Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Current issues

Waterboarding

Article probation

In the past only ArbCom has been able to place an article on probation. With Waterboarding we have a swarm of tendentious editors and apparent sock puppets trying to bring a political dispute onto Wikipedia. See Talk:Waterboarding, Talk:Waterboarding/Definition and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/GooseCreek, and Akhilleus' comment immediately above. As the US presidential election approaches, the problem will only get worse. I believe article probation would be a big help. Given that the community has the power to indefinitely ban a user, it seems like we should also have the power to establish lesser remedies, such as topic bans or article probation, when no administrator objects. Two questions:

1. Does the community have the power to establish article probation?
2. Would anybody object to placing Waterboarding on article probation?

Absent a consensus to do something here, I suspect that this matter will go to arbitration eventually. Jehochman ^Talk 15:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Having looked up what article probation can entail, I absolutely support enforced probation on the article, and all related pages indefinitely. This is just going to escalate further and further into the 2008 elections and beyond. Can this be also used to encompass some sort of heightened watch for sockpuppetry there? There is no reasonable evidence to believe these people are different. Most of the RFCU confirmed socks for the same IP all have history of working on the Free Republic article. That includes the IP of one of the worst trolls this site has apparently known, this Palatine character, who had that as his major problem. That IP, plus a host of others with the same language, tone and curious identical ```support``` language all arrive at once on the waterboarding talk page, at the same time, and all with the exact same stance? If not entirely sockpuppetry it's flagrant meatpuppetry. It's a tremendous coincidence that all these unique human beings, all using the same ISP, all with matching political viewpoints, all with matching oddball habits of forming their ```support``` !votes, and all with basically the same language all arrived independent of each other, as soon as the "consensus fight" began to turn, and there were basically two people on the non-torture side of the debate? I've got a swell bridge for you too, that's only moderately used. Lawrence Cohen 19:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support, obviously. It's quite a mess over there. ➪HiDrNick! 19:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. As an admin who has been keeping an eye on the article, I feel something like this is needed to facilitate constructive discussion. But less involved people may want to express an opinion on question 1 above: "Does the community have the power to establish article probation?" henrik•talk 20:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Not Yet. Not an admin so maybe I don't count here, but I just do not see the problem as big a deal as needing some sort of exceptional remedy toward users. There is ALOT going on there, but much if it is regular users, not socks. If a regular user is doing badly, I think that there are standard remedies for that. And if it involves new types of authorities, I certainly do not agree that admins should take new powers to themselves without a general community consensus for that. --Blue Tie (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Your opinion is welcome, and if your reasoning is convincing you may sway the discussion, though it does not serve as a veto. Jehochman ^Talk 20:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Not Yet Having survived two RFCUs in a week with consecutive findings of  Unrelated, I will observe that Lawrence Cohen is attempting to WP:OWN the article, and enlist the help of admins with false (or, at the very least) exaggerated accusations. He brought all of his friends over from the Blackwater Worldwide article, and they are attempting to completely disregard a substantial minority of expert opinion stating that waterboarding is not torture in all cases, including Andrew C. McCarthy, Rudolph Giuliani and Congressman Ted Poe. I believe that patient work on the article's Talk page may produce a consensus, but admins need to be advised that Lawrence does not come before you with clean hands. All of his friends from Blackwater Worldwide somehow found their way to Waterboarding. And I'll add that Inertia Tensor is a relatively new SPA who seems to agree with them about everything. Make of that what you will. Neutral Good (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral Good is a single purpose account that has repeatedly tried to spin the Waterboarding article to introduce doubts that waterboarding may not be torture. See Talk:Waterboarding for many examples in the current discussion. Neutral good has been editing tendentiously, has been editing disruptively [9][10] [11] and is attempting to violate WP:NPOV by making disingenuous assertions of consensus.[12] The account has also nominated a proven sock puppeteer for adminship.[13] (deleted contributions, only admins can view) I suggest that Neutral Good is neither. Jehochman ^Talk 21:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral Good has already collected warnings from multiple editors for a variety of offenses, and has been blocked once in his short existence. You can look in his talk page history, as he has archived/erased all warnings. The user has also engaged in low-level harassment of me. Lawrence Cohen 22:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Lawrence and Inertia Tensor are also in the habit of deleting not only warnings, but tough questions from multiple users from their Talk pages, as their archives will confirm. Neutral Good (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• You were explicitly warned by an administrator here in this conversation to stop harassing users. I beg you to stop harassment of Wikipedia editors. Lawrence Cohen 00:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm responding to Jehochman's question on whether the community can impose article probation. We already have criteria for when page protection is justified, and page protection does not require an Arbcom ruling. Can anyone put into words what additional requirements should be imposed for community-authorized article probation? Should we want to see diffs for a specific kind of misbehavior? How many misbehaving editors should it take? I don't see a new process of this kind being respected by Arbcom unless they see that some appropriate evidence is being collected before the community decides to impose article probation. If article probation goes into effect, admins should be willing to impose blocks to back it up. Guess who is the ultimate reviewer for due process on blocks. Does anyone want to ignore their usual expectations? Under what conditions would Arbcom itself impose article probation? EdJohnston (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• One criteria would be: when there are multiple tendentious editors seeking to violate WP:NPOV, especially when there are signs of sock puppetry and meat puppetry. This happens on heated topics like Scientology, and now, I suggest, Waterboarding. Another criteria would be: when normal administrative measures fail to control problematic editing, article probation can be useful. This is a judgement call. In obvious cases we would be able to impose this solution the same way we can do community banning. These criteria could be added to Wikipedia:Article probation. In the alternative, we can take this matter to arbitration. I do not think that one or two blocks will solve the problem. Jehochman ^Talk 22:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Not an administrator and involved, but I'm inclined to think that both sides will claim that there were "multiple tendentious editors seeking to violate NPOV"; "they" think that they're defending NPOV, while "we" think we're trying to establish NPOV. "When normal administrative measures fail to control problematic editing" could be a symptom of WP:OWNhtom (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that the community has the right to impose article probation on any article it so wishes, and that this article merits it. The probation can't hurt and it will probably help sort out an almighty mess. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• I think the rules pointed out by Moreschi below would be helpful in this case, and seeing that there is precedent for the kind of administrator imposed editing restrictions we are thinking about here I think we should go ahead and adopt them to this case. Arbcom already trusts admins to establish ground rules on wide ranges of articles in conflicted areas, and I think this is in that spirit. henrik•talk 23:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree Article protection is a sufficient short-term remedy for articles. When the situation spins so far out of control that protection is insufficient, I would be grateful to have Arbcom look at the case and decide what the best solution is; the alternative seems too much like allowing any administrator who happens by to declare martial law. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ryan. This easily could spread like kudzu across the whole wiki with disastrous results. We should stick with our current article protection procedures. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection

If article probation is agreed, then I suggest we unprotect Waterboarding within a few days. It is better for the encyclopedia if people can edit this high importance article. Jehochman ^Talk 22:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The swift option would be to unprotect right now, apply article probation right now and a variant of these measures, also right now. Hopefully we can get consensus on this quickly, but for such a high-profile article to be fully protected with that ugly box on the top is not good for Wikipedia's image. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Tough call. Discussion and {{editprotected}} are probably better for the reader, at this point. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• I think it was protected too fast, but since it has gone on, I now say, let the protection extend to its current expiration. I also think that unblocking without steps toward consensus will eventually lead to Arbcom. I do not believe that restricting the page will help that. --Blue Tie (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of Checkuser errors and administrative coverups

From here, comments by User:Neutral Good:

"That's what I'm saying. The IP address is being taken as proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that Shibumi2 is an evil puppet master. And every time anyone tries to raise this question about these dynamic, shared Sprint IP addresses, the question gets deleted. Fast. What's going on? Neutral Good (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)"

The relevant checkuser is Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/GooseCreek. He's referring to Jehochman and Checkuser clerks archiving color commentary on the RFCU. See here. Lawrence Cohen 00:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

As the checkuser who ran the aforementioned case, I have no issues with anyone who wishes to relist the case for another checkuser to provide an independent second-opinion. However, I'd like to state that there are no other users on the address shared by Shibumi2, Harry Lives!, and PennState21 and, contrary to what User:Neutral Good asserts, it's not a shared IP that "hundreds or thousands of people browsed through"; there have only ever been the above three users on it. Furthermore, there are many other points of contact which I don't want to go into, for reasons of privacy. For that reason, I welcome any other checkuser to re-examine the case - Alison ^❤ 03:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

All complaints about alleged checkuser abuse should go to the Ombudsman Commission. The community cannot evaluate and/or act on such complaints due to a lack of information and a lack of juristiction on the issue, and such public allegations only create unnecessary drama. Daniel 11:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Battleground

Waterboarding has become a battleground with partisans on both sides talking past each other. The discussion is not moving toward consensus. No, it is diverging. What are we going to do about this? Jehochman ^Talk 17:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ask either the mediation cabal or editor assistance (or both) to go take a look? --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

He did, but the last I checked there was no action on that request. Lawrence Cohen 14:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Admins will still want to keep an eye on this, given the elections. This page is no less out of control. Lawrence Cohen 14:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"In popular culture" sections

What's the general rule on removing these?? I commented one out in the Rant article, and am planning to do so in the Subaru Leone article.

I'm aware it's caused controversy (per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar) - what's the best thing to do??

