Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive196

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Category:Declined AfC submissions needs clearing[edit]

This category contains over six thousand articles deemed "unsuitable" for the article namespace. I am unconvinced by the reasons at the AFC talk page for keeping these around. One editor suggests that deleting these old pages "would add to the burden on administrators". However, these pages can easily be deleted by a bot or by some PROD-like process. Nakon 00:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Remember, these pages are just as scrapeable as the rest of WP. If they're crap (as a great many of them are), why keep them? DS (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
But, at the same time, why delete them? There isn't a good reason to do either, so I'd say we don't need to use the system resources. Some might be useful for possible future article creation, though, so do be careful if you decide to delete them. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Some of them are maybe possibly good, yes. Others are idiotic scribbles and self-obsessed babbling. DS (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This is certainly an appropriate topic for discussion, but Nakon, using G6 as a reasont to delete these pages is completely inappropriate. In the thread you point to on WT:AFC, there are three administrators who declined to delete the archives at all. While I agree that many of these can be deleted without any issues arising, they are kept for a reason, and that is so the submitters can continue to work on them, and also see what was wrong with their submissions. They do not show up on most search engines, and they are not linked from anywhere except the category pages themselves. So while I don't disagree that some are deletable, I can't see a reason for a mass deletion for which there is clearly disagreement and where the pages cause no harm to the project. Please stop. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The opinions to not delete these pages came from the idea that it would cause more work for administrators. This is not the case and keeping these pages that are months and years old does not make any sense. I am not proposing that these be deleted immediately or withing a few days upon rejection but rather after an extended period of time (1-3 months). Nakon 01:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I have no problems with making the proposal, and I'm sure one could be worked out that satisfied everyone. The only issue I have is the deletion of hundreds of archives without first making that proposal. I'm thankful that you've paused. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

For those that are unfamiliar with the project, here are examples of pages that require deletion: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and that's just a very small part of the pages beginning with "A". Nakon 01:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The pages should not be deleted, the policy has been to retain these pages. Many of the proposed articles in tehre are actually superior to others in article space, because higher standards are used to accept. The idea is not to accept and article that then will be speedy deleted. But you will find many proposed articles that only have a problem with missing references. The pages that could be deleted would be the same ones that we blank, such as copyright violations and attack pages possibly after a month so that the submitter can work out why their proposal led to no article. Otherwise I would urge not to delete stuff from the AfC project, and let the administrators who are part of the project do the needed deletions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The idea that the pages shouldn't be deleted because of past "policy" doesn't provide a reason for keeping them around. Please review the examples I provided above and tell me how you think that these should be kept because they are "superior" to article space. Attack pages should be immediately deleted per CSD G10, regardless of where they are in the project. Nakon 04:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the category contains a tangled mess of pages that should be deleted. However, we must take into consideration the fact that there are many submissions there that should be kept, at least temporarily. Well, my admin friends, who is going to volunteer to manually delete over 5,000 pages? We couldn't go ahead and nuke all of them; they should all be checked, at least minimally, before deletion. I suggest changing the method by which submissions are declined at AfC. Here's a proposed solution: submissions could stay in the category for three months (at most) after they are declined before being deleted. Of course, this would pertain to submissions with actual content. Declined submissions that are copyvios, or declined submissions that have been cleared using {{Afc cleared}}, can and should be deleted at an earlier date. The process would be maintained by a bot (I'd be happy to run it, as I already run three other AfC-related bot tasks), which would check the category at regular intervals, and tag submissions that have been declined for over three months with a special tag (PROD, as mentioned above, perhaps?), or if possible, simply delete them. It would immediately tag articles in the category that have been declined as copyvios, jokes, or anything with the template {{Afc cleared}} on it. Those numbers are arbitrary, of course. Maybe something like six months for normal submissions, and one month for the special cases outlined above? Regardless of the numbers, does anyone support this? The Earwig (Talk | Editor review) 03:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

There are not too many pages to delete. I was able to nuke a good handful of these old pages without the use of a bot. Throw a handful of admin wikignomes at the backlog and it'll get done eventually. As long as pages that are not up to article standards are removed after a reasonable period of time (IMO no more than three months, but that's debatable), I don't see an issue with either of your suggestions. Nakon 04:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with Earwig to keep the submissions for six months, or longer (a year, maybe). I watchlist all submissions I decline, and I do see editors continue to work on them even months after being declined. As for articles that meet speedy deletion criteria, I have seen submissions that started as empty, copyright violations, A7's, and spam turn into something that could be accepted, or at least not be deleted by CSD from the mainspace. Now, I have nothing against deleting attack pages or copyright violations early (I delete the more serious violations immediately), but there's actually nothing there to harm the project. When blanked, the bad edits are hidden in the page history, and are as harmless as bad revisions of an article, which the same, no one cares about except in the more serious cases. But regardless, I think deleting all of them would be rather pointless. We have marginal, hypothetical value to these pages, and equally hypothetical harm, which is why I've always supported leaving them right where they are. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What's the point of blanking versus deleting? Nakon 05:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The blanking makes sure that the offending material will not be visible to the casual visitor, or scraped off by the Wikipedia mirrors, or seen in search engines, but there is some feedback for the contributor so they can see that their page was declined. If they want to they can then fix it. For copyvio's they are often actually COI situation so the copy may not really be a violation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
For submissions that are only deficient in sourcing, (d|v) I believe we should keep them indefinitely. Other people are welcome to fix them up too by adding references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's see if I have this got this right: (times in UTC)

  • User:Nakon sees a discussion on WT:WPAFC back in March and doesn't agree with the points made
  • (00:00) Without any discussion, proposal or warning he goes against the consensus from that discussion and starts deleting the pages
  • (00:11) Nakon makes his first announcement about his actions on this page
  • (01:31) The first request for him to stop his deletions is posted on this page
  • (01:42) Resumes his deletions
  • (05:36) Despite concerns from several editors here, he continues to delete these pages

If this is correct then I believe it is appalling behaviour and misuse of the admin tools. I strongly urge Nakon to stop these deletions and obtain consensus before continuing. I will consider a block if this behaviour continues. There are various reasons for keeping these archives, and I shall be glad to share my thoughts (I suggest WT:WPAFC is the appropriate place). G6 is specifically for non-controversial actions, and so ceases to be valid when editors express concern. Regards, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider deleting pages that meet CSD G1/G11 abuse. The CSD general criteria apply project-wide. In the future, I will include a better deletion reason. Nakon 14:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Nakon, it borders on abuse when you know there is no consensus to delete the pages. The response to the deletions should be evidence enough that these are not the sort of non-controversial deletions CSD was created for, even if the pages would be deleted anywhere else in the project. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Closure requested[edit]

Can someone close the discussion at the top of this page please? Stifle (talk) 08:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm reading through it now. lifebaka++ 08:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
And done. Phew. lifebaka++ 09:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Concerns with "abuse log"[edit]

I just looked at my contributions list and it now has an "abuse log", not present a few days ago. Is this new?

This is very tactless. I've engaged in no abuse yet I now have a criminal record. I merely created my own sandbox for article work and this is called abuse.

Perhaps it should be renamed "filtering log" or "filter log". Wikipedia has some areas, procedures, or people that are very hostile. That's not nice.

Requests:

1. Rename abuse log to something less nasty.

2. Possibly start a rule book. There are too many unwritten rules or rules that are scattered. I am willing to help organise such a rule book. No writting is needed, just some links to existing pages.

User F203 (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

For the morbidly curious, here's the abuse log. Nothing exciting.

17:01, 14 June 2009: User F203 (talk | contribs) triggered filter 176, performing the action "edit" on User F 203/sandbox/Liz. Actions taken: none; Filter description: user space link added in article space (details) (examine)
19:46, 2 May 2009: User F203 (talk | contribs) triggered filter 98, performing the action "edit" on User F 203/sandbox. Actions taken: none; Filter description: Creating very short new article (details) (examine)
19:46, 2 May 2009: User F203 (talk | contribs) triggered filter 98, performing the action "edit" on User F 203/sandbox. Actions taken: Warn; Filter description: Creating very short new article (details) (examine)

User F203 (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  • How about "Abuse filter log"? And maybe a message on the log screen to explain what it is? Dcoetzee 00:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The abuse filter did its job in alerting that something wrong was going on. From your talk page, I presume you know that you created the article User F 203/sandbox/Liz when you presumable meant to create a user subpage of User:F203/sandbox/Liz. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 00:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that the current naming sucks. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • If we do add a message to this page, I suggest something like the following: "The abuse filter is a tool that automatically flags suspicious edits for review. Sometimes valid edits are accidentally included." Dcoetzee 00:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's new. It's useful for those dealing with the abuse filter. That may be renamed to something like 'filter log', yes, or only visible by default to admins, with option to enable for users, as it's not of much use for the vast majority. But I still don't get why Special:Log/abusefilter is installed but doesn't work, we could avoid having this at all with that working (just one more click). Cenarium (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Heh, only just noticed that on my contribs page. I have triggered the abuse filter a few times, and even filed a false positive report, but I can see how "abuse log" could be taken the wrong way - even knowing what it was I was embarrassed to see that it logged me "replacing content with obscenities" (on Michelle McManus articles, for anyone curious as to why I'd be replacing content with obscenities). This part worries me: anyone seeing my abuse log might take it out of context and assume I've been up to no good, when in fact I have a perfectly good explanation. Could the abuse log be made so that it's only visible to admins and the user concerned, maybe, or - better still - could items be removed from the log if they're reported as false positives?

    Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 01:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

    • Yeah, I just noticed, too. To me, it sounds like "long term abuse" as opposed to setting off WP:ABFIL. MuZemike 03:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • The name does seem problematic, as is the opaqueness of the information. I think I understand what triggered two of the three entries in my new abuse log, but after examining it quite thoroughly I still don't understand the third: "user space link added in article space" which is apparently link 176, which was triggered by an edit to Union Square (New York City) in which I moved images around. I think if the information is going to be openly available to everyone, then it needs to be much clearer and labelled something other than "Abuse log", since what is being logged is not necessarily abuse, but the triggering of a filter which indicates the possibility of abuse. On the other hand, if it were perhaps made to be visible only to admins and the user involved, then what it's called is less important (although I'd still say that "Abuse log" is a poor choice; "Filter log" would have been better). Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
        • This edit triggered filter #176 because you had "[[User:Ed Fitzgerald/spacing]]" in the wikitext. Uncle G (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I replaced it with "abuse filter log" on two special pages I could determine and {{userlinks}}. Someone who knows how the $2 in MediaWiki:contribsub2 is generated may want to change that as well. Regards SoWhy 07:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, for Heaven's sake, guys—it's a piece of software. "Tactless"—it's obvious what it means, and I don't think anybody should get offended. Can we not get on with improving the encyclopedia, or is it absolutely necessary to continue griping about really minor and cosmetic issues? ╟─TreasuryTagAfrica, Asia and the UN─╢ 07:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Huh? Yes, it's a piece of software. A piece of software we all use far too much. ;) Until it's sentient and makes decisions for itself, however, we have some say in how it is presented. And, while I think User:User F203 needn't be quite so disappointed in the wording, it can and probably should be phrased a bit more clearly. user:J aka justen (talk) 07:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • This is a fairly easy fix. Just edit MediaWiki:Abusefilter-log-linkoncontribs to say "abuse filter log" or whatever. While you're at it, you might also want to change MediaWiki:Abusefilter-edit-action-flag, MediaWiki:Abusefilter-log-linkoncontribs-text, MediaWiki:Abusefilter-log-search, MediaWiki:Abusefilter-loglink, MediaWiki:Abusefilter-topnav-log and MediaWiki:Abuselog (which appear as a consequence description on (say) Special:AbuseFilter/80, the tooltip for the abuse log link on Special:Contributions, the box description on Special:Abuselog, the navbar at the top of Special:Abusefilter and don't know respectively). MER-C 08:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for identifying those messages. I just went ahead and replaced "abuse log" with "abuse filter log" on those. If someone working on the filter objects, they can delete/revert those again but unless anyone does, I do not think that anyone will mind that I did so. Regards SoWhy 11:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Did you know that depending on route, it's 52-55 miles from Penistone to Scunthorpe? I didn't think it was that far, but there you go. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • There's no need for opacity. We have an actual article on the Scunthorpe problem, which of course all people managing or reading the output of these filters should read. Uncle G (talk) 11:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the changed name is a good idea, but I'd still try to find another term than, and least for the contribution list part, which seems the most sensitive. DGG (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Why not simply "filter log" ? –xenotalk 13:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • My vote would be to make the abuse log visible only to admins. Why? As you can see from my abuse log, edits that I made to pages that have since been deleted are visible. Now, of course, the pages on MY abuse log were deleted at my request, but what if those pages had been oversighted? The abuse log could potentially provide a workaround for anyone to see exactly what it was that was oversighted. Not a good thing. Matt (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Closure on merging several articles on the subject of XLEAGUE.TV[edit]

I would like some closure on this subject, as I believe it will soon end up becoming an "edit war", which we all would like to avoid. From the discussions on it's talkpage, I believe merging would benefit the article as a whole, as it would greatly improve that particular subject. Others have said it should be left alone. I would be greatful if an admin/moderator could look at this and give their opinion on the subject. Thanks! Ryoga3099 (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I feel that most of the articles which have spawned into shows outside of/after Xleague (Games Night, Reviewmageddon, Wez and Larry's Top Tens and Guru Larry's Retro Corner) deserve to remain intact. There was a vote of 5:1 in favor of retaining them as well as severe WP:COI violations for over two years from the only person in favor of the merger whom is an employee of Xleague/UKeSA (and yes, I do have full evidence to back up my accusation if any moderator/admin would like to see) whom has already been questioned once for WP:COI for trying to put up false "speedy deletion" claims for the exact same articles for copyright infringement. On top of that vandalized several of my comments on said talk page whenever I mention the name Steven Tu.--FirecrackerDemon (talk) 08:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Though I do agree the lesser popular/smaller show article such as Game60 and trailblazers could essentially be merged.--FirecrackerDemon (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The 5:1 favour, for me is a little dubious as one of the comments come from the presenter of some of these shows and the other 3 are just comments saying how "stupid" the merge is without a concensus reason as to why it isn't a good idea - thus not placing a valid argument for not merging the articles. If there is a severe WP:COI violation to these pages, then that would also single out Guru Larry for creating and editing some of these pages in the first page, which I found from the history of these pages. I feel that placing COI violations are counter-productive and doesn't resolve the primary reason for the merge, which is to improve upon a particular article.
The speedy deletion was not solely for copyright infringement, but rather to have these shows into a single article on the XLEAGUE.TV page. I do realise that, that was the wrong proceedure and found out recently that requesting a merge would be more appropriate for creating a better article. As I've said before, I would like an admins input to find out a resolution to this. Ryoga3099 (talk) 10:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
BTW, I am not an employee of either XLEAGUE.TV or UKeSA and I am not on their payroll. I have been through this before when users were asking whether I worked for UKeSA when I created and edited the UKeSA article. Employers/employees have confirmed to these people that I am not part of the organisation. Ryoga3099 (talk) 10:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Ryoga3099, you have been an employee of Xleague which is evidential by your own confession on several websites, You were the "Steven Tu, XLEAGUE Community Manager" amongst other jobs. Also being on a payroll or not has no bearing on employment. Again, by your own hand you've admitted that you've offered volunteer work to the company (for written articles and creating the logo) therefore you are part of UKeSA, so even if you're not a current PAID employee, you are at least an affiliate of the companies and always will be.--FirecrackerDemon (talk) 12:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Does writing articles on Wikipedia mean I have an affiliate to the company who owns Wikipedia? Does public beta-testing a video game voluntary mean I'm associated with a particular company? Does knowing a person in a particular company mean I'm associated with a particular company? Doesn't your argument also puts Guru Larry under the spotlight for having worked for XLEAGUE.TV?
Regardless of where I come from or what I do or where other people come from or what they do, it doesn't resolve whether these articles should be merged or not. A personal attack, which is what it appears to be, is counter-productive to the original issue. This is why I request an admin to look at this and avoid this "war of words". Ryoga3099 (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

civility[edit]

User:OuroborosCobra seems to be having problems being civil and may need a time out. --Protostan (talk) 03:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like you're engaged in an edit war with him on multiple articles and several people are saying that your edits are original research. My advice would be to stop edit warring, take it to the talk page, and not draw attention to yourself by asking for a block of a user you're in a content dispute with. Also baiting is considered a form of incivility. Mr.Z-man 04:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying he's not in any way in violation of the rules when he write "I don't give a damn about cliches, it is the wrong category and you know it. You know it here, on Paul Harvey, on Abraham Lincoln, and everywhere else you edit"? --Protostan (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The "and you know it" might be pushing past WP:AGF a little (not being completely familiar with the context, I can't tell whether that's warranted), but it definitely isn't block-worthy. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think swearing at people is smiled at here either)--Protostan (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
We want to have a collegial environment, but we don't achieve that by being a police state and blocking people for saying "damn" once in an edit summary. I also note that you haven't notified OuroborosCobra of this thread, I've gone ahead and done that. Mr.Z-man 05:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
blocking does sound like a bit of an overkill. What the next step down from it? --Protostan (talk) 06:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I think you're missing (intentionally or not) that your actions are part of the problem here, and any action you think should be applied toward your enemy could just as easily be applied to you. Dispute resolution implies that people are trying to resolve conflict. You seem to want to escalate it and try to prevail then by getting your opponent in trouble. That's not how things work here. If you want people to be civil you first need to be civil yourself, both in words and, even more importantly, actions. DreamGuy (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:SPI[edit]

