Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive72

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Copyright status[edit]

Someone linked this http://www.ifilm.com/video/2681285 and I can't work out what the copyright status is. Any thoughts? Guy (Help!) 12:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I lost two minutes of my life watching that thing, and would remove it just because of the anger I feel within myself ;-) My rule of thumb: when in doubt, remove it. If the copyright is not clear, remove it. Note that, while promotional videos are supposedly promotional, companies exert a pretty hard control over them. In example, Japanese record companies do not allow these promotional videos to appear in YouTube, in example, and request their deletion in a daily manner. Personally, I only leave links to videos if they are in the artist or discography sites. -- ReyBrujo 13:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
While iFilm does accept user submitted content, such content is marked as being user contributed. This is not user content, so is being hosted by iFilm in the same way they host other Music Videos, MTV, and Comedy Central clips. I see no reason to assume that iFilm are breaching copyright to reproduce this video, and it's more than likely to be legitimately hosted.
iFilm, incidentally, is wholly owned by Viacom. It may be that Viacom are infringing upon someone's copyright by reproducing this video, but I think it's unlikely. --Barberio 01:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • In other words you don't know either. Thanks for sharing. I've contacted them to ask for an authoritative answer. Guy (Help!) 20:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Niohe[edit]

User:Niohe has been frequently and repeatedly engaged in deleting relevant and valuable historical images from various articles, depite numerous warnings.

Some of User:Niohe's acts of vandalism:

This user must be blocked indefinitely before he/she will do any more damage.

Highshines 01:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be a content dispute - see [1] - which is not vandalism. There may also be a a 3RR violation using IP's in there, which I'm about to report to WP:AN3. Daniel.Bryant 01:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
No 3RR violation after a quick check. Sorry about that one :| Daniel.Bryant 01:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of this quickly. Please note that fact that Highshines has engaged in extensive sock puppetry, used uncivil language and made completely bizarre comments.--Niohe 01:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
By the same token, your edit summary here [2] was very similar (minus the yelling and obvious incivility). I think you should both stop revert-warring and discuss the pros and cons of both versions on the talk page of the articles, and try to work it out, rather than constantly reverting "vandalism" which isn't vandalism and making comments - like the above - that only antagonisethe situation. I'll request full-protection to force you to discuss, if ned be, though I'd rather not :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 01:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I think I have yelled once, but that's it. If you care to have a look at Highshines edits, you will realise that this is a disruptive editor, who refuses to engage in any serious discussion about his/her edits. I can give you numerous examples of this, but I'm getting tired. Some else with administrative powers will have to take care of this, because I'm giving up. I'll unmark these pages from my watch list and let Highshines ruin the pages. Good bye.--Niohe 01:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Niohe is both exaggerating and lying. I have always been engaged in making Wikipedia articles more proper. How can I possibly "ruin" a page? Highshines 06:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, that was an undesirable result... Daniel.Bryant 02:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There's something must be made clear: Niohe even repeatedly deletes relevant, valuable historical images from non-image-heavy articles, even from articles with only 2 images. For instance, see the history of Yixin, Prince Gong, Empress Xiao Xian Chun, Imperial Noble Consort Hui Xian. None of the images are identical, and they were all painted or photographed in different years. It can do no harm to leave these images on the articles, and even if these images should be removed, Niohe should have previous noticed me the uploader so that I could move the images to WikiCommons. The example Niohe provided Talk:Empress_Dowager_Cixi/Archives_1#This_article_is_image_heavy is just an extreme case where it was indeed image-heavy, and I have agreed and removed several images myself. There is absolutely no user complaints on all the rest of the articles. Also, I'm not editing images against image use policy, because I have resized all my images so that they do not exceed the maximum width it states (550px). Actually, most of them are within 300px wide and many of them are even smaller.

Look at these valuable historical images of extreme high quality and resolution that Niohe has been trying hard to destroy: (They have all belonged to different articles, and thus not space-occupying or redundant.)

Look at how many images and galleries this article has. Most of my articles do not even contain one-third or one-fourth as many as the images that article contains. Highshines 22:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD to keep an eye on[edit]

Could some admins take a peek at the morass surrounding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lee Nysted Experience, please? I've just wandered through this situation in which an artist is apparently bound and determined to get his stuff on Wikipedia through multiple article names including one salted and two currently up on AfD, this one and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nysted Music. There's a couple of advocates, apparently including the artist himself, on the 'Experience' AfD; looking at some additional information, I've found a collection of posts starting at User talk:Gurch/Archive 9#Lee Nysted: Deleted, an indef-blocked alternate account with some (legal?) threats against Gurch and interesting comments at Tawker's talk page, and a copy of the article moved to User talk:Lee Nysted. Whew. Thoughts? Tony Fox (arf!) 03:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. Yeah, the guy's a fraud. He's got that pattern to him - multiple recreations of material (he even got his userpage protected), obviously false claims, blatant sockpuppetry, etc. I'm just waiting for the appeal on Jimbo's talk page any time now. Patstuarttalk|edits 09:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
And it's just gettin' sillier, with yet another SPA appearing today. My brain hurts. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone help![edit]

PLease tell me there is a better way of restoring all revisions but one with an abusive edit summary than clicking all 2200 check boxes except the abusive one and then hitting restore. This is taking me ages, having to restore the article in batches! The article in question is Bacteria. ViridaeTalk 00:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Click first box, hold down shift, click last box... all in between are selected. --CBD 00:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh thank %$#@ for that! I just restored aome 900 revisions by checking all the check boxes! ViridaeTalk 00:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
No problem. :] --CBD 00:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS[edit]

I requested a change to Template:Did you know at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors more than three hours ago. An endorsement/addition to mine and another request have since piled up. Can a sysop or two decide whether the changes are reasonable or not and either carry them out or deny them? Can the other admins who see this message please watchlist the page? Thanks. Picaroon 04:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

European country maps[edit]

There is an ongoing discussion on the introduction of an alternative style of country maps for European countries featuring the European Union as a whole. This has been opposed for various reasons. Nonetheless there seems to be a low level edit war going on, with some editors reporting each other for 3RR in order to stop "the other side"[3] and calls for tag-teaming[4]. The maps keep been reintroduced, sometimes with a complete disregard for comments in the article talk pages and previous edit summary comments. What appropriate measures should be taken to minimise disruption? I am also of the opinion that any systematic change would need to be consensuated in advance. regards, --Asteriontalk 16:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this why images such as Image:Europe location SCO2.png are being tagged for speedy deletion? Seems some pages should definitely be protected until this is sorted out. VegaDark 18:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I guess so. I rollbacked the anon's edits. It seems like disruption to me, as the uploader had identified itself as the creator (OK, maybe it should have said it was based on a previous map but hat is not a valid reason for speedy deletion). Asteriontalk 21:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There were a series of them created as discussion was taking place as to which one was suitable for use in the articles. Image:Europe location SCO3.png and Image:ScotlandLocation.PNG have already gone... and some people wanted at least one of them in the article. Don't know which as it has been deleted. Twas based upon another image in wikipedia that released all rights GNU. No idea that it was licensed in wiki commons. Any chance of getting them back, relicense them so that discussion may continue? --Bob 06:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that the deleted maps were based on those created in Wikipedia Commons by User:David Liuzzo who is using a restrictive licence to keep track of any modification. As a matter of fact, any map not highlighting the EU while based on his original Mercator projection maps have been deleted or tagged for speedy deletion. This is another of the reasons why it is not a good idea to use the new Europe location maps, as the licence is too restrictive and impose a content control by any other name. Asteriontalk 11:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Unless the licence gets changed, the maps in Commons will be certainly up for deletion, anyway (see de:Benutzer_Diskussion:David_Liuzzo#Licensing. Asteriontalk 11:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFI backlog[edit]

Is there any chance WP:RFI could get some admin love? I know there are tons of backlogged pages, but it seems to me that that should be a high priority, because the reports are abour editors who undermine the integrity of the encyclopedia as a whole, and the efforts of productive contributors. WP:AIV is always taken care of nicely. I know RFI is a lot more work, but it’s no less important. --WikidSmaht (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Second. I will try to deal with a few myself.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • A lot of crap in there. Can someone drop me a message on the approved process for archiving of hopeless cases? Yes, I am lazy. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

(I didn't notice this section before...) I started an RFI archive for this month and loaded it up with some stale legitimate cases. Non-legitimate cases, like simple vandalism cases (AIV), complex sockpuppetry cases (RFCU), etc., are supposed to be removed from RFI entirely, not archived. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Gnetwerker[edit]

Is everyone aware that the community ban on Gnetwerker is on WP:RFAR? Sorry if we already know this. Guy (Help!) 12:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use issue[edit]

I noticed that this image Image:Parental_Advisory_label.png which is listed as being usable only to "illustrate the organization, item, or event in question" is being used in the following places, which I'm pretty sure is a violation of fair use on the image:

I'd remove them myself, but I just had a disagreement with one of the users in question and wouldn't want to be seen as harassing them, and it might look odd if I cleaned those all up but one. If there is an image page to report this, I'd appreciate a link.--Crossmr 17:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed them all. In short, I don't think there is a good place to do this, but most administrators, myself included, will do such removals. Ral315 (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Next time feel free to do it yourself, quoting Wikipedia:Fair use criteria#9 or simply WP:FUC#9 (fair use images can only be used in the article namespace). -- ReyBrujo 17:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Ya, the RIAA especially is pretty possessive about it's copyrights. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
As I said, I'd just had a disagreement with one of the editors so I didn't want to appear as harassing them.--Crossmr 18:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
A wise precaution. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
What about those two other articles which are linked to the photo? Surely those "lists" of TV and Radio stations don't need the the "fair use" picture. They could use a reference. Perhaps someone could place this discussion in archive or link to the picture? --CyclePat 00:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions[edit]

The case is now closed and the results have been posted at the link above.