Thanks, --Solumeiras ^talk 14:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've saved you the trouble and removed the section from the Subaru article. It was just a list of "I spotted a Subaru Leone in film/TV show x". None of the references would have been commented on by reliable sources, I'm sure == garbage. You have to use your own discretion and judgement in these things and be bold, it's not an admin issue. --kingboyk (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the Internet Movie Car Database isn't a reliable source, for the same reasons IMDB isn't... —David Eppstein (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The general rule is that the listing in a "In popular culture" ought to be important to the medium (i.e., book, movie, television episode) that it appears in. For example, the fact that the chase scene in Bullit involves a Mustang is important. (One could write a fairly extensive term paper about that choice of car.) And in this case, I can't think of a book, movie, etc. where a Subaru Leone makes a significant appearance. (To be honest, I can't think of any one of those where that model of car appears, period.) -- llywrch (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've seen Bullitt during 2007, and I know what a Mustang of the Bullitt era looks like. But I don't remember the car as being a Mustang or anything else. I've just skimread the article and I still don't see the significance of the particular brand of car to the movie. (Of course the movie has significance for the car and its maker: advertising.)

Those thinking of removing more "in popular culture" crapola are invited to look at articles on the more tony wristwatch makers (Omega, etc.), where the editors often seem have more (entirely uncritical) stuff say about who shills for the baubles than about the baubles themselves. -- Hoary (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Steve McQueen is driving a Mustang fastback, which looks notably different than the typical Mark I Mustang; have a look at the articles. The car his adversaries are driving is a Dodge Charger -- although it looked a heckuva lot like a Camaro to me when I watched the movie. Regardless, part of what is happening in the chase scene is a competition between a couple of pony cars. There is a historic rivalry between the differnet brands of pony cars -- almost as vicious as between Porsche & Ferrari, which is what happens in another one of McQueen's memorable works, LeMans. (I guess Carol Shelby wasn't in the mood to provide any Cobras or Ford GT-150s for that second movie.) My point in citing this example is that knowing about this bit of information enriches the experience of watching Bullitt, & mentioning it in a college paper would likely impress a professor by demonstrating a grasp of detail. (However, now that this point appears in Wikipedia, any student should be aware that any competent professor will know of this trick, so one will need look elsewhere for an easy solution.) -- llywrch (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Movies are composed of visual detail, and this sort of material is sourceable. The cars in a car chase are significant in a movie and are not a matter of random choice. Both people interested in the cars, and in the movies, know and comment on such detail. That a particular person doesn't think something important is irrelevant. I, like Hoary, pay very little attention to this particular detail, or to the specific differences between such cars in general, but that does not mean that the information is insignificant. The general rule is that the appearance of a otherwise notable setting or theme in a notable work is relevant content.DGG (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

BetacommandBot again

Who actually pulls the trigger?

