:Licorne. See User talk:Licorne for more information on this persistent anti-Semite, who was banned indefinitely a few years back. The above IP, along with being in a known IP range of the user, has the same obsessions (obsessed with homosexuality, with Catholicism, with "Jews", using all caps when confronted, and, most of all, with the idea that Albert Einstein plagiarized the work of Henri Poincaré and others). I thought I ought to report it in here, since it has been awhile. I have no doubt myself that this is the same person, the likelihood that a similar IP would be editing Wikipedia in all the trademark ways of this past abuser seems nil. --Fastfission (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Non-admin closures of AFDs


Anyone interested in revising/updating/confirming the NAC guidelines?, Let me know, I'd like to participate. The broad issue has nothing to do with SM or Stifle. closing the thread. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Today I noticed that User:SynergeticMaggot, a non-admin, had closed two AFDs, namely Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Baksh and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Age communities, as keep. I reopened both of them, per the provision of the deletion process which says "Decisions [of non-admins closing AFDs] are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator". It also says "Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator." At the time of closure, the "vote count" on the AFDs was 3-2 in favour of delete and a 9-9 tie. SynergeticMaggot has protested my decision to reopen these AFDs for another admin to close them and has suggested listing the matter here. I am not stating that these AFDs were closed with the incorrect result, merely that the established deletion standard is that close results are dealt with by admins only. Some opinions will be welcome. Stifle (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, if this means that WP:DPR needs to be revised, let's agree that it should be and do so. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Should be and are, are two different things here. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
When I was a non-admin, I did a similar thing: best to bring to some form of a review elsewhere. Rudget (review) 15:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
If you are going to close AfDs as a non admin fine, but if an admin re-opens them just accept that, or go to DRV. That being said an admin should not reverse a close unless they are concerned it was done incorrectly, or that the decision was not clear cut enough for a non-admin closure. (1 == 2)Until 15:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>Synergetic Maggot asked me to look at these AfDs and his closures on my talkpage. After looking at both AfDs, I agree, that according to our current guidelines and essays and established practices, that these two AfDs should have been left to an admin to close. Stifle did the correct thing in reopening the debates, neither of which was a clear, noncontentious, obvious keep. SM has made numerous NACs, the vast majority of them are solid and noncontroversial keeps. These two are exceptions to what, in my experience, are generally very good closures. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I second Keeper's thoughts. SynergeticMaggot should have left them for an admin. GlassCobra 15:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hold on there. This isn't resolved just yet. I went ahead and looked, under Wikipedia:NAC#Inappropriate_closures and I found that these were not inappropriate at all, and that one of my closes meets the requirements for SNOW. Any thoughts along those lines? SynergeticMaggot (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Which one was snow? Neither were snow, SM. I closed this thread for your benefit. (meaning, it should go away, giving you the benefit of the doubt...)Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
In the interest of letting this particular thread die, I'll leave this to other talk pages. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Neither of those were snow closures. I suggest you only close AfDs that are more clear cut in the future. (1 == 2)Until 16:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is resolved here. It's ongoing on keepers talk page. And thank you for the suggestion. Regards. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I'd frankly trust SM as much as any admin.. I'm amazed (s)he wasn't already an admin! <ducks> --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC) no, I don't nom people for RFA anymore. I don't think decent people should be wasted on mere admin work O:-) I wonder how much interesting trouble THAT statement is going to get me into.'<ducks some more>'

More serious point: People will always get attacked for closing *FD, it's thankless work that typically is pretty much wikisuicidal (*FD admins should not leave themselves open to recall, among other things). It's amazing that SynergisticMaggot got overturned only twice... and then it turns out the decisions weren't even that bad! heh. Crazy. I figure it's just people forum shopping then, and finding that SM had this single weak-spot of not having the flag. Hmph.