  • It is the responsibility of the administrators and other responsible parties to close extended policy discussions they are involved in, such as this dispute. Closing consists of announcing the decision at the locations of the discussion and briefly explaining the basis for closing it in the way it is being closed; further, to change any policy pages, guidelines or naming conventions to conform with the decision; and finally, to enforce the decision with respect to recalcitrant users who violate the decision, after reminding them and warning them.
  • Given the existence of some uncertainty regarding how to determine if there is consensus in a particular case, no remedy is proposed concerning those who violated the consensus in this matter for past violations of policy.
  • Izzy Dot's editing privileges are suspended for a period of 14 days.

For the Arbitration Committee, Cowman109Talk 04:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

A question: is the 180-days period of grace for the consensus applicable in similar situations (provided previous steps to dissuade users have been tried)? I guess the 6 month grace does not include new debates about the same topic, right? -- ReyBrujo 04:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be something to ask for clarification about at WP:RFAR probably. Cowman109Talk 04:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions#Closing_of_a_consensus_decision_making_procedure establishes the general principle that admins should "close" extended discussions about policy (similar to how admins close deletion discussions), and allows admins to enforce the result with recalcitrant users after suitable warnings. However, the enforcement provision applies to "this matter." In other words, the arbitration committee doesn't want to permanently enshrine the current TV episode naming convention, but doesn't want to open the door to wikilawyering in a month that WP:Consensus can change. (Something which is my experience is usually cited after a debate has closed by the losing side trying to reopen discussion.) My own opinion is that once a consensus is determined, there should be a period of time where everyone has to live with it to see how it works out before reopening a potentially divisive debate all over again, but the exact length of time will depend on the situation. Thatcher131 05:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
As you predicted: [5]Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 10:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to point out I only mentioned it as I did BEFORE [6] the arbitration as well. I am not trying to reopen discussion on this topic, which is why I have kept and will continue to keep my objections private until the matter is raised again. EnsRedShirt 11:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Erm, without having to read through the whole case, which I will get to, what does this mean in a nutshell? Teke (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Nevermind, I understand. If I do a requested move from X to Xx, that is supported, violations of that move up to 180 days are to be enforced and all other such discussion responsibilities must be handled. RM as an example. Teke (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
In this case, the committee recognizes that a consensus to disambiguate TV episode names only when needed exists but was not recognized by all involved. For the next 180 days, editors who move TV episode articles against consensus may be blocked if necessary (presuming admin discretion, warnings first, not biting new editors, etc.) Other moves were not at issue, this isn't a general ruling on page move policy. Thatcher131 05:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, however remember that decisions create precedents. From what I see and understand, it is allowing administrators and others (in example, an informal mediator who had been called upon an issue who may not be administrators) to close discussions looking for consensus, not only for moves but for any discussion (in example, "Which image we should use for this article?", "Should we shrink the plot even more?", "Should we add more external links?", etc). I was asking about the period grace because it would be pretty helpful in any case when the "closure" is applied (who hasn't been inside a discussion that ended, just to begin again on the following week?). While 180 days is explicit for this case, it would be useful for those closing debates to establish a period during which the consensus is accepted, so that the article can move forward (discussions looking for consensus usually impact negatively on the article, as editors focus on dicussing instead of improving it). -- ReyBrujo 05:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you can set a calendar on consensus. The period during which consensus is accepted is the period during which it is accepted, however long that is. (Wonderful circular logic.) If, after a discussion closes, one person wants to reopen it against the majority that is happy with the outcome, that's obviously a no-go, no matter how long it has been. If enough people have changed their minds that a consensus no longer exists, then the discussion needs to be reopened, no matter how long it has been. Consensus lasts however long it lasts, in other words. I read the ruling to give admins broad discretion. Anyone who can't handle it shouldn't be an admin, or at least leave these situations to others.
I would also be cautious in applying the arbitration committee's ruling, which mentions policies and guidelines, to more minor issues such as the ones you suggested. Thatcher131 06:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I understand. The examples I gave are very simple ones, I was thinking in an extremely complex one. There is this concept that japanese articles should be in uppercase if they are written in a determined way, thus you may end up with many articles with titles like COLORS. Trying to move it to Colors (Utada Hikaru) may make others move it back to COLORS. If you move it to the correct location, people would just change the name from "Colors" to "COLORS" inside the article. In any case this is an extremely complex issue. I was thinking that, in seven months, people would be free to move the articles again to the "(Buffy episode)", since the period would have ended, and one would have to search for consensus again. While it may not happen in this case, believe me, Japanese topics are bound to this kind of problems. -- ReyBrujo 06:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
My understanding of the ruling is that people would be free to move articles to the "(Buffy episode)" naming pattern if and only if consensus at WP:TV-NC changed; and the "closing" part of the ruling is, as Thatcher131 indicates, meant to give the current consensus "time to settle". Of course consensus can change, but it can't be in a constant state of change — otherwise, it's not much of a consensus. Does that make sense? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 10:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "Consensus can change" does not mean "ignore consensus if you disagree with it", although certain people have been wikilawyering that way. If you believe that consensus has changed, the burden is on you to demonstrate that, generally through dialogue. Proof by assertion isn't. >Radiant< 14:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

User: Niohe[edit]

Niohe even repeatedly deletes relevant, valuable historical images from non-image-heavy articles, even from articles with only 2 images. For instance, see the history of Yixin, Prince Gong, Empress Xiao Xian Chun, Imperial Noble Consort Hui Xian. None of the images are identical, and they were all painted or photographed in different years. It can do no harm to leave these images on the articles, and even if these images should be removed, Niohe should have previous noticed me the uploader so that I could move the images to WikiCommons. The example Niohe provided Talk:Empress_Dowager_Cixi/Archives_1#This_article_is_image_heavy is just an extreme case where it was indeed image-heavy, and I have agreed and removed several images myself. There is absolutely no user complaints on all the rest of the articles. Also, I'm not editing images against image use policy, because I have resized all my images so that they do not exceed the maximum width it states (550px). Actually, most of them are within 300px wide and many of them are even smaller.

Look at these valuable historical images of extreme high quality and resolution that Niohe has been trying hard to destroy: (They have all belonged to different articles, and thus not space-occupying or redundant.)

Look at how many images and galleries this article has. Most of my articles do not even contain one-third or one-fourth as many as the images that article contains. Highshines 22:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Dispute resolution, second on the left down the hall. Oh, wait - have you tried using the "width=xxpx]] syntax in images? That may help here. Guy (Help!) 23:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • And much more preferable than explicitly sizing a thumbnail is to leave out the size. It will then be displayed at the size that the 'user has selected in their preferences... After all, they know better than you about the size of their display! Ta/wangi 00:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
As I have stated above, I don't see any point in cleaning up the mess after User:Highshines, someone else will have to do that. Just to give you an idea what we are dealing with, please refer to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Highshines.
This is an editor with several sock puppets who has a long history of throwing about accusations of vandalism and who refuses to listen to the kind of advice you just gave him. If you leave him alone for a while his favorite pages will start looking like this or like this (scroll down the page). You can also have a look at his most recent edit history. This is not my problem anymore, I have removed most of his favorite pages from my watch list. Hope you will enjoy the show.--Niohe 02:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I have went through a number of the articles that Highshines contributes to and have fixed up the images to use thumbnails (rather than frames) and to remove explicit sizes where they are not required (and it's very rare that explicit sizes are required). I'll leave a note on the talk page. Thanks/wangi 14:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, if all the articles you're fixing, Niohe, look like that, then please, by all means, rewatchlist them and keep fixing them. Not sure if there are other more subtle cases that Highsiness is talking about; but if not, please please fix them. Patstuarttalk|edits 19:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
More is to come, I promise you. Highshines has already made an undiscussed and a completely uncalled for page move of Fragrant Concubine twice. I don't know if you are familiar with Chinese history, but the person referred to in the article below is known as the "Fragrant Concubine" in English and nothing else. I can't undo this because I'm not an administrator.
--Niohe 20:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, someone with administrative power might want to take a look at this: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Highshines. I have just posted a list of IP socks that Highshines uses.--Niohe 20:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixing a Copy and Paste move[edit]

Could someone please move Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation to The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation. Another user had done this as a C+P move, and I have placed a comment on their talk page, but having reverted both I am unable to conclude the fix so would be grateful if an admin could finish off for me. Thanks. Ian3055 16:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. --pgk 18:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Warning IPs[edit]

Just pondering... I see many warnings go out to IP editors, and then it is expected of them to read those warnings too. But... how?