At this apparent date, who actually pulls the trigger and deletes 60,000~ images that may not have fair use rationales? Is this the Foundation? Or are they fair game at that point? Amarkov above says that this doesn't apply to us. I'm just wanting to understand if this means come March something, we will just automatically lose all this potentially valid content because no one has had time to get to it yet? Lawrence Cohen 20:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, right now it's the 'bot. Since it's unreasonable to expect that every image in the system is being watched, a very large percentage of the images are deleted as a result of tagging. Indeed, it seems likely to me that most of the images that are candidates for deletion aren't watched, either because they were created by people who are no longer active, or because the need to watch one's uploads wasn't impressed upon them. Mangoe (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The bot isn't deleting anything. Responsibility for deletion rests on the person who deletes the image. Mr.Z-man 21:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That's technically true, but in practice it appears that those doing the deleting are not (for instance) checking to see how the images are used. Those admins are apparently just doing the 'bot's bidding, so effectively it is deleting any image that isn't being watched. Mangoe (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• And every time the bot tags an image, it makes multiple notifications regarding the tagging. See [14]. The images do not have to be "watched". They are reported to the respective parties, so much so in fact that some parties complain about the notifications. No pleasing everyone. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• The thing is that the places that the notifications are made DO need to be watched, and often they are not. I personally don't watch the images I upload (though given the current fuss I never upload anything that's not either a personal creation or a US government image), and in any case I imagine the only people watching images much are their uploaders, who are getting a message on their talk pages. Except that I'd bet that a lot of people who uploaded something two years ago aren't active now. The upshot is that it wouldn't surprise me that maybe a majority of the notifications for old images never reach anyone. Mangoe (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• In addition, the WikiProject notification system never got going, despite several showing interest. Carcharoth (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• If any admin is deleting images willy nilly without checking whether deletion is warranted, they should be contacted informally and the matter should be discussed with them. Careless use of admin tools is a serious matter. Jehochman ^Talk 23:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• What tends to happen when someone raises this sort of thing informally is "well, it would have been deleted under another NFCC anyway". But this is misleading because the deletion log is normally for a big batch, and so refers to 10c even if the reason is really another reason. Extremely sloppy, but this is what happens when automated tools like TWINKLE are used. Carcharoth (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What I'm confused about is what happens to all the non-free images that have manually written rationales. You know. The ones that are perfectly valid, but that a bot can't detect. Not all images use rationale templates you know. Do all those get deleted by bot when this date arrives? I suspect that all that will happen is that tagging will carry on as before, with bots being used to help convert older style rationales to machine-readable format (ie. using templates or a standard format), and humans being needed to filter the resulting large batches of images. It is important to realise that this will not mean all images will be magically compliant with WP:NFCC. The most important criteria (3 and 8) are not machine-readable. Humans are needed to assess all images, even those passed by a bot. That will take literally decades to do properly. Carcharoth (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth, BCBot does not look for a rationale template. I have seen people who improperly fill out the new rationales get tagged and Ive seen older images with rock solid rationales. All BCBot checks for is one very basic part of the rationale, the name of the page where the rationale is for. β^_command 23:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, yes. That's how it works now. How will it work after 28 March? How will all the non-compliant images be detected? The only way I can this happening is for all images lacking a non free rationale template to be tagged and then either deleted (which will kick up the biggest storm you've ever seen), or checked by humans. Of the quoted figure of around 100,000 non-compliant images, what is the other side of the coin? How many are compliant (ie. have links to articles they are used in?). Say that figure is 20,000 or something, How many of that 20,000 have rationales? Betacommandbot can't detect that, I don't think. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the article link clause of 10c is a valid way to make it possible to detect non-compliant images using a bot. What hasn't yet been done is to separate out those images that meet the following criteria: (1) they use a non free rationale template of some sort; and (2) lack an article link. This is an easily fixable subset of the 10c taggings. By all means delete (or tag for deletion) the images that don't have a non free rationale template - let admins check those to see if a manual rationale has been provided. But don't mix those up with images where people have taken the time and effort to add a non free rationale template and missed out something - it is the wiki-way to fix those sort of images, not delete them. And separating them out makes everyone's work more efficient. Carcharoth (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not an admin bot. It tags things, but then a human admin has to decide whether to save as is, fix the rationale, or delete. Jehochman ^Talk 23:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, there are bots doing deletions. You are right, though, in theory, all images are supposed to be checked by humans. Carcharoth (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Carcharoth; I concur, especially with the "decades to do properly". In reality, it's something that never can be achieved. We will always have non-compliant fair use media, and always have people complaining about it being deleted, and always have people that fail to understand our policies despite massive writings to educate people. I've thought before it might be a good idea to reduce image uploads only to those with experience on Wikipedia. It'd make it possible to manage the environment. Right now, it's wholly unmanageable, and attempts to make it so result in sections like this entire section. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the key point: it can never be achieved. It's very similar to other unachievable goals like removing all false information about living people, making all articles well-referenced, or cleaning up all articles with cleanup tags. These goals can't be 100% achieved, but they can be worked toward at a reasonable pace, proportional to how much of a problem they actually are. Sometimes, that pace is disappointing to people who care about the issue (cleanup is a good example of this).

So, given that, there's no reason to run this bot at such a furious pace. Meeting a self-imposed goal of 100% machine-readable fair-use rationales by March 28, for example, isn't a good reason, especially if it results in images being tagged for deletion many times faster than humans can deal with it. The Wiki spirit is to fix what you can, when you can. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Your given is not a given. Have a look at the upload logs. Roughly 1500 unfree images are uploaded per day. Most do not comply with our policies. Just to keep up with the influx requires heavy activity by the bot, much less trying to get the project compliant. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. I would support a throttling of the incoming images, if only to allow volunteeer effort to be diverted to fixing older images. Carcharoth (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• But how do we do that? Only allow X number of images to be uploaded per day/hour? 1500 non-free images per day on what is supposed to be a free encyclopedia is a problem. Perhaps we should do what, if I recall correctly, was done on another project: further restrict future fair use, perhaps limit it to logos and important historical photos. Any other fair use image would be grandfathered in, but we would no longer accept screenshots and cover scans. Mr.Z-man 00:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• My head just exploded thinking about the backlash from that (given what we've got to deal with now on fictional works and image aspects). Maybe limit to at most two non-free images uploads per day per user? (But then , how do you diff between uploading an image and then re-editing to add in a non-free license because you accidently forgot it, and doing the upload and license on the same step?) --MASEM 00:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Its been repeated over and over in this thread, but it bears repeating in bold: BCBot is not an adminbot. The bot does not do the deletions, it just tags 10c non-compliant images. Very simple. Why quibble over the identification of an image? If you have a problem with images being deleted, direct your attention to the part of the process where something actually gets deleted and maybe progress will be made. ^Avruchtalk 01:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I did. I once tried to raise issues with an admin who had deleted both: (a) images that had been fixed (but the tag hadn't been removed); and (b) images that could have been easily fixed with the addition of a single link (the 10c, rationale present but link missing cases), and that admin got upset and insisted they were following policy. To the letter, sure, but not the spirit. I'm sure I could find examples in recent deletions as well. The theory that admins carefully check all images is nice, but in practice it doesn't work. Thus excessive tagging by Betacommandbot does overload admins doing the deletions. No question about that. Carcharoth (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth, the script's been upgraded a bit so now there should be practically no errors. What you don't realise that this is a board resolution, all this mess is like a campaign pushing for a seven-year old checkuser. --Maxim_(talk) 01:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know this concerns a board resolution. Your point is? (Hint: the interaction between board and community is a tricky one, and needs careful management on both sides). My only point with regards to your deletions (and I wasn't going to name names until you turned up here) was to make absolutely sure that you were personally examining each image properly before you deleted them. The examples I found suggested to me that you weren't doing this. Will your script still make errors such as this? Image tagged for invalid rationale at 22:14, 5 December 2007 by Betacommandbot (actually a lack of a rationale, but the bot can't tell the difference), rationale added at 13:16, 7 December 2007 but deletion tag not removed, image deleted at 15:34, 15 December 2007 by Maxim as part of a large batch deletion using TWINKLE? You and others have said you manually check all the images before such batch deletions. I presume for this image you checked it more than a week before you deleted it, or just missed the obvious rationale that had been added? I raised this elsewhere and notified you, and you didn't respond. Is this the sort of thing that your upgraded script will now not make mistakes over? Carcharoth (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A thought