I'm sure you guys are already aware (as it is tagged), but just as a precautionary FYI, WP:SPI is backed up. Vicenarian (T · C) 14:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible for Wikipedia to pay me a salary?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved: No. ╟─TreasuryTagconstabulary─╢ 16:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I do quite a bit of editing and would like to quit my job and edit Wikipedia for a living. Would it be possible to get some advertising for these pages and use the income to pay regular editors a salary? Betty Logan (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I think this advice has never been more appropriate: "Don't quit your day job." --64.85.222.104 (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Highly unlikely. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Marking "resolved" – obviously. ╟─TreasuryTagconstabulary─╢ 16:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Man, I wish. (I wish I could get paid for editing. I'm NOT in favor of advertising.) Vicenarian (T · C) 16:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the opening poster was being 100% sensible, and I don't think that we should continue humouring him/her. No administrative action is required here. ╟─TreasuryTagsecretariat─╢ 16:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec - please don't shoot me for editing an archived thread!) No. The idea of putting adverts on Wikipedia has been discussed plenty of times before and a large proportion of the community has been very much against it. It is possible to get a third party to pay you to edit Wikipedia, although you need to be careful there (there is an RFC on the subject going on at the moment here). It is also possible to get a job working for the Wikimedia Foundation (see here for current openings), although editing content would not be part of your job (except possible to enforce WP:OFFICE actions). There may also be jobs working for local chapters, but they wouldn't involve editing either. --Tango (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

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

WP:TFD[edit]

... is developing a bit of a backlog. Anyone else who might be interested in helping to clear it would be appreciated. :) JPG-GR (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This page is not for reporting Administrator backlogs.--gordonrox24 (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
It isn't? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it's very common to post admin backlogs here as a large number of admins keep an eye on this page so they can be aware of things that need to be noticed (hence the title of the page). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
This is exactly the place to report backlogs. In truth, my feeling is that a lot of the stuff here (complaints about specific users, etc.) should be an AN/I. This should be more of a general... um... "noticeboard" to notify admins of important policy changes, backlogs, ArbCom rulings, requests to close old discussions, etc. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Technically one shouldn't post notes about backlog here, owing to the instructions at the top of the page to just use the template, but people do it often anyway. –xenotalk 20:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Something's going on here[edit]

Over the last few days, I've expressed legitimate concerns over the article List of nu metal bands which have resulted in attacks and misguided accusations. When several editors, including an administrator, attempted to block my attempts of working out a resolve, I nominated the list and its poorly-written sister article nu metal for deletion on the basis that it is clearly a neologism, and that no attempt has been made to work the main article into a serious discussion, and the "list" is very poorly-verified. This resulted in one editor continuing to make false accusations and the administrator threatening to block me if I didn't "step in line" and stop trying to improve these articles and limit the content to what is fully verified. I don't believe that these kinds of actions would be considered justified responses to good faith edits. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC))

List of nu metal bands had just been kept at AfD two weeks prior. [6] reverting the AfD seems like the right call there as it would have most certainly been proceedurally kept per WP:Snow, and nu metal, which would be the "parent" article would certainly not been deleted if the list of article, the "child" article, was kept. The most that would have happenned is the two being merged. Even that seems unlikely. This seems more like a clean-up issue of a list and WP:List may help. The WP:Lede of the article could spell out better what the inclusion criteria would be. There isn't a rush to fix it but you can certainly work to improve it. Also a note about the items listed there. If the sources for each band state "____ band is a nu metal band" the Wikipedia article for that band does not also have to state that. It would be nice but that's something to work out on each article's talkpage. If it's a subject that interests you I suggest working on the nu metal article and develop the history of the genre. On that main article not every band would be included; just the most notable ones that shaped the history of the genre in some way. -- Banjeboi 15:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Who exactly has been attacking you, Ibaranoff? You say I'm a liar, and that people like me are what is wrong with Wikipedia, yet you claim you have been attacked? By whom, and some diffs to support this claim please. What are you trying to accomplish, first consensus did not agree with you, then you nominate the article for deletion after not getting your way, and now this thread? What is next? I would not complain about Gwen if I were you, she could have blocked you and been well within her rights to do so. As an indef-blocked user you promised not to engage in this type of behavior. You did well for a few months, don't throw it all away now. Landon1980 (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
While you didn't directly insult me, you appear to show condescension in your tone towards me. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC))
Care to back that up with some diffs? Please highlight exactly what you took to be condescending, and why.— dαlus Contribs 05:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
In this example, Landon responds to my statement about what is sourced by telling me, essentially, that anything that doesn't reflect the "accepted" opinions is original research. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC))
since it's here, let's judge it by the results. DGG (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Even if he was being uncivil to you, that does not give you the right to call him a liar, or tell him he's what's wrong with wikipedia. You should know this.— dαlus Contribs 03:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Where are the diffs of me being uncivil, or attacking you, Ibaranoff? In fact, I see no evidence to support a single claim made in this thread by you. Landon1980 (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Rollback abuse?[edit]

Resolved: No action necessary. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought that rollback was supposed to be used for blatant vandalism. Surely all of the recent edits by User:Jenuk1985 changing "Notes" to "References" don't qualify as undoing vandalism. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me like rollback was used to perform those edits. Matt (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand the problem - rollback cannot be used to make edits, only revert edits. Shereth 18:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I am here to also announce my confusion. Nothing was reverted. Tan | 39 18:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I think I get it - you're seeing "[rollback]" next to every edit - that's because you have rollback and that gives you the option to rollback his edit, not because he's using rollback to perform the preceding edit. It's kind of odd to start with. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed—tagged as resolved. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Not exactly correct, as I don't have rollback, so I don't see what you're describing. The problem here is that I made an unwarranted assumption. Thanks for clearing it up for me. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 00:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Fascism 1RR limit[edit]

A few days ago I responded to a protection request by Vision Thing for semi-protection of Fascism, to stop edit warring by an IP editor. I semi-protected the article. Soon after, the IP editor correctly pointed out that we should not use semi-protection in an editing dispute unless all editors involved are IP or anon editors. I unprotected the article, apologized on my talk page, and pointed all editors to my talk page in my unprotection summary. You will see that I said I was seriously considering full protection of the article, and I urged all editors to keep discussing changes.

The next day my real life interfered with my Wiki life and I was unable to be here. However, EdJohnston responded to an AN3 report by Vision Thing reporting the same IP editor for a 3RR violation. Ed blocked the IP for 24 hours and left a note on my talk page about it. Looking back, I think this reporting editor was trying to keep the anon editor out of the discussion, but that may be oversimplification.

In the interim between Ed's block and my return here, the edit war at the article has not stopped, and instead is careening out of control. Instead of full protection, I took Ed's suggestion and placed a 1RR restriction on the article, which may be viewed here.

I know there are admins involved with Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect also are aware of the problems at this article as well as others. I may have jumped the gun a little by imposing first and asking here later, but I think the situation more than warrants quick action. The article is a hot mess, 158Kb long now, and we've got to take control of it. I ask for support of the restriction, extra eyes on the Fascism article, and any help my fellow admins can give. Thanks. KrakatoaKatie 04:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a bunch of fascist BS 718smiley.svg --NE2 04:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, yeah? That's typical coming from a guy who tries to railroad others. :-P - KrakatoaKatie 05:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I would point out that the particular RFC/U was about as messed up a one as ever found, and that the editors who cite it repeatedly seem to think that are showing how good they are <g>. Further that I made no recent reverts on Fascism at all, which means mentioning me here is a teeny bit irrelevant. One of the editors involved seems to deleight in calling me "deranged" and worse, and on the basis of "do not feed the trolls" I have avoided filing WQAs on him. I also recommend that anyone reading this also read User:Ikip/Disclaimer and User:Ikip/Guests as well as the current ArbCom AMIB case/ It might result in a better balanced view of my posiions. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Closure of AfD debate by Cirt[edit]

Resolved: Cirt undid close, I reclosed - Fritzpoll (talk) 09:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Cirt (talk · contribs) closed the deletion debate Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Estonia–Luxembourg_relations_(2nd_nomination). Previously he participated in the Deletion Review of the previous discussion. That deletion review that was closed by User:King of Hearts contrary to his recommendation. His closure is contrary to the relevant guideline (Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Deciding whether to delete). -- Docu (talk · contribs) 19 June 2009 08:48