When not logged in, there's no userpage/'My Talk' link at the top, and there are no notifications of new messages popping up the screen. So, there seems absolutely no point in posting warnings or other messages to an IP talkpage. Am I missing something? --Edokter (Talk) 16:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

When you are an IP and you recieve a message...the link just comes up as the "you have new messages". Same thing as logged in Users. Arjun 16:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
You can also go to Special:Mytalk. Cheers! S.D. ¿п? § 16:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Appealling[edit]

I'm in a bit of a layout dispute at List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters. After being reverted twice, I mananged to coax User:AMK152 onto the talk page where I was addressing his concerns. I thought we were making progress but then User:Kitia came in a reverted it again [9] , refused to go on to the talk page, and threatened to block me [10]. I don't want to be blocked so I would like to appeal this. 650l2520 20:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, we're not a board of appeals, Kitia isn't an admin and can't block you, and you shouldn't have personally attacked them. Apart from that, I can only recommend that you continue to try and settle this content issue on the article talk page. Try and stay polite at all times even if it's hard to. It pays off, believe me. Sandstein 21:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible addition to MediaWiki:Bad image list[edit]

User:Froth posted a message on the Help Desk yesterday commenting that Image:AUTOAMPUTATE1.JPG should be added to the bad image list. I'm not sure whether or not it exactly meets the qualifications for that list, although it appears like it might. I posted a message here regarding the image, however my message has not yet been addressed. If the image is added to the list, it should be added with an exception for the Gangrene article. NickContact/Contribs 02:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Help please, concerning an AfD[edit]

Hello. The Wikipedia Pro Wrestling project has a problem. User:One Night In Hackney nominated a bunch of articles under WP:PW for deletion, and a consensus feels that (and this is a unanimous consensus by the way) that these articles should stay, and some (including myself) feel that the nominator nominated those articles on bad faith. It's been a few days now, and so I ask, can one of you guys please close the AfD on those articles and if you can, do something about the nominator, concerning his possible bad faith nomination. Thank you for your time. --  Jลмєs Mลxx™  Msg me  Contribs  02:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the debate, it appears there will be no consensus for deletion, and a consensus for keep has developed. Not an admin, but I have closed this AFD per the debate WP:SNOW and me closing it is WP:IAR. Navou banter 03:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Username?[edit]

I came across the username Reziladnav (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Vandalizer written backwards) today. Is this ok per WP:USERNAME, or should this user request a username change? AecisBravado 02:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the user's seemingly productive contributions so far, it seems that the user might be using his/her user name to demonstrate that he or she is, in fact, the opposite of a vandalizer. Reading the user page, I see that the user has been frustrated when editing in the past from public computers that had been blocked because of other people's vandalism. So, frankly, I see this choice of a user name as a way to demonstrate that he or she is actually interested in contributing constructively. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Even without jersyko's bit of digging, I wouldn't think this account is a violation of WP:U. —bbatsell ¿? 03:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Not a bad concern, but I don't think that it's a problem (especially given jersyko's psycho-analysis of the editor, which I think is terribly clever). EVula // talk // // 03:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Good analysis on Jerseyko's part. I'm satisfied. DurovaCharge! 14:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

CAT:SPEEDY[edit]

Nice backlog, folks. I'm clocking off. Tyrenius 05:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Help! I'm being crushed by the articles! Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Is the number stuck at 179178 for anyone else? Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use review[edit]

What do we consider to be the status of Category:Fair use review requested? Many images have been sitting there for a long time. What determines when or whether the image is removed from the category? Would it make sense simply to add all of these, en masse, to Wikipedia:Fair use review, and have a centralized discussion? Chick Bowen 07:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't revert archived talk page[edit]

I can't seem to revert my archived talk page: User talk:Tinlinkin/Archive 1 (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Tinlinkin/Archive 1|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which someone redirected to Superman, and I don't see any other edits than mine. Quite funny, but I want my talk archive back. Tinlinkin 07:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the history, YOU redirected it to Superman... ViridaeTalk 07:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
This was when I moved contents of my talk page to the archive. I even had to change a link in a to-do list to point to the archive. And the last time I checked (I admit in December), the archive was still there. Tinlinkin 07:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Well I have deleted the page, you can archive to it as you see fit. (BTW there we no deleted edit previously - possibly a database error) ViridaeTalk 08:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, wonderful. Leave me to do the hard work. (sigh and sarcasm) But why would the database error (or other cause) resolve that way? And I'm a little disturbed that something like this can happen at all, since I didn't touch the page since it was created, and to my knowledge, nobody else either. (I know well enough not to create a talk page that redirects to an article, especially one I don't keep track of.) I will recreate the page. Tinlinkin 08:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You sure that you didn't leave yourself logged in on a computer that someone else had access to? That looks like the kind of thing someone would do as a joke. Syrthiss 14:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

New Sock Puppet Policy Proposed[edit]

To deal with the fact that none of us are answering the reports at the failed Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, I have proposed a new way of dealing with users approaching admins about potential abuse of sock puppets. Please see:

Robdurbar 14:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

1 week block on Ilena[edit]

Today I extended a 24 hour block against this editor into a 1 week block. The situation is sensitive for several reasons and I would like to get some feedback.

  • The blocked editor is the successful defendant in a case that went before the California state supreme court.
  • The blocked editor alleges that Fyslee, another editor in her Wikipedia dispute, is an employee of the other side from her court case.
  • Fyslee denies that this is true. He says he used to volunteer for that person's website and stopped volunteering a while ago.
  • User:Wizardry Dragon, Ilena's informal mentor, has been a heartfelt advocate for her. Unfortunately that advocacy, in my opinion, has become so counterproductive that I left a request at his user talk to change his approach or recuse himself.
  • Ilena's post that prompted the block extension included a link to her personal website in which she identified Fyslee by his real world name. I consider that post to justify the block extension on several grounds - this element is particularly troubling.

There are two bright spots here. First, no one appears to have crossed the line into a blockable legal threat. Second, Fyslee has been cooperative about retracting objectionable statements when requested and generally responding well to feedback. User talk:Ilena and its tangled archive are relevant reading for this.

Have I handled this appropriately? I welcome suggestions. This is a tough nut to crack. DurovaCharge! 22:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

People giving RL identities of editors (whether these are in fact the correct RL identity or not) actually on wikipedia, or linking from wikipedia to that information, can be blocked indefinitely if it is considered that they will repeat the action. I trust the link has been deleted. It has been considered that what is posted on external websites is outside our jurisdiction, as we're not here to police the internet. Tyrenius 01:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Bannable offense from someone who has been here to continue an offsite war and has contributed nothing of value to the project. alteripse 01:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I just want to comment -- if people are going to go around changing ilena's text on talk pages, please do so by changing it to something like (personal attack removed) or (link to attack site removed) and sign, rather than altering someone's signed message to say something different with no indication of a change. Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Good call. There were so many issues floating around at once that I didn't cover that one, other than to encourage strikethroughs. DurovaCharge! 03:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I have had some exchanges with Fyslee over this, although he is clearly insulted and annoyed by some of Ilena's abuse he does seem to be making an honest effort to resolve the conflict, fair play. Guy (Help!) 12:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Indef block for this?[edit]

I guess I should give the question its section. I understand the limits of Wikipedia sysop authority and understand this is bannable. Due to the surrounding fireworks I didn't want to be the sole admin to make that call so I gave a comfortable margin for decision making. My opinion is that a Usenet veteran who carries all the baggage that implies and hasn't adjusted to this site in over half a year has already been handled with kid gloves far too long. DurovaCharge! 01:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Rather unfortunate. Clearly a talented person and could be a valuable contributor. But, it's just not that hard to get along. If not an indef block, how about a quickly escalating one? Looking through her talk page it doesn't seem she makes much effort to get along, nor understands the give and take of a collaborative site. Assuming that continues and she demonstrates no desire to change that by discussion on her talk page, then perhaps go with the indef block before the week is up. Linking to an editor's real name is unacceptable, so the one week block to sort it out is a good call. - Taxman Talk 03:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Taxman. It would be more fair to warn her of a possible indefinite block and give her a chance to rectify the situation. I also agree that the linking to a real name has to stop. Jance 03:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I notified her of the WP:AN thread when it opened. I've updated to state that banning is under discussion and invited her to comment or take conciliatory steps. Yesterday I gave her a link to WP:DR so she's been made aware that a community ban is a possibility. DurovaCharge! 03:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
We don't need to be yet another battleground in her ongoing drama. There are other better places. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we could be a bit kinder than the above comment? At least giver her an opportunity to understand what the problem is and what the consequence will be if she doesn't rectify it.