Based on someone asking whether WikiProject talk pages could receive BCB notices (and someone else pointing out that this would result in said talk pages getting flooded), would anyone be able to write a script that takes two inputs - the location of a WikiProject's banner and a subpage of the WikiProject page - and runs through all articles with the banner attached, checking the images used (or commented out) for BCB notices, and then outputs a single page, at the location given, listing all images that need better FURs? The system would be opt-in, and probably operator-supervised, but if all the major WikiProjects requested such a list and then worked through it to fix the images it would clear a lot of the backlog (without spamming even more talk pages with big notification templates). Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This was proposed before, back in August. As far as I know, several people set up subpages of WikiProjects (for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Images/Disputed images). I notified Betacommand, but nothing seemed to happen. I (and others) tend to notice most talk page notices anyway, so I don't care that much, but it's strange to see the wheel trying to be re-invented. Maybe Betacommand can tell us what happened here? Carcharoth (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

that is a bug ive been trying to work out, Im not sure why the bot is not leaving notes there. β^_command 04:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

How long will it take to fix this bug? 2 weeks? 2 months? Carcharoth (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Example of flood

Here [Added irony: Most of these images are communist-related, so invoking (capitalist) copyrights seem highly unlikely] El_C 22:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• So you'd prefer...what, people not be notified when their images are not compliant? No matter how this is handled, people complain. If the images are not tagged, we get overloaded with non-compliant images. If the images are tagged, but there's no notifications, people complain there's no notifications. If people are notified, people complain about the notifications. It doesn't end. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• I would prefer... a trickle over a flood. El_C 01:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• A trickle has no hope of keeping up with the pace of Wikipedia. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Why not condense them into a single template? Like: "The following images have no rationale: [[:Image1.png]]<br/>[[:Image2.png]]<br/>..." -- Ddxc (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Let the Foundation fix it

From discussion above I gather that:

• A:The Board needs to clarify the meaning of the relevant resolution.
• B:The WMF Board's licensing policy is severely deficient and needs to be fixed.

If A and B are correct, then it only serves to perpetuate a bad situation if the worker bees try to enact an incoherent resolution in order to maintain a broken policy. I could be way off on this, but is it an option to simply stop this process(block the Bot) until the Foundation does what they need to do? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• This misses the point. This project is a free content encyclopedia. It's the core mission. The resolution was written as descendant of that mission. If you have doubts about the resolution, refer to the mission. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments on proposals

1. 'The Foundation needs to clarify if 03/23/08 is the date everything non-compliant goes away or just the date everything non-compliant has to start going away' - This might be nice to have settled to avoid further divergences, but frankly it's a red herring. It doesn't matter. Either way 'the end is nigh'. We have a few months to sort things out and should do so.
2. 'Notify more people' - Figuring out a way to get notices to related Wikiprojects, people who added the image to a page, et cetera might help to save some images where the uploader is not active and not many people are watching the page(s) the image appears on. However, I suspect this is probably going to be a relatively small portion of the images.
3. 'Slow down the bot to prevent floods' - Even if we do the math and work out that the bot can tag 250 (or whatever) old images per day to get through everything with a month to spare... when that 250 hits a patch of 60 images all uploaded by the same person with close proximity in name or uploaded date or whatever the bot uses to sequence its work then that person is going to get a 'flood'. Thus, I'd only suggest going that route if the bot's sequence of updates could be randomized.
4. 'Increase the time between the bot tagging and the image being reviewed / deleted' - Probably the best solution IMO. Get the full list out there ASAP, but give people increased time to resolve them in recognition of the fact that so many are being reported at once.