I think people like SynergisticMaggot probably should be given whatever space they need to close AFDs if they really want to. That silly admin flag is just for tools. Determining consensus should be done by wise people. An admin only needs to know if their actions might damage the wiki (like deleting the main page, anyone? O:-) ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Weeding required in odd walled garden


All socks ironed and blocked. GBT/C 13:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

A question: what's the best way for one to proceed when one comes across a large collection of either socks or a crowd of friends using Wikipedia, both in project space and in userspace, to develop backgrounds, characters, corporate pages, and various other things for a bunch of cyber- or fantasy-wrestling organizations? My first instinct is to just go around blanking all the talk pages and leaving notes about WP:NOT#MYSPACE, but thought I'd check on whether that fits current policy before doing it. Thoughts? Tony Fox (arf!) 18:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think your first instinct was about right. If they carry on after a warning, particularly if there's no constructive edits, block em. Neıl 22:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorting out in progress. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
RSI in my block-finger, after blocking the 43 socks revealed by the CU, as well as the accounts listed at WP:SSP. GBT/C 13:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Anti-United Kingdom Editor

I would like to bring to attention User:Keizuko's regular anti-UK edits, which can clearly be seen through their editing history page and talk page. I have been speanding a lot of time trying to stem their anti-UK conduct but is tiring work for just one person who isn't an editor themselves so I would be grateful if any administrators could keep an eye on this person's conduct and edits. Their edits are not only against the United Kingdom article itself but against UK related articles as well. Signsolid (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he'd call you a "Pro-United Kingdom Editor", see as you're edit warring with each other. Monobi (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Are my Pro-United Kingdom edits vandalistic as his Anti-United Kingdom edits are? If I'm in an edit war with them it is only to reverse their Anti-British edits as they edit an article towards their Anti-British POV before I edit it to reverse it, according to our history pages anyway. Signsolid (talk) 01:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed some of his edit history, and saw edit warring with a willingness to discuss the dispute based on the reading of reliable sources...Certainly not a blockable or even warnable offence, aside from a warning not to edit war. Sorry to say, but you'll either have to live with the fact that someone consistently disagrees with you and continue on with dispute resolution as needed, or actually prove your accusations with diffs that show a consistent NPOV violation. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The guy is clearly heavily pushing a POV. From my 60 seconds review, seriously, changing an expenditure ranking based on an exchange rate change? Denying Shell is a part UK company? Denying the UK is a participant in Afghanistan? He is a blatant POV pusher, just a very smart and determined one. Like the commentor says, this is a bit much to deal with for one person. MickMacNee (talk) 02:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
(per the Shell Fortune 500 issue, anyone who uses a magazine to go against a source from the actual magazine article subject clearly has an agenda to pursue) MickMacNee (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, MickMacNee hasn't checked the facts very well. The article dealing with Shell builds in its entirety on a well-respected source, the Fortune Magazine. All the article in question does is to list the main companies, as described in the article. In that article, Shell is described as Dutch company, not as a British. So all Keizuko has done in this particular case is to removed WP:OR and to keep the article in line with the source on which it builds. That MickMacNee should consider such an action "blatant POV pushing" may be saying more about his own views that about Keizuko's.JdeJ (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Fortune Magazine listed Shell as a Dutch only company. It was decided by other editors to add a footnote stating that Shell, although listed as exclusively Dutch by Fortune Magazine, has dual headquarters in The Hague and London. Signsolid has recently edited the article, removing the footnote and writing that Shell is both Dutch and British, which goes against the source used to write the article. Enough said. As for the other accusations, it's too silly to answer really. Keizuko (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
If you are simply recreating the 500 list from the magazine, rejecting other sources, you are basically in breach of copyright, WP is not a re-publisher for the Fortune 500. And if you remove infomation backed up by the primary source, the company itself, in favour of a third party source, it's pretty clear what your motive is, and it's not an interest in reliable sources. And your other edits only make that clearer. Editing towards a POV across multiple articles is against policy, and should be acted on. MickMacNee (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Funny, I've never thought of Royal Dutch as being anything other than a Dutch company - and I am very British. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This is perhaps a bit of the Pot calling the kettle black. Is User:Keizuko an anti-British POV-pusher. To the best of my knowledge, after several interactions with him, I would say that he probably isn't. He has another view than some British users regarding the calculation of GDP, but that's a very far cry from pushing an anti-British agenda. Is User:Signsolid a pro-British POV-pusher. Based on my own numerous encounters with him, well, he's pro-British and he accentuates pro-British facts, but not necessarily a POV-pusher. And despite his outbursts and the nationalism, he is prepared to discuss and to make compromises. It may take some time to get there, but he seems to respect the compromises once they are made, just like User:Keizuko. I don't see any case for any action here, unless some heavy edit warring erupts. JdeJ (talk) 12:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The user in question seems to be interested in countries in general. Perhaps he just dislikes unsourced facts (dont we all?)...--Cameron (t|p|c) 15:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