I do not see that she has been here a year and a half - I looked at her contrib. and it looks like she has been here since July 06. So about 6 months. Maybe suggest she try editing some different articles. And Durova's invitation seems like a good way forward.Jance 05:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"over half a year" was the wording above. She has also edited under many different IPs (especially from Costa Rica), so it's hard to really know for sure how long she's been here, but she is definitely not a newbie, unknowing about how to make a diff, how to provide evidence, or how to make severe enough accusations about others that it got her sued for libel. The only reason she won is because of a totally new application of a new law that protects republishers of even the most defamatory material. No matter how unethical and immoral it is to do so, she and any other republisher is now totally protected. (The original publisher in this case is now awaiting an upcoming trial. Original publishers are not protected.) -- Fyslee 05:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
You are correct. I misread it. Thank you for pointing this out.Jance 21:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I don't support an immediate indefinite block, even though I am currently the primary target of her accusations here. The suggestion of a "quickly escalating one" sounds good, with an increase in increments from the current one to a month, then to six months. After that an indefinite block or permanent block, considering the severity of the offenses, and in the light of the fact that likely no other user has ever gotten away with so much for so long after so many warnings. -- Fyslee 07:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't support an indefinite block at this stage, much less a ban. I encroached on this territory when trying to mediate Breast implants and I don't think either side has behaved very well. Ilena's bad behaviour has been well documented, however, Fyslee, for his part, has editorialised about Ilena, accused her of "hate speech", posted links to a blog that attacks her and generally provoked and aggravated the situation. He didn't even try to pretend the blog was posted for any constructive purpose but acknowledged he was posting it for other editors' "enlightenment and enjoyment". The edits identifying Fyslee should be oversighted but if Ilena indicates that she understands posting other editor's possible real life identities is completely unacceptable and may result in an indefinite block, and if she promises not to do it again and agrees to follow policy, I think she should be allowed to return when the current block expires. I hope all parties become willing to participate in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Barrett v. Rosenthal that Peter has started up and that they understand that we are not looking for a slanted or sanitised article but an accurate and unbiased one. Sarah 11:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sarah, this is a much broader issue than a content dispute on Barrett v. Rosenthal. It includes many other barrett related pages. In its current name this mediation request makes little sense. Especially since the disputes on the Barrett v. Rosenthal article are cleared up. Why not an RfC or does everyone seem to think these are too negative? It seems like a much better forum for such a discussion. David D. (Talk) 19:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey David. I do agree that the problem is far more widespread than just Barrett_v._Rosenthal. In fact, it was actually on the talk page of The National Council Against Health Fraud that I first encountered them, having stumbled across from Breast implants. I had a poke around and also discovered them bickering at Talk:Stephen Barrett. I would favour giving mediation a go first and failing that, I would support an RFC. I just haven't seen many RfCs actually achieve anything. They seem to generate a lot of words, but in the end they just sort of die off without any conclusion and everyone goes back to where they were when it started. Maybe I just haven't been involved in the right ones, I don't know. I understand what you're saying about the mediation request as it stands, but it can be renamed and refactored to include a far broader and more appropriate scope. Sarah 22:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
This user's behaviour is deplorable on occasion, but as Sarah mentions, by the same token so has Fyslee on occasion also. Provocation is a bad thing on Wikipedia, especially when dealing with a touchy sitatuion like this.
I think that both users, but esp. Ilena, should be told in black-and-white that if they do this sort of higher-end naughtiness, for want of a better word, again - ie. linking to attack blogs"Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking", Arbitration Committee in /MONGO, October 2006, speculation about real life identities"Posting another person's personal information ... regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct is harassment", Harassment guideline, January 2007 et al - they will be blocked for an appropriate period of time, even up to indefinite. It is then that discussion about a community ban may be appropriate. But for now, I feel it is premature.
Like Sarah above, I wait with great anticipation of the end results of Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Barrett v. Rosenthal. If all goes well, and these users sort out their differences and problems, then all well and good. If it descends back into chaos and nuisance conduct, then the time may be right. But I'm not comfortable with blocking/banning this user right now, given that this situation is a two-way dispute which may be resolved. Play it by ear, I say. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 11:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, I don't want to make it sound like I'm giving Fyslee a free ride here. The provocation has got to stop. Fyslee, if we don't see significant improvement in your handling of the situation, you're just as likely to be sanctioned. Both of you need to stop, tone down the rhetoric and attacks, and work with the facts. - Taxman Talk 16:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Everyone would say I'm "for" Ilena, but Taxman said exactly what I've been saying all along. Ilena's behaviour is poor, and is regrettable, but so is Fyslee's, and we should not be giving him a free ticket. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 19:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Which is the very reason several people have been suggesting an RfC. Such a forum offers an opportunity to look at both sides as well as a chance to mentor. David D. (Talk) 19:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The previous threads regarding Ilena and Fyslee happened before Ilena linked to a disclosure of Fyslee's real name, which in itself can be bannable. From what I have seen, Fyslee has been reasonably responsive to feedback and appears to be making a genuine effort to abide by site standards. From the evidence that I have noted: providing a diff and subsequently behaving as if she did not understand what diffs are, then altering Fyslee's post header into something inflammatory while she accuses him of inappropriate action, Ilena's lease on WP:AGF is past due. She appears to be gaming our system. DurovaCharge! 23:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding "Posting another person's personal information", could someone remove Ilena's repeated breaches from her talk page, including the two she made today [11] [12]? I don't think she'll take kindly to my doing it. --Ronz 19:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. I will request the diff be oversighted. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 20:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the real story with those links are, but if Fyslee has chosen to put his real name on that site then it's not appropriate for oversight. In addition anything that is available through a quick google search isn't really appropriate to oversight. It doesn't make it appropriate to add such links, but oversight is just not the proper solution. It's for things of such a sensitive nature that there should be no chance any admins should see it. I haven't seen the request come accross oversight-l, but if I do, I'll say the same. - Taxman Talk 03:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I would certainly support a final warning here. I am pretty confident that Fyslee will pull back from the brink, less so that Ilena will. Guy (Help!) 12:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, her response at her user talk is entirely in line with her pre-blocking norm: it boils down to accusing Wikipedia of persecuting her. She's ignored my suggestion to enter WP:ADOPT, which KillerChihuahua endorsed, and provides little documentation for her aggressive accusations. She hasn't supplied any additional evidence for her previous allegations or rescinded anything. It's as if she expects this site to accept proof by assertion or else Wikipedia must be biased against her. Per the discussion here I won't extend to indef at this point, but I hope some of the experienced editors at this thread drop a few words at her user page. The formal mentorship program in particular might be the best thing for her. DurovaCharge! 23:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
We're talking about an intelligent, educated adult woman, editing under her real name, who, as an activist and campaigner, has something of a public profile. You wouldn't have been able to pay me to sign up for an adoption program when I first came to to Wikipedia and I don't blame her one iota for not wanting to sign up to be adopted. In fact, I would have been completely stunned if the response had been anything but what you say you got. Sarah 02:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with that on the adoption bit. But being an intelligent, educated adult makes her behavior all the worse. The recent diff show that behavior to be getting worse, not better, and does not demonstrate any desire to improve. Based on her repeating the same thing we made clear is inappropriate, it seems now she just wants us to ban her so she can be indignant about it. - Taxman Talk 03:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I've recommended WP:ADOPT to intelligent and educated people before. The ones who take up the advice usually benefit from it. Mentorship is about adjusting to site standards and - one would hope - avoiding problems. Most people would be more insulted by a long term block or a siteban than by a chance to improve their experience here at Wikipedia. When those appear to be the likely alternatives I advise mentorship. DurovaCharge! 21:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Her behaviour has gotten both better and worse. When I first encountered Ilena, she was little more than a POV-pushing, linkspamming, edit-warring user. Since she's at least taken my suggestion to take disputes to talk pages, although her conduct there has been less than desirable. She has been responsive to my prompts, for some reason, and it's more or less why I have tried to mentor her, since she's been unresponsive and sometimes hostile to other's attempts at mentorship. Now since Durova appears to be threatening me with a block, I'm left in a bit of a conflict - do I keep on trying to improve a user's conduct to the betterment of the encyclopedia, and risk a block, or to "give in" and allow the encyclopedia be damaged by the actions of a heavy-handed administrator. *sigh* Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 04:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I want to clarify on that: I haven't threatened Peter with a block. I did discuss the possibility of a user conduct RFC very seriously until I realized Peter had a death in the family this week. In light of that I've withdrawn the suggestion - which seemed at the time to be the only practical alternative to a block warning. I've been perfectly candid about this with Peter. He has challenged my administrative judgement repeatedly and I have invited him to raise his questions here (or in RFC - he knows I'm open to recall). So far he has declined to do so. DurovaCharge! 21:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Is challenging "administrative judgement" a violation of a policy? Discussion of administrator actions, and even expressions of disagreement with them, seems to me to be a healthy part of discussions on talk pages. Any given administrator doesn't have a monopoly on refereeing or making decisions about disagreements. kmccoy (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
That question seems to be rhetorical. This will probably get discussed in greater depth at arbitration, but of course editors are welcome to challenge my actions. Several times at Ilena's and Peter's user talk pages I informed them of several meaningful ways they could do so. I even initiated this thread in order to request community review of my decisions. That particular diff may look a bit awkward out of context, and if so I apologize. One of my trademarks when some thread gets particularly contentious is to blow the referee whistle, which often succeeds in getting people to cool down. I don't know of any other editor besides myself who does that habitually so Peter's post did raise my eyebrow. It looked like an attempt to intimidate Fyslee on a very minor point, although as you can see I also asked Fyslee to comply in good faith. Peter took other and stronger actions at that page that did lead me to question his judgement and ask him to recuse himself. DurovaCharge! 02:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • ArbCom may well be a good way of solving this, since there is no real hurry and it requires a detailed reading of the evidence. Guy (Help!) 18:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

We need a new idea...[edit]

OK, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Barrett v. Rosenthal was rejected as Fyslee disagreed to mediation. I have been doing some further reading over the last two-three hours, and although I wasn't in the mood to compile them all, I believe that they both acted as bad as one another (literally, in no way metaphoric). Both have made problematic and/or disruptive edits to similar degrees at similar frequency, and without a formal place to discuss any solution I'm at a loss as to what to do next.