Deletion review is that way. This board isn't for deletion review. Whispering 08:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
If this closed AfD is taken to Deletion review, I will defer to the outcome of consensus there. Cirt (talk) 08:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Alternatively, would you consent to undoing the close, and/or allowing me to reclose it? Fritzpoll (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 Done, see [7]. Cirt (talk) 09:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, re-closed Fritzpoll (talk) 09:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Fritzpoll (talk · contribs)! :) Cirt (talk) 09:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Fritzpoll, much better. -- User:Docu

User requesting unblock using {{helpme}}[edit]

Hi admins, please consider the unblock request at User talk:Thantalteresco.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally (as an unrelated yet involved admin) I do not know whether it is Premier or not. The person is pushing the same controversial race theories that Premier/Steakknife/various other alteregos was on Australian Aboriginal topics (especially Talk:Indigenous Australians, but appears more literate. However we had evidence that that user was a student of an Australian university, so it is not beyond possibility they could have gained literacy, but this user hasn't moved into the republican debate issues that user did. I'd say this one is a common or garden SPA, but don't quote me. Orderinchaos 23:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Message left at user talk:Gnangarra, as the blocking admin — this isn't a field of sockpuppetry that I've had any dealings with before, so I can't help much further. BencherliteTalk 23:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Just for people's benefit, memories fade - Gnangarra was referring to User:Premier, who was blocked in 2006 and more recently used User:Steakknife and a whole swathe of IP addresses. Orderinchaos 05:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Yep I was refering to User:Premier, this appears to be consistant with the user and some of his socks is based on the standard Duck test. Gnangarra 10:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Gnangarra: if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck... but, if you say that he edits like Premier and speaks like Premier but someone says that his IP is not like Premier's, is he Premier? We can know what is the truth with this.
I don't know who are Thantalteresco and Premier, and it's your word against him. Has he violated any policy (apart from the alleged 'block evasion') by which deserves to be blocked ad infinitum? ~~×α£đ~~es 16:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Page moves contrary to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC / WP:2DAB, leaving links to disambiguation pages behind[edit]

Resolved: Further discussion to occur elsewhere. –xenotalk 17:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please try to explain to Arcadian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) why

1) disambiguation pages are not necessary when there are only 2 usages - a WP:HATNOTE on the primary usage is all that is necessary and
2) if one does vacate a primary usage and replace it with a disambiguation page, one should repair the links to disambiguation pages that were created

I had a tough time dealing with them when they did this on Amoeba (see User talk:Arcadian#Amoeba) and notice they're still doing it, i.e. most recently with Acanthocyte (I've already moved back). Thanks, –xenotalk 14:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I would appreciate if someone informed Arcadian of this thread - they've asked me not to post to their talk page even though I tried to bury the hatchet at User talk:Arcadian#Amoeba redux. –xenotalk 15:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
User notified. Tan | 39 15:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
For future reference, I believe my conduct has been compliance with disambiguation policy. On the Amoeba page, the links to the page were genuinely ambiguous, and so a disambiguation page was the most appropriate target. For Acanthocyte, the reason there was an overwhelming majority of references to the blood usage was because I had already updated it on Template:Abnormal clinical and laboratory findings. --Arcadian (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I wish you would've explained that to me up front. We couldn't gotten on a lot better. However, the 2DAB rule still applies to many of the "disambig" moves you've made. You could save everyone a lot of trouble and not create links to disambiguation pages that later need to be fixed by just adding a hatnote. –xenotalk 15:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe that this is an accurate summary of the relationship between my conduct and Wikipedia:2DAB#Disambiguation_pages_with_only_two_entries. Please provide a diff. --Arcadian (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
You vacated Acanthocyte (moving it to Acanthocyte (blood) when it should have probably just remained as the primary usage) on the 16th to place a disambiguation page with 2 links in its place - as a result, pages such as XK (protein) pointed, inappropriately, at a disambiguation page. You could've then repaired the link, but it would have been better to simply add a hatnote as I did [8] after reversing your move to point users to your newly minted article if they landed at Acanthocyte looking for Acanthocyte (mycology). –xenotalk 15:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
To make sure I understand your position -- are you stating that after a disambiguation, an editor is required to edit all the pages that pointed to the prior version? If so, I would welcome feedback from other admins on this page to confirm that point, since it does not seem to be supported by the policy pages you've linked. For reference, here is the version before I disambiguated. Per Wikipedia:Disambiguation, "However if there are two topics for a term but neither is considered the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is used.". --Arcadian (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't say "required" (it's a volunteer project), but cleaning up the links to disambiguation left lying around is the responsible thing to do. Nevertheless, in the present case, Google seems to indicate that the "blood" usage is the primary topic, with only 355 of 26,400 results making reference to Stropharia. However, if in your expert opinion there is no primary use, then yes, repairing the links to disambiguation pages yourself would be a good idea (as we saw in the Amoeba case, this required some more refined knowledge of the subject). –xenotalk 16:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I would appreciate someone telling me if I'm completely off-base here - but as far as my understanding goes wrt to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:2DAB and WP:DPWL, these page moves are unnecessary, or where they were necessary, they made work that Arcadian didn't follow through on, i.e. repairing the links to disambiguation pages that were created as a result. Such repair may in fact require some specialized knowledge of the topic area and as is seen at the #Amoeba thread on Arcadian's talk page, I didn't have the requisite knowledge to properly repair all those disambiguation pages with links and Arcadian wasn't too forthcoming in offering advice on which links should go where after I attempted to do the clean up myself. –xenotalk 16:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I wonder, Xeno, and Arcadian, if you would both do me a personal favor, and make an effort to alter your relationship with each other. What started out as (I think) being annoyed by the other's perceived attitude was reciprocated in kind, only each time a little worse, and it kept spiraling into a situation where two prolific, long term admins can't have a calm, grownup conversation on each other's talk pages.

Arcadian, meet Xeno. Xeno's been around a while, is a good egg, and knows quite a bit about disambiguation pages. He could probably be a useful person to know. Is he welcome on your talk page again?

Xeno, meet Arcadian. He's been around even longer, is a good egg, and knows his stuff backwards and forwards with regards to Medicine. He could probably be a useful person to know.

And Dear God, if you're not interested in burying the hatchet, please just ignore this instead of saying something like "I'd be happy to, but he's the one who started it"; it will reduce me to a whimpering amoeba-like lump lying on the floor weeping in frustration. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to bury the hatchet and would be pleased to assist Arcadian repair links to disambiguation pages on his advice if he feels there is no primary topic and makes moves like this in the future. –xenotalk 16:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Xeno reported me as "reckless" on the Administrator's noticeboard, which makes this process more formal than any of us would like. It's possible that he's indirectly withdrawn that claim, per this header edit. However, that's a very indirect way doing this, and since he's using past conduct as evidence to support his claims in this current thread, I want to make sure that this thread is as easy as possible for people to understand in the future. If Xeno is withdrawing his claim, I would be delighted to let the matter drop. --Arcadian (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
On reflection, I decided "reckless" was escalatory and thus amended - however, the problem of leaving behind links to disambiguation pages remains. If you make moves like this in the future (vacating a page to make a disambiguation page), the links need to be repaired - links to disambiguation pages are almost never appropriate. My bot is approved to do this and if you gave me some pointers on distinguishing to which usage the links should point, I can do the grunt work if you don't feel like doing it. –xenotalk 17:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Given this edit, xeno is welcome on my talk page again, and I look forward to productive collaboration in the future. I do think in certain examples, linking to a disambiguation page is the best choice, but I'm confident that we can resolve those issues on a case-by-case basis, rather than raising it to the level of the Administrator's noticeboard. --Arcadian (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Likewise. Marking resolved and we'll go forward on a case-by-case as you suggest. cheers, –xenotalk 17:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Rfc on self electing groups[edit]

London Grid for Learning blocks[edit]

See User talk:82.198.250.66 where the hardblock rangeblock of the LGFL is being protested. Is the vandal these blocks were intended to prevent still active? –xenotalk 15:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

So, this month we've had this request in extremely uncivil terms, and vandalism of the talk page on the 9th. I'm not convinced it would benefit Wikipedia to unblock, but I'll go along with consensus. Dougweller (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe his/her main concern is that the block is a hardblock, registered users can't edit without requesting IPBE. –xenotalk 16:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I've read it again and am beginning to understand the issue, luckily one I haven't had to deal with yet. :-) Dougweller (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

My username has been spoofed[edit]