--CBD 12:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

None of these proposals quite catches the spirit of the problem. The problem isn't the Foundation policy. The problem is that BetaCommandBot is tagging at a huge rate and, in my spot checks, it is almost always completely wrong. That is to say, in my experience it is tagging images that do have a fair use rationale, but that rationale doesn't meet whatever retarded standard BetaCommandBot (not the Foundation) requires. So it's not just making edits at a prodigious rate, but it's wasting everyone's time at a prodigious rate.

My $0.02 Nandesuka (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh, if the Foundation says we must have the article name in the Summary, then we must. I particularly like Dunkerson's 2nd and 4th proposals. A central page, that would be overhwelmed instantly, that BCB would notify for each image (or a series of page1, page2 etc) would be better than using a category or log in my opinon. Also, we have ~90 days to work through this and should only need about 3 weeks depending on BCB's speed. There is no reason we couldn't extend the deletion time from 7 to 14 or 21 days and still finish with time to spare. MBisanz ^talk 13:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• RE: Speed. As I noted above, we're getting ~1500 fair use images per day, and most of those have errors of one kind or another. Call it 80%. That's 1200 per day. That's new images, much less the existing massive backlog. Even to keep up, the bot needs to tag about 50 images an hour. Since it's not running 24/7/365, tagging a few hundred per hour is hardly irrational or high speed just to keep up with the steady influx. Again, this doesn't address the existing massive backlog. It must proceed at "high" speed. Also, the amount of work generated per user on average is rather light...just a few images here and there for most affected users. There are exceptions of course, but in general it's only a few users. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's probably not a problem with new images. It's definitely a problem with old images because of the likelihood that the uploader may not be around to be notified anymore. In terms of the railroads project we're all racing around looking for classes of articles being essentially vandalized. There are hundreds of American railroad articles, and then there are (it turns out) name trains and we're not sure what else. There's a good chance that a lot of stuff will be deleted simply because nobody knows to check. And there's certainly concern that the rules will change again and we'll be subjected to another run of this. Mangoe (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I like CBD's 2nd and 4th proposals. Regarding new uploads, User:STBotI also patrols new images (and receives very few complaints), eg [15]. One of the problems created by the yesterday's mass tagging is that easily-fixed images that were uploaded years ago are now mixed up with new images that should be deleted for failing other parts of the WP:NFCC. Bláthnaid 14:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Are you claiming that a 20% error rate is a good thing for a bot to have, when it's going around posting notices on people's talk pages (which are incidentally totally baffling to inexperienced editors) and recommending for images to be deleted? With that many errors, you have to at least allow time for people to follow along and fix the mess. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Idea

Why not just have the beta bot update a single page in addition to the user pages in question? It can be a date sorted page that automatically updates like AFD. Instant backlog for people to work through and clear, day by day. Since we apparently only have to do this once, for the next 3-4 months, it would be a short term project. We can then hightlight that page. Set up a script to just count off the daily totals on the front page like how AFD's backlog does. If we stick this in the watchlist for everyone since it seems like a pretty Big Deal we can probably knock down 1000 or more per day. Lawrence Cohen 16:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I like this idea, it would give it a high enough profile that people might care and fix an image or two. MBisanz ^talk 16:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

With the caveat that not every image needs to be fixed. Some are clearly not needed and need to be deleted. Carcharoth (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. The point would be to get eyes on the problem and each image, and maybe have the watchlist link to that day's queue first, and the main page as well. Lawrence Cohen 17:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I too like this idea. This would make it much easier in keeping track of images and would help us notice more images that have been incorrectly tagged. .:Alex:. 21:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox "article" pages

I like to develop articles in my user area.

It also means that I can propose replacing the current "real" article on that article's discussion page and, before consensus is reached, folks have something concrete to look at and compare and contrast.

The image bots keep removing the relevant images in this case. eg: [16]

There is, in Florida and US Federal statute and case law fair use exemption for "research". Would it be a good idea for the bot developers to make me an appropriate flag that I could place on my article development pages in user space? Alice^✉ 18:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Use a colon ":" to link to the images until you are ready to move the article into mainspace. eg. Image:Example. Carcharoth (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Then you can't try to lay out the article with images in it. This does sound to me like BCB stepping on fair use by being so inflexible. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Carcharoth, for your helpful suggestion. One of the better bots does that already (rather than deleting the image syntax entirely) but, as Rspeer points out, it is then difficult for other users to assess the relevance of images or how appropriate their captions are. The plain fact is that my use of these images is entirely justified by the private research fair use provisions and case law and there should be an opt-out switch. Alice^✉ 09:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Project