For me, there's only two options: RFC them both, maybe even together (if at all possible), as well as some of the side-users to this who may ormay not have acted inappropriately. The other obvious one is RFAR, and for me this is becoming more and more applicable given the attitude of Fyslee towards optional mediation (which Ilena may or may not share, I don't know - she didn't give a statement of intent at RFM).

I'm at a loss here, but I'll sleep on it and see if I have any other ideas in the morning. With this recent rejection by RFM due to the situation, I honestly can't see this being resolved outside of blocking/banning (whether full or certain actions/pages)/one user leaving the project without the assistance of the upper ends of DR. Of course, I'm sure everyone wants to avoid those three possibilities, and look for the common ground solution, for which I personally feel a RFC or RFAR will be needed to do.

As I said, I'll sleep on it, but I'd appreciate others' thoughts on this, and any other solution ideas. I'm short on them, at the moment :| Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 14:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that nothing short of the intervention of the Arbitration Committee is going to sort this mess out. There's been a lot of misconduct here, and it's not all by Fyslee or Ilena. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 17:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Although I loathe arbitration that may be a fair assessment. It's disappointing to see that Fyslee rejected mediation. Based on the goings-on at Ilena's talk page I suspect an RFC would work out something like Jason Gastrich's did: a fractal business that leads to ArbCom anyway. DurovaCharge! 21:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Yep, that's what I thought. I'll give it another couple of hours, then I'm going to force a resolution by proposing an ArbCom case at WP:RFAR. I really didn't want to do this, but I don't feel there's any other choice. Daniel.Bryant 23:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Why I (Fyslee) didn't wish to participate[edit]

I am rather surprised to see my so-called "rejection" of mediation being discussed in a manner that makes it appear I did something wrong. Maybe I haven't understood what an RfM is all about. I have clearly expressed why I did not want to be a part of the RfM, but it appears to me that no one has read my explanation, or they do not agree with it and are not explaining why. I wish they would read the following and then discuss their reaction to my reasoning.

  • If I have misunderstood something about the purpose of the RfM, I would like to be corrected.
  • If I have done something wrong by not participating, I'd like to know what it was so it doesn't happen again.

My reasons are clearly explained on the RfM page, its talk page, and a couple of other places, as well as the edit summaries. Here are the links:

Here are my statements in chronological order with the diffs (taken out of context, and without the edit summaries):

  • 1. If I am not to be allowed to provide the requested evidence of my attempts to deal with her attacks, then what's going on? Have I misunderstood your RfM? It was made in the specific context of her personal attacks on myself, so why is it described as an RfM regarding Barrett v. Rosenthal? That is not currently an issue under discussion. If I'm not to be allowed to discuss the current problem, then maybe you shouldn't have added my name and obligated me to a lot more wasted time. Please explain and maybe I'll withdraw. -- Fyslee 23:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC) [13]
  • 2. Okay, I misunderstood. In the context it seemed like it would deal with the current, rather than (relatively) ancient B v. R discussion, but you're probably right. Unfortunately this RfM will divert attention from the basic issue underlying all of her presence here, which is to carry her Usenet personal attacks to wikipedia. They got her sued before, and because she was reposting what someone else wrote, she got away with it. Now she thinks she can continue here. Oh well, I'll just withdraw. -- Fyslee 23:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC) [14]
  • 3. Do not agree. This is an unnecessary revival (IOW recreating) of a not currently active issue, thus creating more controversy and wasting more time. It has been a problem, and if it becomes active again, then this might be valid. At present this functions as a diversion from the real and very serious current issue, which is an undeclared RfC on Ilena's conduct towards other editors. She is currently blocked for that behavior. -- Fyslee 10:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC) [15]
  • 4. Peter (Wizardry), I believe you have some serious misunderstandings and assumptions about this issue. To the best of my knowledge, Barrett and Rosenthal have never had any serious discussions over the issue of breast implants. Barrett doesn't even comment on them or write about them, or even criticize Rosenthal's position on the issue. (Barrett may have at some long distant point in the past expressed views common among MDs, but he's never made it an issue in his activities. He concentrates on other subjects.) I personally support much of her position on the subject, but find her activities to be very damaging to her cause.
The attacks made by Bolen and Rosenthal against Barrett (that have led to libel lawsuits) have nothing to do with the breast implant issues, but are regarding Barrett's anti-quackery activism. Bolen admits that he is paid by alternative medicine practitioners (who have run afoul of the law) to defend them. He does this primarily by spamming (yes the anti-spam community is very much against him) a newsletter which he himself describes as "opinion pieces". They are filled with conspiracy theory rhetoric, ad hominem attacks, straw man attacks, and other forms of serious personal attacks, including libelous statements for which he is now awaiting trial. (Under deposition he had to admit that very concrete statements presented as absolute fact were nothing more than "euphemism".)
The whole issue is about alternative medicine practitioners, producers, and scammers, who don't like their methods getting exposed to criticism on Quackwatch. Rosenthal is among those who doesn't like those methods being criticized, and without herself being criticized first, has gone on the warpath against Barrett. Anyone who happens to share Barrett's (which are essentially mainstream POV) viewpoints then gets attacked as "Barrett syncophants" or other epithets that are designed to make it appear that we are all working directly with or for Barrett, and are paid by the pharmaceutical industry. Nothing could be further from the truth. -- Fyslee 10:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC) [16] & [17]
  • 5. Misguided RfM that should be canned
If there is to be any RfM regarding Ilena and the breast implant issue, then Barrett v. Rosenthal is not the right subject for an RfM. A different RfM that might be relevant (if there is any dispute there -- I don't know), could be titled:
  • [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Breast implant]]
This current RfM is totally off-base. It was announced and presented on the page and in the middle of a discussion of Ilena's personal behavior here at Wikipedia, which had nothing to do with breast implants, so when I followed the link and ended here, I was baffled. There was no "connect" between the current controversy, the situation in which it was announced, the place it was announced, or the reality of the situation. It was like a long dead ghost was suddenly being introduced into another discussion. The proper thing would have been to create an RfC:
  • [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Behavior of User:Ilena]]
This RfM is misguided, ill-timed, and off-topic. It should be canned. -- Fyslee 11:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Copied relevant comment from above:
  • This is an unnecessary revival (IOW recreating) of a not currently active issue, thus creating more controversy and wasting more time. It has been a problem, and if it becomes active again, then this might be valid. At present this functions as a diversion from the real and very serious current issue, which is an undeclared RfC on Ilena's conduct towards other editors. She is currently blocked for that behavior. -- Fyslee 11:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC) [18]

This RfM was simply the wrong venue and misapplied, so the error was not mine, but the error of the one who started the RfM in the first place. It should have never been raised, but something does need to be done, likely an RfC. That would indeed be appropriate. The issue is her attitude and behavior anywhere at Wikipedia, not the content of the Barrett v. Rosenthal article. Content matters can always be worked out through collaborative editing. Editors who refuse to collaborate need to have their attitude and behavior subjected to an RfC. That's the issue here. Wikipedia should not be used to further her Usenet wars, especially since I have never participated in them.