Resolved

I'm traveling and my username has been spoofed. I haven't gone back through all of my edits since June 13, but I just learned about this one: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geography#Location_maps_for_continents_-_proposal. I'll change my password, and I'll create a new account for use while traveling. But I'd really like to know who spoofed my account (and others at WikiProject Geography are probably interested, too, as the action effected their discussion). Perhaps a checkuser can assist. Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"Spoofing" means to imitate, for example, if someone created "Rosistep" and acted as if they were you. Do you mean your account was compromised? Tan | 39 15:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Based on [9] and [10] I would say that yes, what she intends to say is that her account had been compromised. Shereth 15:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
It's probably foolish to speculate based on insufficient information, but since this happened at a page that was likely on your watchlist, appears to have only happened once, didn't advance any other editor's dispute (i.e. a pretty lame hack if it was a hack), and appears to have been a use of rollback, I wonder if it isn't more likely that you accidentally clicked rollback on a diff or on your watchlist, and didn't realize it. It's not that hard to do, I've accidentally rolled something back before and almost didn't catch it. I think this might be more likely based on Occam's razor. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
No evidence that the account was used by anyone at a different location than the two locations you routinely use. There is a 5-1/2 hour gap between the revert you say you did not make and the rest of your editing that day, but the location is the same as the other edits that day. If it was not an accident, could it have been someone else using your computer, and finding that your account automatically logs in? Thatcher 16:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Wow. It seems Floquenbeam is right. After logging in, I must have accidentally clicked on rollback... I feel pretty lame about that. I guess it was just easier for me to assume that some jerk compromised my account, rather than the error, though accidental, was mine. So I'll go back to Polargeo and the project talkpage with an apology. And thanks to all of you for being so speedy assisting me with this. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
No problem, stuff happens some times. Better than that someone guessed your password. Thatcher 18:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I've rolledback and not realized until someone pointed it out to me later. It happens.--chaser (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I've unintentionally rollbacked when I was trying to get to an article section. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 18:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Appropriateness of allowing multiple banned sockmaster Dr.Jhingaadey to return[edit]

A notorious sockmaster has been allowed to create a new account, but with limitations on his editing rights. I question the manner in which this happened and would like to see this discussed thoroughly. IMO, this sets a dangerous precedent that makes the project vulnerable to gaming and undermines confidence in the blocking and unblocking processes. Just how far should AGF be stretched toward such disruptive users?

I would like to see wide community input. So far very few editors have been involved, and I am unsure of the matter. I have my own opinions on the matter, but the community should make the final decisions.

Notifications of this thread:

Relevant links:

Newer developments:

  • Discussion at Talk:Georgewilliamherbert that started the reinstatement of the banned user. It was started by User:JWSchmidt, whose role should be examined. Is his role a form of meatpuppetry? Should he be allowed to (mildly) "intimidate" (maybe a strong word, but I'm not sure what other word to use) users who question the "new" incarnation of a banned user? While I believe his actions may be unwise and ultimately futile, I AGF that he has the best intentions, and the desire to help someone in need is generally a good character trait. For that I applaud him.

Note that this user was still evading his blocks using various IPs right up to while these discussions were occurring!

Fundamental matters of principle to decide:

  1. Was proper unblocking procedure followed?
  2. Shouldn't the unblocking of such a community banned user first be discussed using an RfC/U, rather than occurring on an obscure corner of Wikipedia (a userpage) where few editors realized what was occurring?
  3. To what degree should editors here be allowed to act as advocates/meatpuppets for banned or newly returned users who are under "probationary" status?
  4. Should this banned user be allowed back at all under these circumstances?
  5. Should the new account be closed and the banned user's bans be reinstated?

Consider this thread to be the start of such a discussion.

-- Brangifer (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Responses[edit]

I don't a problem with it as long as he is watched closely, we can see where it goes from here. Banned users should be given the opportunity to reform. Triplestop (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the links? There are procedural issues to discuss that are setting precedent. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
We aren't the Supreme Court; we don't have to follow precedent. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
It's human nature to follow examples of what's been done before as a guide and justification for how to behave now. Wikipedia will be no more successful at waving its hands and saying "Precedent doesn't matter" than Communism was at denying the existence and power of the profit motive. Precedents do matter, and we'd all better get used to the idea that things we do now will potentially be used as models for things done in the future. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Therefore it would be extremely helpful if BullRangifer could clarify what these precedent-setting procedural issues are in his opinion. His thinking tends to be a bit woolly, and I simply can't follow him here. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Those procedural issues are mentioned in part of that last five point list. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  1. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy
  2. Since this isn't a full unblock/unbanning, that is not a big problem. What occurred here is pretty reasonable. However the community should have been alerted to this, as they are now.
  3. If someone wants someone back then there is probably a good reason, assuming good faith. A ban is a community thing after all.
  4. We can take this slowly from here and see what happens.
  5. If the community objects to this allowed return then yes.

Triplestop (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

We do a lot of this - if a blocked/banned editor says "Oh I get it, I won't do that anymore" we tend to give them another shot. You mentioned that this user was evading blocks with IPs recently - do you have evidence of this you can share? If so, did it come after the I promise to behave note? Its fairly easy to reblock someone if it turns out they don't truly want to contribute productively. Shell babelfish 20:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe many if not all of the IPs are in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dr.Jhingaadey. But it's a bit tricky to find them because they are mixed with those of last year. I am not aware of any since the promise. By the way, as he seems to be using dial-up, changing IPs should not be held against him. I guess part of the problem was that admins did not have the technical means to communicate "we really mean it" under the circumstances. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
He's welcome to use dial-up IPs, but he should have logged-in. That's why we have usernames. Avoiding the scrutiny of other editors, especially for disruptive purposes, is forbidden here. If you have a username, you're supposed to use it. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

BullRangifer is overreacting to RJ (I will call him by the initials of his Citizendium username). Currently he is the only one doing so; last year, when RJ first appeared at Homeopathy, there was an entire mob. In my opinion:

  • The greater part of the disruption that surrounds RJ is caused by overreactions from the anti-homeopathy camp.
  • Even under the most favourable circumstances that we can realistically expect, RJ will not be a net positive to Wikipedia. To one side he is an easy target; to the other he is an embarrassment with his extravagant claims of healing cancer and AIDS and whatnot with homeopathy.

This opinion is based in part on what happened here before it was found out he was User:NootherIDAvailable and on his editing history at Citizendium.

BullRangifer's questions are bit misleading. They, and the title of this section, assume that he is formally community banned, perhaps even multiply. His real status is that of an editor who was getting on everybody's nerves, who was blocked a bit out of process, and who acquired the status of a "no admin willing to unblock" de-facto indefinitely banned user through a series of naively transparent block evasions. (E.g. initially he used various subsets of his real name in various spellings.)