Resolved: All caught up now. Gavia immer (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone's sitting around asking themself, "Just what can I do with my tools today?", there are open discussions here dating as far back as March 20. I've boldly closed the obvious keep results, but I don't have the tools to deal with anything else. Any help is appreciated. Gavia immer (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User edit warring, pov-pushing, harassing and attacking another user

A few paragraphs up on this page, user Signsolid launches an attack on user Keizuko. Having looked into the matter a bit more, I'm amazed that Signsolid had the guts to do so, since the facts seems to be 100% the opposite. For a long time, Signsolid is repeatedly attacking Keizuko with very aggressive and personal attacks, often accusing Keizuko of being "hateful" and attacking Keizuko over his nationality. For the record, I haven't found a single such attack by Keizuko, while they seem to be a trademark of Signsolid. The following diffs are just a few examples, many more are easily found [4], [5], [6], [7]. As the user accused Keizuko of being motivated by "nationalist POV", I'd like to point out that I've found no such pattern in Keizuko's edits, while they are very obvious in Signsolid's edit history. At the moment, he is repeatedly first changing a sourced article and an agreed upon compromise as well as inserting meaningless nonsense that looks quite much like vandalism to me (inserting a country called "Heffo" in a table over countries). [8], [9], [10]. I think it is rather obvious that in the conflict involving Signsolid and Keizuko, it is Keizuko who has behaved in a calm way and respected Wikipedia policies while Signsolid has failed to do so. JdeJ (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Userfication request

Resolved: Done --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Could an admin please copy the deleted article Escape chute to my userspace? I'm writing an article on this device and would like to see if there is anything useful in the old article, which was apparently deleted as spam. Thanks! Kelly hi! 20:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Oversight action needed


While happily browsing the block log I came across this. A vandal releasing someone's phone number. An oversight should delete this from the page's history pronto.--Urban Rose 23:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, actually, this isn't the place to report oversighting edits. You need to e-mail the request here. BoL (Talk) 23:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I only learned that oversight existed two days ago, so I'm still getting the hang of how it works.--Urban Rose 00:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 Done - Alison 00:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks (wow, an oversight appeared out of nowhere! :)) Majorly (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It's that new-to-the-job eagerness...probably the engine that gets much of the work of the world done. (Congrats on the oversight, Alison!)Gladys J Cortez 13:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

AWB Approval List


It looks like the AWB reg list hasn't seen a sysop for a few days, anyone able to take care of it? Thanks guys/girls. ALLOCKE|talk 00:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)



I am pretty immune to personal abuse but I think that accusing me of having paid the subject of an article I have edited, here and here, is going too far. I should be grateful if a dispassionate editor could draw User:Haudcivitas's attention to WP:AGF, please, since I think it would have more effect. TerriersFan (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Nicely done by User:Al.locke, thank you. TerriersFan (talk) 01:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Very old unclosed RfA


While warning a user for incivility this evening, I noticed that he happened to have an old RfA that was never closed. I would presume it was because he never trancluded it onto the main RfA page. Regardless, it's from June 2007, never had a chance of passing (he had like 30-ish edits at the time of the RfA), and the only vote anyone cast was "no". Can someone close this or otherwise dispose of it? Gromlakh (talk) 05:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Closed, nice find. Keegantalk 06:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
By the way, anyone let it known if they have a problem with the closure. The RfA was never transcluded, so by technicality I suppose it is still "pending," but I think this is pretty cut and dry. Keegantalk 06:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I endorse the closure. If he wants to start a new one, he's welcome to. Perhaps he'll be able to better follow directions now. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism stats

Resolved: Matter moot. Anthøny 02:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Anywhere where long-term unreverted vandalism can be reported? I just reverted vandalism that lasted 20 days. How depressing. Carcharoth (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Reported for what purpose? You've already reverted it, what more can we do? There's not a lot of point blocking the vandal if they've already stopped doing it (if they haven't, they'll get blocked for the recent stuff anyway). --Tango (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't clear. What I meant was helping people to get an idea of how long vandalism goes unreverted for, and how much vandalism gets missed like that. Carcharoth (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is something worth advertising. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
*Gives Carcharoth a cookie.* Neal (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC).