Again, please explain any errors in my reasoning. I am trying to learn here and am more than willing to correct errors. -- Fyslee 01:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Now I find this message posted to my talk page while I was composing the above:
  • Since you have refused mediation, I have opened a formal Request for Arbitration regarding the matter. You may wish to make a statement. You may do so on the page here. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 01:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[19]
Is this unnecessary and unprovoked escalation really necessary? I suggest that it be withdrawn and that the proposer (the same one who improperly proposed the RfM) disengage as he is not an impartial party to this matter, but has all too often favorized and defended Ilena in her actions, contrary to the first stated personal "philosophy" on his own user page: "I avoid taking sides in disputes." He has even prevented me from providing evidence in the form of diffs, and deleted them. -- Fyslee 01:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Every user has a right to request Arbitration on any issue. Mostly, it is people engaged in the dispute who file them. It does not matter who initially requests it, as everyone's behaviour who is listed as a party is scrutinised. Daniel.Bryant 03:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The request for arbitration was filed because there was at least one user (and apparently several) who believed there was no other way of resolving the disputes you are involved with. I haven't studied the issues thoroughly, but let me ask you this: Short of arbitration, what steps do you think can be taken to end this series of disputes so everyone can get back to peaceful editing? Newyorkbrad 03:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
If I may...I am not a party listed in the Arbitration and have not been involved in the dispute, although I have edited this article. What I do not understand is why Wizadry included Breast Implants in the mediation, when Ilena only made one edit there, Fyslee had not edited at all there nor had Ronz. Please help me understand the logic in this? How did Wizadry pick his articles to mediate/arbitrate?Jance 03:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The mediation was rejected and content disputes are not within the remit of the Arbitration Committee, so I don't see much use in discussing the matter further at length. Suffice it to say that is one place Ilena wanted to have her links added. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 03:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I did not realize that. Thank you for explaining it.Jance 16:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Newyorkbrad, I was under the impression that the normal "chain of steps" would include an RfC, before the ill-fated RfM. I have attempted to deal with this situation by providing Ilena with an opportunity to document her serious allegations against me. She has not only refused my requests to provide documentation, she has also refused everyone else's requests to do so (and many have done so), and considers repetitions of the same allegations as the same as documentation. They are not. They are continued attacks. I dispute her allegations. That does not mean I deny that they may be based on some fact in reality. I consider them to be her gross misrepresentations designed to damage my reputation. She does this on her websites and here at Wikipedia, and such behavior is not allowed here. The editor who voluntarily (and commendably!) chose to mentor her unfortunately ended up favorizing her and thus "aided and abetted" her in her course of action, and even immediately deleted (before examining her allegation) my provision of documentation for one of her clear untruths. I then reworded it and added it back, where it remains. It was a classic example of her typical method of misrepresenting matters. After he did that, I lost faith in his neutrality and in any hope of my being able to defend myself properly. This left her allegations standing without any real defense from my side. They are still there, and she knows perfectly well that having them at Wikipedia will cause search engines to help her in her agenda against me. Undocumented charges should not be allowed to be made or left standing. Please read them, and do not believe them before examining my side of the story, which I will gladly provide once she has provided evidence. Right now the allegations are so jumbled a mess that it is nearly impossible to be sure where to start. If she will follow the steps outlined on my talk page, then I will have a starting point. -- Fyslee 10:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"Favoritizing"? I'm sorry, but after reading all this I'm going to stick you in the exact same catagory as Ilena. And when you start tossing out words like favoritizing, I tend to see someone not assuming good faith. Should I blindly accuse Durova of "favoritizing" you? What a crock. RfAr can be brought by anyone who feels it's neccessary. If the ArbCom thinks differently, they won't accept it. If they accept it, and if you "really" did all you good to fix this dispute, then you have nothing to worry about. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 10:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Elara, I don't think it helps this situation to call something a crock. From the post Fyslee left at my page it seems that he loathes the hassle of arbitration. Having been through a few cases myself I share the sentiment. DurovaCharge! 00:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
It's no excuse for temper-tantrums or name calling. Wikipedia has a Code of Conduct. Occasional lapses are forgivable, but continued incivility is a breach of policy, and more importantly, it is harmful to the Wiki. Tangentially, "I don't like it" isn't really held as a strong argument on Wikipedia at all, last time I checked WP:IDONTLIKEIT anyways. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 18:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Bosnian War[edit]

Basically, User:HarisM is utterly opposed to any reference to Jihadists being involved in the Bosnian War. This would be OK, however - he has knowingly contravened numerous Wikipedia policies. WP:V (he didn't present any sources to show there weren't Jihadists and dismissed reputable ones such as the BBC and The Guardian (i.e. not Serbian propaganda websites), see list of sources), WP:NOR (he edited the article based on your his own theories in the the face of sources which contradicted his views - the BBC source was dismissed as "propaganda"), WP:POINT (inserting "Crusaders" to refer to Russians/Greeks to make the point that there were no Jihadists, again with no sources diff diff2) and WP:AGF & WP:NPA (calling me "ignorant" and an Islamophobe). You can see the whole discussion here. All these policy violations were pointed out to him. His response? I'm a "funny guy." Basically it's like talking to a brick wall - sources, reasoned arguments etc all mean nothing to him, because He Knows Better and That's That. // Hadžija 12:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hadžija, as long as your sources are notable and verifiable, I would argue that it is legit for them to stay in the article. Obviously making sure that these comments are properly attributed (i.e. "According to the BBC, at the time..." Regards, --Asteriontalk 15:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I have added a footnote to the article. After a quick look in Lexis-Nexis I found almost 2000 articles regarding this, including a report from the Bosnian state prosecution. So I guess that if the term is good enough for the current Bosnian judiciary, it should be OK for the article. If in doubt, I suggest you place a request for comments--Asteriontalk 21:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Shawn Hornbeck[edit]

We requested page protection to end the reverts during our dispute resolution and mediation. Why are we reverting the protected version? This seems inappropiate. I believe the version initially found just before page protection should stay untill we can discuss this on the talk page. Reverts are disruptive. Navou banter 20:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Because it is a WP:BLP issue, it is best to tread cautiously at least until the issue is settled. Cowman109Talk 20:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Which is what I did. Cbrown1023 20:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
It just suprised me to see the change reverted, then reverted back on the protected page. I believe one version or the other should stay untill this is settled. Navou banter 21:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Um, guys, how is putting his birthday as July 17 "potentially libelous"? Worse, after another admin reverted Cbrown, he reverted back again. Navou is right, the change on this page is totally inappropriate, an Cbrown should undo himself. Airing on the side of caution does not mean removing a birthdate as libelous, and seems to go against the spirit of WP:WV, using one's admin priveledges to circumvent this problem. Bad move bad move, IMHO. Patstuarttalk|edits 21:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I quote WP:BLP:

Wikipedia includes exact birthdates for some famous people, but including this information for most living people should be handled with caution. While many well-known living persons' exact birthdays are widely known and available to the public, the same is not always true for marginally notable people or non-public figures. With identity theft on the rise, it has become increasingly common for people to consider their exact date of birth to be private information. When in doubt about the notability of the person in question, or if the subject of a biography complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth rather than the exact date.

I have absolutely no involvement in this, and yes, maybe Cbrown1023 was wrong to essentially wheel war, but this is what Wikipedia official policy says, and in this case, with how BLP can have potential real-world issues, it's better to err on the side of caution. However, I'm not Cbrown, so I won't speculate about his full reasoning; I just thought that paragraph would be interesting and relevant. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 21:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Per BLP, Cbrown's edits were absolutely the right move. Ral315 (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I was unaware of that provision of BLP, which greatly removes a lot of the offense. Still, I think the wheel warring was inappropriate. Patstuarttalk|edits 23:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Check out BLP in more detail. It overrides normal restraints. Tyrenius 00:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The only page protections that should not be edited, or reverted, are those placed under the provisions of WP:OFFICE. Any other protection is malleable under administrators' discretion, though of course they should show a good deal of sense and care when editing or reverting protected pages. Furthermore, edit warring and wheel warring are both counterproductive and harm the integrity of the Wiki, and should be avoided. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 18:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

PD-Soviet is deprecated[edit]

{{PD-Soviet}} is only transcluded into one file (which was recently uploaded), and uploads are no longer accepted onto it. Commons has long since redirected the version there to the copyvio template; I think we should do something similar with the en version, a TfD is not appropriate in my opinion as we may restore this template, and the discussion on its talk page may be useful. Any thoughts?--Nilfanion (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirected; that should do it ... Cyde Weys 01:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone fix the double redirect [20]? Hbdragon88 04:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't protected, you could've fixed it in less time than it took you to post here asking someone else to do it ... Cyde Weys 05:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I've also fixed {{sovietpd}}, which was another old redirect. Does anybody know if there are any others hiding out there? Gavia immer (u|t) 18:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone have some free time?[edit]

Because I've found something you can ocupy it with. I was browsing through the toolserver, when I found this, which lists talk pages with no article (aka G8). It was compiled by Rob Church, and I have no idea how long ago, but some of the pages are still around, and can be safely speedy deleted. Some of them are alos incorrectly archived talk pages, or redirects to those talk pages (which can mostly be deleted as R3's. There's no conceivable good reason for a talk page archive redirect). So, if you've got nothing better to do, this is a good place to come. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete all pages. -- Punk Boi 8 04:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Er, that's the point.—Ryūlóng () 04:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I feel like someone else ran this more recently, but I can't remember where. It's more useful on-wiki, so that one can see which links are red and which blue. If you have some free time, Royalguard11, you could copy it over. . . Chick Bowen 04:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Be careful to not delete any pages with information as on how to create a new article, one of the exceptions to CSD G8. Also, some pages may be tagged with {{Needed-Class}}, so take care of not nuking those too. Titoxd(?!?) 04:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Since when is that an exception, especially as WP:CSD doesn't actually say so? >Radiant< 14:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, speaking of which, I've got a quick question about talk pages. I've been tagging some image talk pages (deleted through replaceable fair use), but is this right? FUC #1 discussion don't take place elsewhere. Hbdragon88 04:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No. Don't delete talk pages with non-redundant discussion about the deletion of the page on it. We want to keep that visible. --RobthTalk 06:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh great. Can an admin view my deleted edits to the Image: space? I tagged at least three image talk pages. One was an image about an obese child, and two others were baout replaceable fair use images. Hbdragon88 06:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I put up a crudely Wikified copy of the first part of the list (A-J) here: (User:Calton/Talk Pages Without Articles), if anyone wants to take a stab at this. --Calton | Talk 05:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, a quick skim shows that almost all the orphaned talk pages have already been deleted, and from the dates on the few that remain, this list was probably compiled in May of 2006. Just so you know. --Calton | Talk 07:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
UPDATE: Spoke too soon. Looks like the "K"s onward are chockful of orphaned talk pages. I've updated my list, and took a stab at tagging the "K"s. --Calton | Talk 01:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to delete as many as I can. I've done up to "M". -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ownership Issues, something not quite right.....[edit]

I came across User:Wizardry Dragon in the thread above, and thought something was a little odd.... He's self-listed as the 'head' of the WP:WNP - which seems to have some odd instructions on it (ie. don't edit this bit, wait until the co-ordinator or chairperson has done something or other...) - he also self-identifies as holding the responsibility of a Clerk office for CheckUser, and I found it a little odd that he also seems to have the same text about page vandalism as Jimbo.