Under these circumstances and assuming what I believe is the standard reading of the "no admin willing to unblock clause" (that the ban ends as soon as an uninvolved admin is willing to unblock – please correct me if there is no general agreement on this) it would be totally OK for JWSchmidt to unblock one of RJ's accounts. I am not sure why the new account, but there doesn't seem to be much wrong with that either since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree that the user was banned by the "no uninvolved administrator is willing to unblock" community ban process and that any uninvolved admin may unblock; but I also believe that decision to unblock is subject to community discussion to determine whether there is consensus that the user remain banned. In other words, we all have a stake in the "de-facto ban" and we have a right to consider whether in the absence of a de-facto ban we would have banned the user by another process and would not now lift the ban; in which case the unblocking would be a bad idea.
  • I generally think we should give the user a chance and that sock bans can become poblematic because a blocked user trying to get a fresh start but not understanding how things really work quickly becomes an illegal sock, even if no harm is intended. So, in general, I would support unblocking. However,
  • I find the link provided by Scientizzle at User_talk:JWSchmidt#Nootheridavailable to be particularly troubling as it shows the user has been given a "second chance" before and I do not generally support third chances.
  • I applaud JWSchmidt for this bold and demanding endeavor.
  • I am not willing to give the user a third chance but I will support giving JW a chance to prove to me that I should. In other words, you won't get any leeway from me and I'm fairly certain you'll be bashed against the rocks, but I wish you luck and will support your attempt by waiving from the shore you crazy fool.--Doug.(talk contribs) 21:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Re your first point: I totally agree, and I expected that BullRangifer would start a community ban discussion. If that's what he intended, he could have made it a bit clearer. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The last two points in the five point list mentions this, and I ended with a shot from the starting gun, so to speak. Now the community is having its input, and that's what I believe is the proper procedure BEFORE unblocking such a user. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I offered this user a "second chance" months back because I felt the banhammer came down too quickly on an obviously upset newbie editor that may not have received sufficient instraction and warning. It became quickly apparent, however, that this editor (at that time) was not willing to appropriately engage the relevant issues, instead engaging in largely combative behavior to achieve ends that were at odds with the Wikipedia pillars. It's been a while since then, and little I've seen since convinces me that this editor is willing/able to distance himself from his deeply held beliefs to work within NPOV, UNDUE, RS, FRINGE, NPA, and all the other relevant acronyms.
I also can't help but note that the most recent incarnation, Avathaar (talk · contribs) was created 12:05, June 11, 2009, half an hour after his latest IP sock made an appearance and four hours before JWSchmidt's generous offer of another chance...my suspicion is that this editor would likely have continued this nonstop cycle of disruption and block evasion using this account anyway. (Note: I see no evidence of block evasion since JWSchmidt's offer.)
All that said, I'd be comfortable echoing every point Doug made here. JWSchmidt appears perfectly willing to see this through and has laid out a rather restrictive re-imersion program that has at least a chance of working. I wouldn't have the patience...As I said to JWSchmidt: give it a shot. — Scientizzle 00:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that anybody who sees any good in someone with this user’s history has just completely lost the plot. There’s assuming good faith, and then there’s handing an escaped mental patient a loaded gun. I don’t see any good in allowing this user to return, other than maybe giving an admin some training in chasing him around fixing the damage he does. — NRen2k5(TALK), 22:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"chasing him around fixing the damage he does" <-- That is a fair description of what Wikipedia got from past treatment of this editor, including the initial failure to welcome him and explain our rules. "allowing this user to return" <-- Wikipedia cannot stop him from returning. "completely lost the plot" <-- The problem is larger than this one editor. Wikipedia has systemic biases and the world is not blind to this phenomenon, even if many administrators are. I agree with "Dr.Jhingade" that there is room for improvement in Wikipedia and I'm willing to listen to his suggestions for how to improve articles such as Homeopathy. All I've done is make it clear that I'm willing to listen as long as he follows our rules. It is up to him to decide if he will follow the rules of Wikipedia and make constructive contributions. It saddens me to see administrators who only have one tool -the mighty ban hammer- and an approach to new editors that treats difficult contributors like nails. I have the time to treat "Dr.Jhingade" like a person. If my effort falls short then all the nail bashers can continue their game of wackamole. --JWSchmidt (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I don't see any problem with JWSchmidt helping the editor to become a constructive contributor, but the multiple accounts are a bit worrisome. I'm frankly not sure what talk page to leve a request on, but I think s/he should be strongly encouraged to pick one username and stick with it... whichever one is preferred can be unblocked by JWSchmidt, but the other accounts should be locked down. --SB_Johnny | talk 02:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SB Johnny. Right now, TTBOMK, none of the blocked accounts have been unblocked, so we are actually dealing with a currently blocked editor who has never been unblocked, but who is allowed to edit anyway (at present in a limited manner). I don't think I've ever heard of such a thing. He needs to have one account unblocked and use only that one, IF HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED BACK AT ALL. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Dr. Jhinghaadey has shown absolutely no respect for or interest in this site's goals, content policies, or conduct policies; he constantly creates disruptive socks and then lies blatantly, if unconvincingly, when caught red-handed... someone please explain why we're contemplating abusing the time and goodwill of editors who actually bother to respect this site's policies? I'm not going to stand in the way of allowing him to edit one account's userspace, but I will reblock him myself without a second thought if he fails to adhere to those terms, or if those terms are expanded without input from the people whose volunteer efforts are most adversely impacted by Dr. Jhinghaadey's inappropriate advocacy. MastCell Talk 03:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I have tweaked my statement involving JWSchmidt in the introduction to this thread. I AGF in his intentions, even if I think they are unwise and ultimately futile. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Question for JWSchmidt: Who formulated the statement in Avathaar's first edit? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Reply to Who formulated the statement? Several days after I exchanged a few words with "Dr.Jhingaadey" on his user talk page, he contacted me. I told him what I thought he would have to do in order to be able to participate at Wikipedia. After several more days he informed me that he had posted a statement at User talk:Avathaar. That statement says what I told him he has to do if he wants to edit at Wikipedia. --JWSchmidt (talk) 06:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I was wondering about that wording as it doesn't sound like anything he would have the slightest ability or understanding to formulate on his own. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment I find that the restrictions set by JWSchmidt are enough to warrant the least disruption possible while trying to recover a banned user for wikipedia. Whether Jhingadeey is actually recoverable is a different matter. If JWSchmidt manages to get him to become a productive editor then he can bring him here for review, if he doesn't manage it.... then... well, then JWSchmidt will have learned a valuable lesson about how you can't force people to change unless they don't want to change. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional Comment by Doug - Oh, and the user needs to disclose all socks, certainly he may not be able to disclose IPs as a practical matter (he may have no idea what ones he's used) but any registered accounts must be listed on his userpage before we go any further. Any that are discovered post hoc, even if created before this discussion, would be a VERY BAD THING.--Doug.(talk contribs) 12:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Interviews needed. I would like to have users question him about each of the four parts of his statement:

  • ""I have previously been blocked from editing as User:NootherIDAvailable. I agree to editing restrictions and mentoring: 1) I will only edit my own user pages until the Wikipedia community lifts this editing restriction. 2) I will restrict my edits to specific suggestions for how to improve Wikipedia 3) I will not behave at Wikipedia as an advocate of homeopathy or proclaim any personal partisan point of view with respect to the efficacy or medical value of any treatment, therapy or style of medical practice. I now recognize that such advocacy disrupts Wikipedia and does not help to improve the encyclopedia. 4) I now understand the goal of creating neutral Wikipedia articles that describe, in a balanced way, what is said in all reliable sources about each topic."-Avathaar (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)"

I'd like to have him explain to their satisfaction what his understanding actually is. That can be done in appropriately titled sections on his user talk page. We can thus ascertain for ourselves if he is (1) capable of rehabilitation and (2) really willing to reform. This is a process that I envision will be happening with candidates for rehabilitation in the Wikiproject User Rehab. Personally I wouldn't recommend him for that project, but at least a probing of his thinking might satisfy many here about his suitability for readmission to full rights here. This can be done as a form of RfC/U where he is participating. Anyone can start the process. Go for it! -- Brangifer (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I would add that any further sockpuppetry by this user will put a speedy end to the slack he's being given. MastCell Talk 18:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely, and I agree with BullRangifer that he must be subject to questioning. I'm not sure I'd say he has to run all of this before there is any decision, just make the decision "subject to". It's a valid part of his rehab anyway - part of "coming clean". If he balks, he's toast.--Doug.(talk contribs) 20:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
In the past he has shown no hesitancy to tell bald-faced lies when it suits his purpose. So, his response to any questioning should be taken with a few grains of salt (or a whole shaker-full). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 08:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(←) I think it's pretty clear that he should stick to one account and disclose the others, but outside of that I think we should do best to close this thread and let JWSchmidt work with him without a parallel discussion hanging over them. --SB_Johnny | talk 22:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The experiment isn't working, so reinstate ban[edit]