AfD Canvassing


AfD is closed. Nothing to see here. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Please forgive me if I haven't brought this to the right noticeboard, but is there anyway to deal with blatant canvassing on an AfD discussion (see evidence [11], user in question specifically asked WikiProject members to vote keep) or should it just be brought to WP:DRV once its closed. Mister Senseless (Speak - Contributions) 05:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I diagree with the comment. User Mr. Senseless has proposed an article I created (Incarnation Catholic Church and School (Glendale, California)) for deletion. I strongly disagree with the proposal. The article concerns a landmark church that has been referenced about 400 times in the Los Angeles Times. I have cited numerous articles about the church from the Times and other publications. When the proposal was made to delete the article, I posted a single note on the Wikipedia Catholic Church project letting people know about the discussion and suggesting, if they agreed that the article was notable that they support the article. How is this improper? This is a valuable article that I spent the better part of the day creating. Am I not permitted to make a single post to the project supporting my position? I've been editing on Wikipedia for about a year now, have created 200+ articles, at least 20 of my articles have been rated as good articles, and almost 100 of my articles have been posted to the Did You Know page. If this type of speech suppression is the rule, then this is very discouraging.Cbl62 (talk) 06:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
To avoid any possible complaint, I have added a disclaimer encouraging people to simply take a look at the article and decide for themselves. See[talk:WikiProject Catholicism#Incarnation Catholic Church and School (Glendale, California)] I trust Mr. Senseless cannot have a problem with that.Cbl62 (talk) 06:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The posting of a notice of an AfD to a relevant WikiProject is usually not disfavored (as WP:CANVASS provides), but it is a bit disconcerting that your notice was worded at least a bit non-neutrally. You seemed to advance a particular position in your explication of the issue, but I don't know that that was particularly pernicious; more worrisome was your noting that if others who agree with you might do well to "vote to "Keep" the article", for which you would be "appreciat[ive]", implicit in which is a suggestion that those who disagree with your analysis oughtn't to !vote (to be sure, most [all?] editors aren't going to elect not to participate in the AfD because of that language, but it's still suboptimal). Nevertheless, this was a one-off posting that would have been entirely appropriate were it worded a bit more neutrally (and that was surely offered in good faith), and I am sure that we can expect members of the WikiProject who happen upon the notice to be deliberative and not to !vote reflexively, and so in the absence of any evidence of the AfD's being deleteriously affected by the participation of "canvassed" editors (it is likely that the AfD will be well visited having been posted at AN as presenting a potential canvassing problem, such that there's unlikely to be any real problem), we might safely, IMHO, regard this as resolved, although Cbl would probably be well served to give WP:CANVASS (most specifically its contrasting "friendly notices" with less acceptable communications) a quick read. Joe 06:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
This is the first time one of my articles has become embroiled in a deletion debate. I was unaware that even mild advocacy was frowned upon and am not sure why such a policy would exist. In any event, I have added a disclaimer asking people to simply look at the article for themselves and decide. I will now try to "cool down" and let people decide.Cbl62 (talk) 06:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I took a look at the matter. It seems that Mr Senseless is a rampant deletionist that nominates articles for deletion within literally one minute from their creation and then goes on to even close AfD debates with "delete", in spite not being an admin. I see no article building and no other constructive work from him. While Cbl62 on the other hand has built a pretty nice article that Mr Senseless now is set on having deleted, using any means available (such as advanced wikilawyering). Since I am not experienced in handling this kind of things I suggest some experienced admins take a look at Mr Senseless and see what they can do to mitigate his disruptive behaviour here at Wikipedia. Yes, I use strong words here, but this is the impression I have gotten after taking a look at the matter.
--David Göthberg (talk) 08:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any diffs to support your accusations? -- Naerii 08:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I noticed on the AfD for the above article that there was a discussion going on here. Let's see now, "Administrators noticeboard"? Oh I get it! A place to come and have a sook because for goodness sake the article I so desperately want deleted now looks like it's going to be kept! Another Wikidrama has fallen upon us as he is also wondering if he should take it to WP:DRV once it's closed? Why? Because you can't accept community consensus? You won't be the only person to nominate an article for deletion to then have the community decide to keep it. Just build a bridge and get over it. Instead of carrying on about canvassing etc. How about withdrawing the dodgy nom before someone puts it out of your misery and snows it! Don't worry Cbl62, you've done nothing worth worrying about. It's editors like you we need more of. I voted keep and nobody canvassed me.--Sting au Buzz Me... 11:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, how 'bout everyone just relax about this. It was a good faith nom. It was a good faith post (although poorly worded) at a WikiProject. The AfD went snow. The nom withdrew, stated his original nomination rationale, and is moving on. I suggest everyone else does as well, no need for attacks. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Moldopodo's complaint