Should we start a project? I say a project that clearly states what users are supposed to do, and then invite our readers trough their watchlist to "Save 5 images a day by writing rationales" might be a good idea. Commons usually sees surprisingly much activity when people are asked trough the sitenotice to "categorize 5 images today" or "Add an {{Information}} template". Why should that not be able to work here? Show people a category, give them a fair use rationale template and 5 examples, and I think we will be amazed at what we can still accomplish in the coming 90 days. Saving images has been discussed for ages and projects have been attempted before, but now that there is a real need to stop acute deletion, perhaps people will be more sensitive. We can at least TRY ?!? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. You may encounter resistance to using the sitenotice though. But I am going to start my personal 5/day pledge tomorrow, concentrating (as I've said elsewhere) on historical images. Carcharoth (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest Wikipedia:Wikiproject Five Images a Day? as a good starting place? WP:5AD would also work as a shortcut. I've already done my five for today, and may get another set in later today. The math makes this task daunting, but with enough people pitching in, it might work out in the end. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support this. I feel we need more "here are a lists of tasks, each that will take no more than 10 minutes of your time to complete" type page for other cleanup duties that require minimal knowledge, just willing fingers, but images need to take priority due to the deadline; the success of this will tell us if other such projects are worth adding. --MASEM 16:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not just treat the watchlist notice with something like WP:TODAY, for Wikipedia:Task of the Day, similar to featured article, but for regular editors? It can be decided on by the community ahead of time, and just be the discussed picture clean up until that's done. Maybe even just rotate out different tasks each day. Sunday can be this backlog, Monday can be that backlog, Tuesday can be this backlog, and so on? Lawrence Cohen 16:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Task of the Day

Based on the above talk I've started this proposed policy/project/change at WP:TODAY. Please check it out and weigh in. The specifics as discussed above about a run for the Images problem we have is at Wikipedia:Task of the Day#Early 2008 trial run. Lawrence Cohen 16:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Karmaisking

This blocked user seems to be using their talk page as a soapbox while awaiting for the block to expire. I'm not even certain if this is appropriate or not to begin with, and given that I was involved in his block I thought it best to not intervene further (if intervention is warranted at all). So, just a heads' up. — Coren ^(talk) 23:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have warned him to stop. Stifle (talk) 12:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Given the sheer volume of disruptive behavior in the short time this account has existed, I am >-< this close to just indefinitely blocking it. I've gone ahead and protected the talkpage for the duration of the block; there is clearly nothing productive to be said in the interim. MastCell ^Talk 19:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If you find a blocked user using their talk page for social engineering protect it right a way! Remember they can link to it from outside and Google indexes it. So can be a destructive Malware. Igor Berger (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

User:VandalCruncher

I'm not sure if this user's userpage or username is appropriate because they insult the vandals and therefore encourage vandalism. I've seen pages like Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals and WP:DENY that talk about this but I don't know of any policy that directly addresses whether or not this is appropriate. Could an admin please look at the page and make a decision? Please note that the editor in question appears to be a legitimate vandal fighter.--Urban Rose (talk) 05:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:DENY/WP:DIV aren't policies or guidelines, so you might consider miscellany for deletion or simply talking with the user to see if he/she will change his user page to be more in line with your expectations. --slakr^\ talk / 07:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I worked on the userpage and made it a little more vandal-friendly, or at least less vandal-unfriendly. VC 18:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Is YouTube serving a purpose here?