The fourth edit he has made has been a resumption of his advocacy campaign, in violation of the promise he made at the top of his user and talk pages. Since he obviously didn't formulate or understand the promise he made, what else can one expect? He still doesn't understand our policies and the EXACT same complaint has been made by him literally dozens(?) of times. Seeking to enlist meatpuppets is a serious offense. The indef ban needs to be reinstated. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Come on, Bran, let the experiment run its course and give time for JWSchmidt to realize by himself who he is dealing with. It will be a valuable learning experience for him (no, seriously, he will learn a lot). Also, watching slow-motion trainwrecks is fun, and this one looked promising, so don't be such a party pooper. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
P.D.: Mind you, I respect and admire JWSchmidt's efforts to recover users for the project, it's just that I don't think that this particular user has any interest in becoming a NPOV-respecting wikipedia editor, so I find his efforts to be doomed from the start. Still, he needs to learn this by himself. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
You're right. I could commit a combined sin of omission / point violation by doing nothing.... I just have a soft heart and hate to see needless suffering. As an experienced hunter, I'm accustomed to putting an end to the misery as fast as possible, but there is a certain sort of sick and sadistic pleasure one can get from watching such a train wreck. Let's see what the community decides to do with an indef banned user who isn't unblocked, but yet is allowed to create a new username, and who then immediately reverts to his old POV pushing, even though his return was on condition he wouldn't do such things anymore. Hmmm... -- Brangifer (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
He's kept to his talk page, so it seems to be "working" at least to that extent. JWSchmidt has dealt with even tougher cases before [11], so I doubt he has any illusions about the chances of success here. It's only been a few days and a few posts, so way too early to judge success at this juncture. IMO, at least. --SB_Johnny | talk 10:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Pow pow pow! — NRen2k5(TALK), 06:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Another overreaction. The user is staying on his talk page. It would have been enough to instruct him clearly not to use the helpme template again. BullRangifer's reaction reminds me of a news story I can't find anymore. An American was convicted of indecent exposure for walking around naked in his house. This could only be observed by using binoculars. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The experiment hasn't, in my opinion, had enough time to work or fail. In the course of less than a week under the new paradigm we've had precisely one comment from Avathaar (talk · contribs). It was certainly a poor start, as I noted on the talk page, but it's only an n of 1 in the new experimental conditions. I support giving JWSchmidt a little more space to work for now. — Scientizzle 22:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What a colossal waste of time and effort. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
In his response to the notification of this thread, for some reason DrJ decided to attack me and my edits at Chiropractic - an article I am hardly involved in (I find it quite dull). I, and others, have wasted far too much time trying to help (initially) this editor, and all they do is attempt to subvert the project with their version of WP:THETRUTH, abusing socks (which have been explained many times) and sources (ditto). I don't mind him being allowed to work on his user page, so long as John comes down hard on any more attacks or swipes at other editors, and keeps his abuse in check (such as the "helpme" template abuse.) So long as he's there and doesn't mention me I'll ignore him. Verbal chat 14:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
With n up to 3[12][13] and little beyond personal attacks, consider my support vanishing like so much active ingredient in preparation of a 30C dilution... — Scientizzle 15:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay. In the first of my two links immediately above[14]: it was unacceptable to the skeptics-they want only negative stuff to be in the article ← this statement distills multiple discussions into a simple and objectionable claim that a swath of editors are deliberately acting in bad faith. Additionally, the assertion that this editor should be defended because he "doesn't know all the rules yet" is...disingenuous, in my opinion. This person has made hundreds of posts, since at least March 1, 2008, and has been spoon-fed advice on Wikipedia sourcing, neutrality, and behavioral policies and guidelines. Many of the previous incarnations of this editor have also claimed to be "new". At some point, though, the proverbial training wheels need to be ditched; when can we reasonably expect some understanding of, for example, WP:UNDUE, WP:MEDRS & WP:FRINGE?
In the second link[15], Avathaar lists three editors by name with the clear implication that these individuals are not working in the best interests of the project.
By the way, I don't think these two edits are particularly awful. However, they fit the pattern established over the last year-plus. I don't yet see any change in behavior occuring, and still no concrete suggestions for article improvement, thus my diminishing support for continued tolerance of this editor. — Scientizzle 16:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
JW, If you can't recognise clear misuse of the helpme template and rather obvious attacks directed at specific editors (linked above, including "not neutral" and "battling at chiropractic" and implication of puppetry) then you shouldn't be mentor to this person. I no longer support this process. Verbal chat
  • Charges of abuse and personal attacks. I requested explicit descriptions of the claimed abuse and personal attacks. Judging from the the replies( here and here), it seems to me that Scientizzle and Verbal are unable to document any abuse and they are unable to document any personal attacks. --JWSchmidt (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    • As I stated above, I don't consider those two particular edits in isolation to be all that bad...I just don't see them as any improvement over what the last 15 months have provided from this editor. I'll agree to disagee as to whether they're "personal attacks" (they're minor ones--I wouldn't block someone for those statements, for example, just call them on the incivility); but they're obvious broad allegations of bad-faith editing, which is completely counter-productive. Do you agree with this assessment, JWSchmidt? If so, as his mentor I'd hope you would point this out. — Scientizzle 17:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, there was some trash-talking (in the sense of rather dismissive comments about the intentions of other editors), and DrJ should be discouraged from doing that. Scientizzle and Verbal wouldn't have to get involved if you (JWSchmidt) would do the discouraging, rather than compounding the problem by dismissing their concerns about that. --SB_Johnny | talk 18:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It looks to me like the folks closely involved in this could take a step back - you're smothering an editor who is clearly going to need some instruction in how Wikipedia works. Instead of jumping on him for every move he makes, let someone without a horse in this race try educating him on policy. If that still doesn't work, fine, but lets not pretend the situation right now is anything like giving it an honest try. Shell babelfish 17:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The current situation is an excellent demonstration of the fact that some of the editors opposed to homeopathy are a significant part of the problems in the area. I really don't know what's so hard about not watching the talk page of an editor who is getting on one's nerves and who is under a restriction not to edit outside his talk page. After all, given the overall quality of this editor's contributions to our discourse, it seems extremely unlikely that this develops into a pro-homeopathy think tank that will suddenly become so influential as to change the homeopathy situation in a significant way. --Hans Adler 17:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • There is a very slim outside chance that an editor with DrJ's track record might reform, given a mentor. There is zero chance that he will reform if given an enabler. We seem to be well over the line here into the latter scenario. MastCell Talk 19:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Would it help if someone more neutral was found and a more standard course of teaching someone the rules was followed? I agree if this is just someone trying to add another voice to "their" side its not going to be good for Wikipedia or the problem editor. Shell babelfish 21:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
      • This is ridiculous. I can see no indication that the homeopathy side (which currently seems to consist only of Whig) is interested in recruiting Avathaar. Quite the contrary, because of his extreme opinions. What JWSchmidt and Avathaar discuss on Avathaar's talk page is not disruptive unless you choose to read it and interpret it in the worst possible way. If this circus doesn't stop soon, I will ask for the worst offenders to be banned from Avathaar's talk page per WP:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy#Discretionary sanctions. Of course JWSchmidt's rehabilitation attempt is going to fail, but I am not going to watch it fail prematurely because a bunch of hysterical homeopathyphobes start shouting at the top of their voices each time JWSchmidt is showing a bit of empathy with Avathaar. Without empathy there is no effective mediation. Here is the current ranking for User talk:Avathaar, in terms of number of consecutive edits:
        1. JWSchmidt (7 edits)
        2. Avathaar, BullRangifer, Hans Adler (3 edits each)
        3. Scientizzle, SB Johnny, Verbal (2 edits each)
        4. Brunton, 龗 (1 edit each)
      To me this looks very much like collective baiting. It may not be intentional, but that's the effect. --Hans Adler 22:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I only commented there as my name was mentioned, and it was brought to my attention. I will support mentoring with a neutral mentor. As I said at the start, JW is enabling rather than educating DrJ. It wasn't on my watchlist until the comment, and my edits were consecutive. I have on other talk pages of DrJs been supportive and given him the benefit of the doubt, and have even had email exchanges with him (before his NootherID persona). Verbal chat 22:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it is a huge overstatement to say that JW is enabling Avathaar. As Hans says, he's showing empathy. He may also be naive, or he may just be very optimistic, either way but that doesn't make him an enabler. What's he enabling? These "attacks" are extremely mild and should be ignored. Maybe, it would be best if JW were to remove them. If venting like this is necessary maybe JW should take the conversation off-wiki. Maybe the community would support this more if someone more experienced and with a more neutral appearing attitude rolled up and said I'll step in here and work with this guy and see if he has any potential and report back. But it's not about to happen. This guy is under a community ban but for the fact that there is one and only one editor who would unblock him. No body else is willing to help, myself included, so we should all just stay the heck out the of the way. JW has the lead on this for lack of any other interested parties. Let's let him work at it because God knows there's a lot of work to be done!--Doug.(talk contribs) 20:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe JWSchmidt could suggest that Avathaar edit the article about his favorite pet, I have a developing theory that editors will find battlefield editing impossible when writing about small, fluffy animals. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

update to {{Italictitle}}[edit]

A function of the {{italictitle}} template broke following an edit to {{str sub}}.