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
a) This isn't commons so we don't care about anything that happens there. B) If the user concerned hasn't used admin tools then its a content dispute and we aren't interested here. Spartaz Humbug! 11:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

User Perfect at Sunrise continues to abuse her/his power of adminsitrator, as well as of Wikipedia user generally speaking. I have asked other uninvolved in the dispute users to comment and leave their appreciation of User:Future Perfect at Sunrise actions and recent conduct on Wikipedia. I basicly consider that:

1) this user contributed to disruptive editing on Wikipedia, namely on the Balti Steppe article (see talk page)

2) this user used improper langauge, insulting and threatening me, as well as making unproven allegations against me[12]

3) this user has finally revenged at me[13] after my first notice left on the adminstrators' board by deleting images uploaded by me on Wikicommons. In fact he user wrote "No offense, but I've proposed most of your image uploads on commons for deletion." on my talk page only after the images were deleted. The user did not give any explication (even a posteriori, upon my request), how all of a sudden she/he became so interested in images uploaded by me, nor has this user ever tried to allert me or to explain in advance that the license attributed by me was not good anymore and that changes should have been done. Moreover, being involved in a dispute with me, and taking in consideration the prior notice on the administrators' noticeboard, she/he, as a reasonable adminsitrator, user and simply person, should have simply stepped aside from further controversial actions, which, in my mind are clearly a sipmly banal revenge using administrator privileges demonstrating her/his bad faith in this particular case. Therefore, I ask again for an analysis by other users, adminsitrators to give their appreciation of the described above actions, hoping to reach out for some common sense and consequent actions to prevent such a negative conduct of User:Future Perfect at Sunrise (in my view) in future on Wikipedia. Please, do take your time to really look through the diffs. Thank you all in advance.--Moldopodo (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There's one thing you should get straight before going any further, Future Perf did not abuse any admin tools. Just because a person is an admin, it doesn't mean they are "abusing their power" if you have a disagreement with them. Seraphim♥ Whipp 10:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
None of your links are diffs and are therefore unhelpful. JuJube (talk) 10:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Look; just read further what opens once clicking on the hyper link, call it diff, link whatever. It is really about your good faith analysis, and not about blindly protecting your mate without even reading the links, diffs, whatever you call them. I ask you to read attentively at least what I wrote here, where I refer not namely to the adminsitrator abuse as such, but as well to a simple "user" and "person" quality. Please respond to the quotes I provided of what this user said and done. As far as I understand you did not bother to read whatsoever, and just automaicly wrote a quick answer in the style "don't bother me with this stuff, I don't care". Don't be afraid to clearly say: "yes I approve", or "no I disapprove" and may be you could explain why. This would make Wikipedia a better world.--Moldopodo (talk) 10:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand; I'm not involved in the situation and not an admin. But none of your links are helpful because they are not diffs and therefore force the admins to wade through many lines of tedious talk to find the lines you're talking about. See WP:DIFF. JuJube (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I have read the links actually. This one is most interesting.