Nothing massively untoward, but it seems to me that he's projecting false authority in about the nicest way i've ever seen it done...... perhaps this isn't at all un-wiki-ish and its all in my head, what do you think? Purples 07:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That bit about being the head of the WNP racked up a few oppose votes in his recent RFA. Hbdragon88 07:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I wish people would actually read the text of things before they complained about it. Really, it would make for a lot less hurt feelings and cooler heads. The text is taken from Jimbo's page (it's actualy templated somewheres, but I took the template code and changed it to fit my userpage). Jimbo's perfectly okay with this. Perhaps some attribution is in order though - I have no problem with that whatsoever.

Secondly, as the "head" (the title that was given was "chairperson", and it's actually mostly in jest per some early discussion on the matter when the project was still in the proposal stage) I have asserted numerous times on the talk page of the WNP that the WNP has no special weight in the matter, nor do I, myself. I'm just another guy. Really, really. My own role is mostly trying to keep the whole thing together and coordinated, I leave the "in the trenches" editing to subject experts and only reply to WNP requests for areas in my own area of expertise.

Just to be completely clear: The Wikipedia Neutrality Project has no special weight or authority. Consensus rules wikipedia, not a small group with similar interests - maintaining NPOV. Anyone who asserts the WNP has special authority is wrong.

It is my hope that addresses everything. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 07:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

In either case, why is this something for WP:AN? Titoxd(?!?) 07:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
They're legitimate concerns, although I agree this isn't the best venue. If it was refactored onto my talk page I'd be happy to continue the discussion there, so long as Purples is informed of the move. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 08:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
That's the first thing that I thought. If I had been in your place, looking at the Noticeboard and seeing a discussion about me springing up from nowhere, I would be quite... shocked. Titoxd(?!?) 08:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
(Editing with Lynx sucks sometimes. Can someone move the further comments above Titoxd's comments so this discussion makes more sense? Thanks.) I was, very much so. But keeping a cool head works wonders sometimes :) Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 08:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Some further points I missed when first reading the comment:
The bits about don't edit "x" section are hold outs from a partially failed restructuring of the project. I should probably remove them. I will make that a priorty. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
The identification as a clerk is for identification purposes only, and for the same reason one identifies as an administrator, sysop, checkuser, steward, et cetera. I have knowledge of the processes of Requests for Checkuser being a RFCU clerk, so I identify as such so that people know that I am someone they can approach with concerns regarding RFCU cases.
As a RFCU clerk, I have absolutely no say in RFCU matters. That is the purview of the presiding checkuser. My only function is to organise requests, format them as appropriate, fulfill occasional requests for additional informations given by the checkusers, and archive cases when they are completed. It is a conflict of interest to voice opinions on listed or potential cases, and I have no authority to encourage certain descisions, challenge them, or overturn them. In short my authority on RFCU is nil. I just have knoweldge of that process that users may find useful, and therefore welcome approaches from users for help listing their cases.
Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 07:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I've edited the project page to remove its "chairperson". Wikiprojects shouldn't have hierarchies. >Radiant< 14:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • What about (probably) the most successful one? I believe they are having elections right now. I think a properly handled hierarchy can work, but it has to be a very flat, decentralised one. I guess most times things can be handled by people volunteering for stuff and working together. Sometimes, though, leadership can keep things moving forwards, but I agree that formalising such things is often bad. There are also problems when too many people volunteer for a particular position. Usually the conclusion is that elections are needed to decide who gets the position, but actually, the conclusion should usually be that the position is popular because too much power has been centred in one position. Instead of holding elections, the position should be split up among the volunteers following discussion. Carcharoth 16:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington[edit]

The kind of Indian ruler that makes one stop wondering how this great country could have been dominated by foreigners for so long. Inept he is, to say the least. Accusing me of having continued warring on List of tall men after having been reported for 3RR, which is not true (is this warring ?) makes a sick joke of this man. User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington really is the kind of admin Wikipedia needs to ruin its credibility. RCS 10:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If you kept switching back and forth between the two, then yes, that is edit warring. Also, it makes yourself look worse if you focus that much on his ethnicity. MESSEDROCKER 11:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Generally, Nick is a good user. Everyone makes slip ups. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 12:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
What slip-ups? Check the history of the page. He has been revert-warring since a few days. Block came in warranted. Gaming the system, and don't you see the WP:POINT? User has been trolling and has left remarks in racial undertones on my talk page, and his own. >:)Nearly Headless Nick 12:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't making a statement or judgment on this particular case. I was saying that generally, everyone makes mistakes and users need to be more tolerant of others. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 13:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I've warned RCS about the lack of civility and specifically that it is unhelpful to make racist statements about other editors. --Guinnog 13:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually that particular list has been the focal point of a long-running user dispute. When I first encountered it I offered some constructive advice, yet I doubted the inclusion standards could ever be defined well enough to meet encyclopedic standards. I've voiced that at the deletion discussion. DurovaCharge! 14:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • As Durova notes above, I have taken the list of tall men to AfD, for reasons stated in the nomination. Guy (Help!) 15:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Any more racist statements from RCS will result in a block from myself. The comments referred to by Guinnog and NHN verge on reprehensible -- Samir धर्म 05:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiPrograms that are still not useful[edit]

Based upon last week's thread (above), Wikipedia:Editor review is working on a reform and a change of focus, to help people with editor skills rather than gaming the system at RFA. However, Wikipedia:Admin coaching is not. For one part it is redundant with ER, for another it's still about telling people what RFA "wants to hear". I believe it would be best if AC was deprecated (no, I do not mean "deleted") so that novice users desiring guidance have one central productive place to look at. >Radiant< 12:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I remain of the view that admin coaching is a fundamentally bad idea, in a way that admin mentorship is not. I mean, what sane person would want this shit? Guy (Help!) 12:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Good point, Radiant. And Guy, that reasoning would mean all of us are nuts. Then again, maybe we are... ;) DurovaCharge! 14:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 100% of a sample of Wikipedia admins in my house was found to be barking mad. Guy (Help!) 15:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • HAY! I only came in for a pint! Syrthiss 16:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

User warnings harmonisation[edit]

Just a note to say that WP:UW is ready to "go live" with their new warning system. Comments are appreciated (here or there). Thanks, Martinp23 19:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, great, I'm going to have to retrain my fingers when warning vandals... A quick glance-through of the warnings looks pretty good to me - might be easier to find the ones I'm looking for in this package. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Everything looks great (except for a minor issue I made note of on the talk page). The only thing I dislike is the extra 3 characters at the beginning of each warning. "uw-" as a prefix for all the templates? Is there anyway to eliminate that? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
The idea was to prevent conflicting with the old system right away, and to harmonize things, a bit like the db templates do. And it helps not conflicting with, for example, the {{pov}} template. -- lucasbfr talk 19:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
grumble grumble -- Grumpy Old Man (T/C/WRE) 19:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks great, I will switch over when it goes live. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

And they're now live. JS I've moded the template with respect to your point on the blocks. Regards Khukri (talk . contribs) 20:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with the {{uw-mos3}}, {{uw-notcensored3}}, and {{uw-unsourced3}} tags in that they all indicate that a block is imminent and are intended to be followed up with a {{uw-vandalism4}} template... but none of those things are vandalism. Giving people who just disagree about style an excuse to 'tag' each other with threats of blocks for 'vandalism' is a bad idea... ditto turning every content dispute into a war of 'uncensored' and 'unsourced' tags. All three of these things are supposed to be directed to dispute resolution... not falsely labeled as vandalism. --CBD 11:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. There's far too much throwing of templates on user talk pages going on at Wikipedia. And people are also too hasty to use the word "vandalism". Going against consensus is not vandalism. It's edit warring, and it's a Bad Thing, but it's not vandalism. Removing or adding POV tags is not vandalism, though there are times when it could be justifiable to roll them back or to revert without counting towards 3RR. (For example, if a user or an IP went to every article about every religion, and added {{POV}} on the grounds that all religions are POV and that articles about them can't be neutral, I wouldn't hesitate to use rollback.) But generally, content-dispute pettty squabbles should not involve hurling the word "vandalism" around. By the way, you say "none of these things are vandalism." I'd say they're "not necessarily vandalism". Under certain circumstances, they might be. For example, the "not censored" one. If you edit war at Feces to remove an image, against consensus, because you feel it shouldn't be there, then regardless of what others say, it's not vandalism, though you can still be justifiably blocked for edit warring. But if some anon or newly-registered user blanks the whole article on Toilet, with an edit summary saying that it's indecent to mention such things, I think that troll can certainly be treated as a vandal. But a standard vandalism warning template would be appropriate. There's no reason for the {{uw-vandalism4}} one. If it's a new user, put a {{3RR}} on his talk page. If he's not reverting fast enough to warrant a 3RR block, then the established Wikipedians should have time to write a short personal message, referring him (with a link) to the appropriate section of the page on the policy that he's inadvertently breaking. I get increasingly concerned at the proliferation of templates used as black marks to be publicly displayed on the page of someone who has been naughty, rather than to make someone aware of a policy in order to help him. Musical Linguist 11:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Well said!--Docg 12:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Slavery[edit]