I've done all the dirty work already fixing the code, all that's left is a copy-and-paste job from User:Bob the Wikipedian/test (yup) to {{italictitle}}. After that, I'd appreciate that user subpage being deleted (but only after the code has been copied). Thanks! Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 20:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a huge fan of moving code around like that and destroying the underlying work (attribution and all...). Perhaps move the subpage to Template:Italic title/sandbox 2 or something? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I see your point...it is an odd situation. I was the only contributor to the user subpage, and it was all done within a matter of minutes, so the history on that page is worthless. The changes to the code are very minor (I added the code "+ 1" and "- 1" to two sections). I'm not sure how moving the code to a new subpage will preserve my name on the code...it might be appropriate to simply credit me in the edit summary. Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 21:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
(p.s.) Perhaps it would be easier to unlock the page long enough for me to make the changes? Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 21:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

☑Y Done, and seems to work. As you said, it was a minor request, pretty much like any other {{editprotected}} request (which you can use the next time you want a change to a protected page). Thanks, Amalthea 21:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010 film)[edit]

Resolved

Discussion has began on a Nightmare-related talk page ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 04:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


This page was created, not enough content was added so it was turned into a redirect to future section on the the franchise page. More content was discovered, still, not enough, the page again was deleted and the little new info was added that future section.............. I agreed with all of the deletions, but recently more critical content was added (see this edit). Is this enough for it's own page or not? ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 05:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

First, per WP:NFF, if a film has not been released then its production itself must be notable per WP:GNG. We do not have production info on this film. We have a select number of casting, a release date, a director and writer, and one controversy over filming in a school's pool. That's the exact same information we've had for months, and it all fits into a single paragraph. The "critical content" added today was a source where one of the actors said, "It's going to be just like the original", and Craven's opinion (about 80% of the Craven quote was not directly tied to this remake). Not really that relevant, and certainly doesn't indicate a notable production. I pointed out to my fellow user that this film has another year before it's even set to be released. The recent Friday the 13th remake's page was not created until 7 months before release, and this is how much information we had when we finally moved it off of its respective franchise page. The upcoming Halloween II film, which is due in August, did not get a page until just 2 months ago. This is how much info we had when we moved that off of its franchise page. There just is not enough information to warrant a whole page, especially when WP:NFF indicates that future films require notable productions and we don't have true production information, but really the same pre-production info we had months ago. Nothing has really changed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Please review uploads of Cowbell31 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Can someone please review the uploads log of this editor? I have found two blatant copyvios uploaded under Creative Commons licenses (they're screenshots from the movie Back To The Future III). One other upload, an obviously professional promo-photo of Don Knotts. I tagged the blatant copyvios but someone should review. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, those were screenshots of Back to the Future III, and were unused, so I went ahead and deleted them as copyvios. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Announcement of pending Checkuser and oversight elections[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has determined that there is a need for further oversighters and checkusers to improve workload distribution and ensure complete, timely response to requests. Beginning June 20, 2009, experienced editors are invited to apply for either or both of Oversight or CheckUser permissions. Current holders of either permission are also invited to apply. Voting will begin on July 28, 2009 and close on August 10, 2009. Further information, including instructions for application and a complete timeline, are available at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections/August 2009. For further information about the Committee's relevant resolutions, please see the Arbitration Committee noticeboard.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability[edit]

I have removed the challenged material here... and I won't remove it again, since I have removed it a couple of times, and more would be edit warring... the reinserting editor will not address the issue. It is disruptive for the editor to demand that I challenge the file itself. I am challenging the inclusion of the file to the article, exactly as policy states. This is the link to the talk page section. This is a differential to the editors talk page. Please advise. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 06:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Docu signature RFC/U[edit]

A RFC/U has been started regarding Docu's refusal to use a normal signature. Please comment there if you wish. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be better if someone with a signature in the Roman alphabet posted rather than 日本穣 User F203 (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a specific issue you have with my sig? It complies perfectly with WP:SIG, so please let me know and I'll see if there's anything I can do. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
It's customary for the user who opened the RFC to post the notice. If you think Nihonjoe's signature is problematic, you can talk to him directly. Regards SoWhy 20:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
There are plenty of usernames around here in the Roman alphabet that I can't pronounce. Where's User:Llywrch, anyway? I just think of him as being pronounced "low-rock", because that sounds cool. Nihonjoe, on the other hand, I think of as "crazy asian character man".

I hope that helps. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 20:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm lurking, GT. I agree with your point, though. FWIW, you pronounced my username wrong. Everyone pronounces it wrong -- including me. :) -- llywrch (talk) 23:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I can almost guarantee that my usernname gets mispronounced; I've had it for years, and rarely come across anyone that gets it right on the first attempt. :) EVula // talk // // 23:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure mine gets mispronounced all the time, too. It's pronounced "knee-hone-joe", but I suspect most Americans (and perhaps many other English speakers) pronounce it "nigh-hawn-joe" or "knee-hawn-joe". ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm sure that we don't need to bicker about this. This was a simple notification thread. ╟─TreasuryTagco-prince─╢ 08:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010 film)[edit]

Resolved: Thanks Lifebaka!

Could an admin please delete this page? A very improved version has been created and we're currently waiting to move it to this name. Thank You! ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 13:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Restored and history merged. Cheers! lifebaka++ 14:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussions need administrator closing[edit]

I mentioned this a few days ago, but it seems to have been lost in the archives without discussion. Wikipedia:VPR#The .5Bedit.5D link for sections and Wikipedia talk:Upload#Free images and Commons need to be closed by an uninvolved admin who can determine consensus. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Both of these look like a no consensus. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
What would you say the default result is then? On the upload one it seems certainly a no consensus... the edit links seems trickier (granted though, my view would strongly be in support of moving them). There isn't a huge consensus either way there, although the majority supports it (last I checked). Anyway, if we're saying that that one closes as "default to keep as-is", I'll implement the gadget discussed there. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Bit of an early closure there wasn't it? I did ask for the discussion to run until the beginning of July. It has twice been reported in the Signpost that consensus is to make the change, so why has it been closed as "no consensus"? Mjroots (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Where did you request that timeframe? I guess that I missed it. And both of those comments in the Signpost were by me so I'm not sure if they're completely neutral (I try to, but you know how hard it can be). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
My comment of 27 May, timed at 16:31 hrs Mjroots (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Joel Warady Group[edit]

Could I have a copy of the deleted article Joel Warady Group if you dont mind? TrioRuleYou (talk) 01:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Following up at user's talk page. lifebaka++ 02:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Sent location. TrioRuleYou (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
It's a shame you simply recreated a deleted article word for word twice, without resolving the fatal issues, resulting in it being speedied. You didn't even keep the improvements I myself made during the second AFD in an attempt to help you out. Your spam has been deleted and the article salted. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Erection_Development.jpg[edit]

Resolved: Not an English Wikipedia issue.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to use this image on the nl article about Penis. Zaheer12a (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You should be able to use it for the nl article. This is the English Wikipedia, not the Dutch Wikipedia. Unless the image was blocked on the Dutch Wikipedia like it was on the English Wikipedia, it should be available at nl:Bestand:Erection Development.jpg because the image is on the Wikimedia Commons.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Media-encouraged disruption[edit]

I've semi'ed the articles Richard Herring, Andrew Collins (broadcaster) and Duncan Norvelle, as each of these has been subject to vandalism that would seem to support the allegation of deliberate inciting of this at Talk:Andrew Collins (broadcaster). Since they're only semi'ed, they could probably do with additional eyes anyway, and I'm out of town next week. If anyone can temporarily keep an eye on? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOAP[edit]

Resolved: Userboxes reworded, agreement reached on moving text to draft article. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Per SOAP, Wikipedia should not be used for Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. A number of users have included this banner along with a recruitment call to action (sign a political petition) on their user and talk pages. While I actually support the cause they rallying behind, I object to their use of Wikipedia for recruitment. What's the official Wikipedia stance on this sort recruitment? Does it violate SOAP? Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yup, not a soapbox.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks. So what should be done? -- Levine2112 discuss 20:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It was speedily deleted. Vicenarian (T · C) 20:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This item contains material of similar vein. Unomi (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to a user's main userpage, I think it's best to bring up any concerns you might have with the user first. I note that a discussion was started on the user's talk page on just this subject. Vicenarian (T · C) 21:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. Would it be fair to say that Add your signature to the thousands of others. constitutes advocacy and/or recruitment? Unomi (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I would say that's a fair assessment. Vicenarian (T · C) 21:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Definitely. Whether the position has merit or not, this is completely unrelated to WP and is inappropriate to have on a user page; there are plently of sites which offer free web space and allow people to blog or advocate to their heart's content. Wikipedia is not a free web host. – Toon(talk) 21:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, that's not really true, people have reasonable latitude to discuss non-Wikipedia issues that concern them on their userpage, unless this material is extremely offensive and might bring Wikipedia into disrepute, such as pedophilia images. See Wikipedia:UP#NOT for more discussion on this point. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
They have a right to discuss non-Wikipedia issues - not recruit signatures for a political cause. This is obviously WP:Soap. --stmrlbs|talk 00:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I was talking about the other material on his userpage, linked above by Unomi. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Add your signature to the thousands of others. is arguably advocacy / recruiting. This text is on his userpage linking directly to a website of a lobbying organization. The situation is like a group of rabbits being spotted by a hunting dog. They have hoped to remain unseen by the hunter (the public), but they made fun of the dog, and now the hunt is on. They and their dubious practices are now very, very visible and publicized by the entire British press! This text is also there seemingly solely for the purposes of gloating/advocacy. The full text which he put on his talk page is even worse, while there may be some sources useful for a future article the text is in no way laying the foundation for it nor engendering such a discussion that would help bring it about. BullRangifer/Fyslee has also been made aware of the potential copyvio problems surrounding making copies of emails available via wikipedia. Unomi (