"Moldopodo, I strongly recommend you should take this as a friendly offer of dialogue and sit down calmly and work this out together. Always keep in mind that article titles are relatively unimportant, Wikipedia won't implode if the "wrong" one gets chosen. If you can't agree, just agree to disagree, call a strawpoll and accept whatever its outcome is" - Future Perf

"all I have to say, no one spoke of politics, but you, namely this phrase of yours clearly shows how falsly "unpolitised" you are: especially Russian and Soviet ones, employ also the term Bălţi steppe. Where does this come from, your personal resentment or an authoruty source like Britannica that uses Balti Steppe? [...] Fut.Perf. I took note of your harassments on my user talk page and will see what other users think is the best to do. As for this debate - it is completely ridiculous to dicuss a well, centuris old established name" - Moldopoldo

I see Future trying to give constructive advice and you hitting back with very unpleasant remarks. I'll leave it to others to decide what to make of this. Seraphim♥ Whipp 10:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The fact that he accuses those who don't agree with him of being "mates" with FPAS also speaks volumes. JuJube (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, is it worth giving my side of the story? Anyway, here goes: (1) I've never been in a dispute with Moldopodo. I just did some admin enforcement against incivil and disruptive behaviour on his part. That he reacted against that with yet more of the same directed against me doesn't disqualify me from doing further work of that kind. (2) I have no reason for "revenge" against this user (perhaps he has against me, but that's a different issue). (3) I came across the images because he had used a lot of them in an article he was edit-warring over again. (4) I tagged some of them as copyvios on commons and immediately notified him. Commons admins were faster than usual in actually deleting some. Most are still there, and if the others were really legal (self-made) and merely mis-tagged, I'm sure the commons admins will have no problem restoring them. If asked nicely, of course, and that seems to be a difficulty here. Fut.Perf. 10:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

  • and what do you say about this phrase of Fut. Sunr.: "About "POV", "sources", "consensus" and whatnot, no, I absolutely don't know what it's all about, and I don't want to know", further: hope I won't see any further disruptive editing about this topic on your part, because the next time I will get you topic-banned from all articles related to Balti ? When I asked Fut. Sunrise to provide a diff with disruptive editing from side, it was neevr done by her/him... --Moldopodo (talk) 10:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Anyone else see the irony of Moldopodo demanding diffs? Because if he had actually provided them, people could have seen that what FPAS actally said was: "Several of the links you gave were actually to a discussion on his own talkpage, where other users were voluntarily engaging him in such a political discussion, right? I don't think we should hold that against him. If he continues with problematic behaviour, he can easily be topic-banned from the Kosovo debates under the conditions of WP:ARBMAC." He wasn't addressing the user in question, but another who was frustrated with his behavior. JuJube (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow wow wo, JuJube, I am afraid there was a little italics typo from my side which misled you somewhere else. When I asked Fut. Sunr. to justify her/his allegations of disruptive editing against me, Fut. Sunr. has never done this. Simple as this.--Moldopodo (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks for defending me, but I have to note that quote actually was from an entirely different context, about a different user. Don't know how it slipped in here. Fut.Perf. 11:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
        • It's the only instance of the term "topic-banning" that resembled what he said you said. JuJube (talk) 11:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • and about this: can't really see how you are currently in the right frame of mind for contributing constructively to a collaborative discussion. Come off it, man. The costume rental guys have called they want that dress back, it's overdue, and the people in the plenary below you are getting uneasy too (taking in consideration this was said after about twenty lines paragraph explaining bad faith editing on some Beltsy related articles on Wikipedia?)--Moldopodo (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Ahem, Moldopodo, you did read the page that remark about "costumes" was linked to, right? (For outsiders: Guess which page that was.) Fut.Perf. 11:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Nope, but I hope you read the preceeding about twenty lines long paragraph I wrote, to learn some more on disruptive editing and may be some more as well on such basic things at Wikipedia as consensus.--Moldopodo (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Thanks for taking time to answer, even though sometimes to somebody else an dnot to me. the Kosovo thing has nothing to do with me, no idea where this comes from. All I was basicly looking for was appreciation of Fut.Sunr.Perf. actions by a third party. I don't really care for any action as such, to be honest I don't give a damn about it. The images are deleted, so there is nothing to be done and I do not feel like spending another 2 hours to upload them back again. Let those articles remain empty text pages, as, I guess, this is how Wikipedia articles look better in her/his eyes. All I asked on the noiceboard is appreciation of her/his actions and words. If you consider this ok - say it, don't like it - say it, may be you could even explain why (that would be great). Otherwise, what's the point of leaving a comment in the "this is not a diff but a link /translation: leave me alone" style? I am not asking some robots, but human beings after all...--Moldopodo (talk) 10:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: Query resolved. To summarise, don't hesitate to add because of a backlog tag :) Anthøny 18:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not an admin, and this is just a general question-comment. If a page is backlogged, meaning that the page has many posts that are not done to what they should be done so, can I add another one, or should I wait until the backlog is at least partialy clear (or should I try to clear it myself)? Also, are the backlogs over hundreds of thousands like expand and cleanup, ever going to clear, or can we only clear one bit at a time and try to reduce its expansion? Is it the result of wikicrastination (which I have too much of these days? If I add one more to it, like if there's a dozen currently backlogged, should I try to clear a few of them so a few less of them are still backlogged? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 15:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You should never hesitate to tag something just because there's a backlog; while yes, it does add one more item to an already lengthy list, it's still good to have that sort of stuff properly tagged.
As for why there are such backlogs, it's a result of the entire community being volunteer-driven; I know I'd be able to devote more time to looking for sources if I didn't have to worry about a pesky job just to keep the lights on. ;) EVula // talk // // 15:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: Backlog cleared. Anthøny 18:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahem....the checkpage carries a note asking for a 'gentle reminder' if there is no action for over 24 hrs. Well, it does look like this is the case, and above is my gentle reminder. Hope somebody comes by to clear some approvals! :) Prashanthns (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!Prashanthns (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Alison given oversight access