Can someone take a look at the article history here? Some editor (and an anon who's probably the same person) keeps inserting a picture of Jabba the Hutt and Princess Leia in chains as relevant to the history of slavery. Fan-1967 22:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

To judge the sincerity of the edits, the same editor(s), SolRosenBerg (talk · contribs) and 13.8.125.11 (talk · contribs), have also been repeatedly re-inserting William Hung's picture into Asian (people). -- Fan-1967 22:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Lol, Jabba, that is funny. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Reboty (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)[edit]

Could an admin please look at this user's edits (such as this one). I think they are probably vandalism, but I haven't gone over them very thoroughly.--Azer Red Si? 23:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

They look fine to me; he's replacing red links to non-existent ranks with live links to existent ones. The trouble is he never uses edit summaries — but that seems almost de rigeur these days... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A pair of protected edit requests[edit]

There's now a pair of {{editprotected}} requests, at MediaWiki talk:Common.css and MediaWiki talk:Edittools, respectively. The first of the two has been sitting in place for some time. Unfortunately, I am not entirely confident in editing these two MediaWiki pages that are quite central, at least not on my own -- anybody care to comment or have some input? Luna Santin 03:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Dck7777[edit]

I've spent quite a bit of time cleaning up after this spammer, to say the least. He has quite a pretty list of sockpuppets (all trace back to New York city) with something like over 200 edits between them, all of which took forever to clean up. The problem is, the spamming, which has gone for for over 3 months, continues to this day. The user has been warned and blocked endlessly, and continues to ignore the warnings. It involves the site *.ibtimes.com. I would appreciate it if anyone could help remove any last mentions of it from the legit articles (e.g., the 9 mentions we had out of 215 that weren't spam): [21] so we can see the site blacklisted (I'm convinced that any benefit from using it is outweighed by the problem of spam from these guys). Either that, or someone could write a letter to the ISP or the company. I would do it, but I'm short on time and I'm not sure when I'll be back on here. Thx. Patstuarttalk|edits 10:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Block review Breathe Reprise[edit]

WikiPrograms that are not useful[edit]

Well, it appears to be the month for reforming or deprecating projects that have gotten out of hand (doesn't WP:CREEP call for a regular pruning of process?) I invite people to take a look at Wikipedia:Editor review and Wikipedia:Admin coaching. Both purport to be pages that help new users towards overall constructive behavior, and eventually adminship. However, both have gotten out of hand. They now steer people towards socially acceptable behavior as judged by the alleged RFA crowd. Thus, they reenforce editcountitis, as well as all sorts of arbitrary criteria like "an admin candidate must put X amount of work in AFD/RC patrol/AIV/whatever". This is certainly not good for the encyclopedia. Comments please on how to deal with this. >Radiant< 12:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to suggest we MFD them (see my comments on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Editor_review_.28and_admin_school.29.2C_and_RFA and Wikipedia_talk:Editor_review, but Editor review used to be a useful aid to newer editors before being subverted (perverted?) into its current use as a tool to shape user's edit counts so they perfectly fit the RFA hole, so I am reluctant to see it just cast asunder. Lose the school, redefine the aims of Editor Review. Proto:: 12:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Personally (having spent a good time doing editor reviews), I agree with Proto that ER used to be useful. While in the beginning most asked for counsel about how they handled a particular situation, what they could do to complement their current self, and why determined areas were useful. Nowadays, most ask advice about how to become admins. I am not sure, but "I think" it is because now the RFA page advertises it. While many would have posted their [unlikely successful] RFA, now they read the line that says If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, you may wish to try an editor review first. and ask the same in the editor review. Maybe, and it is a big maybe, if we change that line to If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, you may wish to try to get advice at Admin coaching then ER would go back to what it used to be. -- ReyBrujo 12:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Admin school has serious issues, and I'm not sure they can be "fixed" - which would render ReyBrujo's well reasoned suggestion ineffective. An Mfd may be the solution; whether an Esperanza solution is adopted or not, the attention and input would be beneficial. I concur with Proto that Editor review has the potential to be a useful tool, but I'd like to hear ideas on how to redefine it effectively. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
We can't say "Don't ask about becoming an administrator", can we? We can't put a minimum threshold (5,000 edits or over), can we? We can't remove editor reviews that ask whether the subject would pass a RFA at this time, can we? Well, what we can is to turn the "unfriendly" switch to the maximum, don't praise users but criticize them, so hard that they will think twice before asking for another editor review or RFA. "I want to be an administrator, what do you think?" "With only 7 Wikipedia namespace edits? Sure, post your application on WP:BJAODN." But then, we would be biting them. No, as of right now, I don't have any idea about how to improve it. -- ReyBrujo 12:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

As a relative newcomer, I've just signed up for editor review because I'd like to be a better editor. I've made a specific request for advice in my submission. If people use it to fit RfA better, why not? Then again, if they use it to improve themselves, why not? What's the big deal. No need to delete it. The biggest problem I see with it is lack of participation from the experienced users, actually reviewing us. It takes a certain amount of guts to put oneself in the stocks... it's a bit disconcerting when few people can be bothered to throw tomatoes. --Dweller 13:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  • The point is that the intent of the page is good (indeed, encouraging people to be better editors is obviously a good thing) but what the page actually does is not good (in that it actually encourages people to mold themselves to arbitrary standards that are allegedly but not really required to pass RFA). In that, it is gaming the system: it's going by the letter of the (perceived) rules rather than the spirit. >Radiant< 13:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
My own opinion of admin school is that it's basically telling people what to say at RFA. Nothing wrong with that if the person in question really should be an admin, but I think it's too easy to abuse to push unsuitable people through RFA and to trick, so to speak, the RFA voters. I would certainly vote delete at MFD. Editor review I think is O.K, if only as a way of preventing RFAs that are never going to pass in a million years. And it is useful, on occasion. Moreschi Deletion! 13:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Per Moreschi, I'd keep ER if only to avoid giving Bureaucrats even more work. yandman 13:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I have seen a fair few editor reviews that go like "I'm about to run at RFA tomorrow!!! Any last-minute tips????" - followed by "You're a complete newbie. You haven't got a hope in hell at RFA, and you need to seriously rethink your attitude towards adminship". That sort of thing is useful, I think, to avoid clueless newbie RFAs. But admin coaching sucks. Shall I wheel out my fellow deletionist cabalists to nom the admin coaching MFD, or does someone else want to have a turn? Moreschi Deletion! 13:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Per baby/bathwater issues, I've not experienced admin coaching, but the arguments against editor review don't, erm, hold water. --Dweller 14:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

One possibility is that the concept of improving as an editor (and possibly being more suited to being an admin) is becoming too focused on editor review and the concept of an admin school. There are many different ways of improving as a Wikipedia editor. Recently I tried to list some of the more interactive methods at Wikipedia:Coaching. Maybe that would be a good link to have in the "If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, you may wish to try ... first." bit? i.e "If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, you may wish to try one of the options at Wikipedia:Coaching first." Though I've always been more in favour of the concept of learning by yourself, and improving by experience. Indeed, I was recently complimented on this quote:

"Enculturation really just needs people to talk more and demonstrate how they do things (rather than just doing them). Takes certain types of people to be role models. Actually following someone's edits, or meeting in person and watching how they do things, can be very instructive." (Carcharoth)

My point is that there are many ways to learn. If we work to diversify the options, that might help any one area degrading and becoming unacceptable.

Right, now I'm off to post this in the other two threads on this matter. Please focus this thread on specific things, um to do with the Administrators noticeboard? Why the hell is this thread on this noticeboard anyway? <sigh> Gathering admin views on what to do with admin coaching and editor review? Fair enough, but this thread really needs to be focused and directed towards the places where the discussion should really be happening (and that is also an apology for lengthening the thread). Probably best to close this thread and direct discussion to here and here. And if there is an umbrella MfD nomination, can all the pages be listed this time, and the post-closing actions be planned a little bit beforehand? Carcharoth 14:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If it were up to me, it would say, "If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, don't." -- Merope 15:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
My complaint about ER is that it seems to be a den of back scratching. Despite not being a very active project, I am constantly seeing talkpage notes like, 'Man, thanks for the props on my ER; I'll be sure to reciprocate'. It doesn't inspire confidence in the process. Anchoress 00:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Section break 1: crunch the numbers[edit]

Yes, I worry about the quality of some WP:RFA nominations that succeed. Part of what it takes to be an administrator just can't be taught: it's about temperament and judgement. I waited until I had 9000 edits, three featured pages, and shared authorship of a guideline before I thought I was ready. Yet there just aren't enough people to keep this site running if we set the bar that high. WP:ER and admin school have their flaws. Yet I've been telling myself lately I ought to spend more time over there because we have to make a priority of ensuring that the growth of the administrative pool keeps pace with the growth of the project. If this is accurate we've got over 3 million registered accounts Wikipedia.en and 1090 administrators total (including inactive ones).[22] There are systemic issues and long term trends at work here and we're kidding ourselves if we don't address them. DurovaCharge! 15:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia.en has a sysop to user ratio of 1:2774, which is the third lowest ratio among all Wikipedia languages.[23]
  • That ratio has fallen steadily at this project for two years.