After a considerable amount of Arbitration Committee discussion over several months, User:Alison has been given oversight access for English Wikipedia. This is primarily in recognition of two factors: she is already given and trusted with Checkuser and has been very active and does thorough and helpful work in that role, and, she is also very active in dealing with harassment issues of users on Wikipedia, which has continually required her to approach others to deal with oversight matters resulting from that. This will help her in that task.

For the Arbitration Committee,

FT2 (Talk | email) 08:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(As a personal side-note, some users have in the past expressed concern about Alison's posting on Wikipedia Review. Briefly addressing these, 1/ Alison has stated many times that she visits such sites to assist with resolution and dialog where possible, and to address differences rather than encourage them, a statement bourne out over time, 2/ Alison is trusted by the community with Checkuser access already, 3/ the community will benefit from Alison being able to oversight such material herself, especially as she has proven active, dedicated, skilled and sensitive at identifying and handling it, and 4/ the Committee has taken account of the events of the last month, and, having considered this for some months now, feels that Alison would be a capable set of hands to trust with oversight as well as checkuser.) FT2 (Talk | email) 09:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
It's a good idea. Wikipedia Review isn't bad in itself, it's the users. All of her posts there are helpful. Sceptre (talk) 09:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Well deserved. Rudget (review) 09:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I trust her with it. James086Talk | Email 09:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Why shouldn't anyone who's trusted with checkuser be trusted with oversight as well? Grandmasterka 09:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
It's my feeling that misuse (or more to the point, questionable use) of oversight privileges is more problematic than checkuser. Each should only be given to users that are tasked with a specific job that requires its use.--Father Goose (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd argue the opposite - oversighted edits can be restored; if personal information is released through misuse of checkuser it cannot be "un-released". Black Kite 11:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
They cannot be restored without the help of a developer. Majorly (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
But they still can actually be restored. Unlike Checkuser results, which once released cannot be un-released. SWATJester Son of the Defender 15:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Oversight users have access to every past oversighted diff through the log, which isn't trivial. There is no practical difference in the level of trust required for either position. The difference in users with access is, in my opinion, due to the sensible concept of limiting access to as few people as necessary when sensitive information is involved. Dmcdevit·t 02:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Inappropriately releasing personal information gained through checkuser privileges is a very visible violation of trust; oversight, as I understand it, makes things disappear quietly, and can easily go unnoticed. This is what concerns me more. I suppose "fishing expeditions" could be quietly performed with checkuser, with only the CU logs to show for it, though I'm not especially convinced that fishing expeditions are a bad thing in the first place -- and I'm a staunch supporter of privacy.
Regardless, the overall principle of limiting access to as few people as necessary applies to both privileges.--Father Goose (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I tend to think the more admins etc. who do post there the better, especially if it does anything to reduce the adversarial nature of the place. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Well-deserved - congrats Alison :) Orderinchaos 09:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations Ali! -- lucasbfr talk 09:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
and now the waiting game for {{RfB-nom}} to appear at her talk so I can Support. MBisanz talk 09:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, MBisanz, but you could be waiting an awfully long time :) I've more than enough work right now with what I have. Besides, there are far more worthy people than me that I'd rather see as 'crat. - Alison 04:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • 'crat? -- "je früher desto besser" - (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A fitting person to fill the shoes I think. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes! You can haz Oversightz! - Philippe 09:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Can someone please explain what oversight is? :)--Urban Rose 13:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Oversight is the ability to permanently delete certain revisions of pages. Normal admin delete can be reversed - oversight cannot. It's reserved for sensitive information that normal admins should not even be seeing, such as phone numbers. Anyhow, this is excellent news. Alison is an extremely hardworking checkuser and admin, and I'm sure she'll do just as well with oversight. Majorly (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Oversight. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't be happier with the appointment. EVula // talk // // 03:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, everyone, for your kind words and support. I promise to do my best :) - Alison 04:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Alison, I'm just a lurker who occasional contributes. I have seen your work at reaching out to troubled users over at WR and I would urge you to continue to do so. Mending fences, even with people we do not like, is always the preferable option. In the long run, it saves much time if the festering bad feelings that eventually boil over into sock-attacks and other malicious behavior are addressed before they manifest. Congratulations on your new level. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I trust Alison 100% with those capabilities and I fully believe she will not abuse them. Very wise choice indeed.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As do I. SWATJester Son of the Defender 04:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Pile-on! bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 04:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
110%. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Non-free image policy

Recently, a small group of editors took it upon themselves to declare a "consensus" to remove one of the most important parts of the Foundation's non-free image policy WP:NFCC#8. I have reverted their change with fairly intemperate, but accurate, edit summary, and have posted to WT:NFC commenting on it. Such a major change isn't something that can be quickly rushed through a fairly non-visible talkpage. At the very least, it should go through WP:VPP, and there should probably be a very much more visible forum for this type of thing. Thoughts? Black Kite 23:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Your inappropriate reversion has been reverted. Nothing was "quickly rushed through"--discussion was extensive and lasted for two weeks. The claim that "a small group of editors took it upon themselves to declare a 'consensus'" is specious--not a single voice was raised in opposition, and the actual change was only applied well after the consensus had become clear, allowing ample time for objections to be registered. Finally, a very clear notice was posted at WP:VPP: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 42#Non-free content: proposed change in Criterion_8.—DCGeist (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I only reverted what was inappropriate. See mine and Carl's comments on talk. This should not have been even tweaked - totally against Foundation policy - when it is such an emotive subject. And especially by an editor with such an obvious disregard of policy. Black Kite 23:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Black Kite, you are still misrepresenting what happened. The change made was not against Foundation policy. The change produced this: "NFCC#8: Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." Compare that to the wording of the WMF resolution: "Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works [...] or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works." There is nothing specific in the WMF resolution about significance (other than the reference to historically significant events) or to detriment to understanding. What you have to realise is that Wikipedia's NFCC has a different history and different emphasis. All the project EDP's need to satisfy the WMF resolution, but they can be more restrictive and use different wording, and that is the case for en-Wikipedia. So talking of something being "against Foundation policy" is simplistic. We are supposed to be on the same side here, so why not discuss things instead of edit warring? Carcharoth (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I have suggested at WT:NFC that we set up a working party to look at the wording of NFCC and, possibly