Seriously has YouTube ever served as a reliable reference? because all of the instances of it that I have seen in almost two years are links to blantant copyright violations, and if the website is only being used as a spam and copyvio source why isn't it blacklisted? please see this diff [17] see how many violations are there, this can mean potential lawsuits against the foundation. 24.139.240.25 (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Is YouTube serving a purpouse here? — Yes. There are several articles (including Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity)) that have legitimate need for the site. The spam blacklist is more intended for specific entries to combat repeated external link spammers. --slakr^\ talk / 07:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I see but surely there is a way to program the Anti-Spam bots to differeinciate between instances where the site is used as a legitimate reference and when its just used as a stand-alone external link to some copyright violation and revert the latter, right? 24.139.240.25 (talk) 08:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    • It would be very hard. If someone posts a video on youtube, perhaps of a major event, it would be near impossible for a bot to determine if they madethe video on their video camera/mobile phone or whether it's a copyvio of a news report. Sure the description could be scanned for strings/regexs like "taken from fox news" but there would also be false positives and many more slipping through the cracks. I would definitely support a proposal to remove a lot of the links to youtube though. The problem I see is how do we approach it? James086^{Talk | Email} 08:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
      • But legitimate sources won't stay as stand alone links for long, maybe program them to just remove the links that aren't using the footnote format? 24.139.240.25 (talk) 08:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Well for starters you could read Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkSearch/youtube.com. Uncle G (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • And there certainly is some legitimate content on YouTube. For example, the British Royal Family has recently established an official "channel", releasing many interesting videos, including previously unseen coverage of the 1953 Coronation, this Christmas's Queen's speech was also placed there at the same time the TV broadcast started, none of this would be legitimately avaialble from any other source, and much of it could be considered worthy of being included under "External links", if not as references per se. Now it may be that the urls of resources released on this channel are sufficiently distinct that they wouldn't be affected by blacklisting youTube in general. David Underdown (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Other example of legitimate external link - The Bus Uncle. Bot removing links that isn't using any particular format doesn't address the initial concern you raised here 24.139.240.25. KTC (talk) 10:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• There are certainly viable reasons to link to YouTube which defeat a call to spam-blacklist it. However, that does not change the fact that a huge majority of links thereto violate WP:EL and WP:COPY. Stifle (talk) 12:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Just so. And we could always whitelist the valid ones... Guy (Help!) 15:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Do you mean admins would have to whitelist Youtube links to be used as a legitimate source? Lawrence Cohen 16:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    • There are over 36,000 links to YouTube on en.wp. Who volunteers to go through them and find the good ones for whitelisting and remove the bad ones? Mr.Z-man 20:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Some news organizations and government organizations also post content to YouTube now. Lawrence Cohen 16:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, sometimes, but see WP:RS. Bearian (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • What on RS is specific to Youtube beyond any general RS requirements? I might be missing something obvious? There is no mention of Youtube, videos, or copyright on RS, so I think I may be missing something. Lawrence Cohen 19:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• There's an example of an useful YouTube video in Alice in Wonderland (Disneyland attraction). It provides a substantial illustration of the subject matter, and does not obviously suffer from any copyright issues. Bovlb (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe that the terms of being in the parks usually state that video and pictures are only permissable for private purposes, so it's not entirely free of copyright qualms. And uploading a video of the ride surely replaces the ride experience to a significant degree. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I can't find any restrictions on photography listed on the Disneyland website (just that they sell disposable cameras), and I cannot recall having any such restrictions brought to my attention on entry. I don't think that a shaky video is a significant replacement for the ride experience, but it does add to the article (e.g. to see the one place where Alice actually appears in this ride). Bovlb (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Another example of legit Youtube videos are those of the Church of England / Archbishop of Canturbury, which officially releases videos to Youtube. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• I linked out for Loïc Jean-Albert, since my source, The New York Times did also. I don't see why that would be a problem. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  That's fine (so long as the video isn't a copyvio, as we don't need to open that can of worms) but it's worth noting the YouTube stuff is often a poor source for an encyclopedia because it is simply primary evidence. In most cases, an article needs to draw conclusions from the source... except we don't (shouldn't) do that. We need secondary sources for that - ones that view the video and draw the conclusions from it; we then publish the conclusions as drawn by the secondary source. If we draw our own conclusions, that's original research and almost always from a point of view. Not Good.

  A second, related, point is to question the value of any video link. Does it add to the reader's understanding of the article? If the article is incomplete without the video (in other words, if the article is about the video, not about the subject of the video) then has no place here, save for very extreme circumstances (for instance, I could argue for a link to a certain video by Abraham Zapruder from his article, if it wasn't so heavily protected by lawyers). Our articles should always be about what other people saw, thought and did. A YouTube video is rarely that; and an article that links to one should make sure that the full context is apparent without the link.

  If nothing else, think of our readers: are they reading a DVD version, a printed version, using a screenreader or on a slow connection? A hefty minority of our customers can be excluded from our output if that output is effectively just an advert for a YouTube clip. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 20:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  There are times when only a link to a non-copyright video clip will suffice to convey content. See Little Tich, where the linked clip is beyond concise verbal description. That would be the case whatever the medium the reader is using. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Redvers, you ask "does it add to the reader's understanding of the article?", but you seem to be assuming that the only circumstance in which this would happen would be an article about a video. "Enhance understanding" != "Complete the article". I can see the benefit of a video of a coronation, for example, or a video of a musician, actor, or other performer, and I think those videos would enhance the reader's understanding of an article without the videos becoming the subject of the article. As for linking to videos constituting original research, if the link is not being used as a reference than I fail to see how it constitutes original research. The OR rule doesn't prevent Wikipedia readers from forming their own opinions, so we are not in violation of any of our own guidelines by pointing people to the primary source. We regularly link to primary sources for public domain literature, speeches, etc - how are videos any different, as long as the copyright status is okay? YouTube links have to be monitored carefully because of the potential for copyright violation, but there's no good reason to scrap them entirely. Natalie (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That 'primary source' argument above could certainly be a killer for many YouTube cites. Take for example my ref on Manic_Sewing_Circle where the YouTube video is the only evidence that the event mentioned took place. (note that in the AfD discussion the content of the video is used to argue non-notability.) Wwwhatsup (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth I've found it useful to link to a Youtube search instead, so for the article Fart lighting (yes, juvenile stuff) one link to search of youtube videos on the subject, IMHO, is helpful to someone who wants to get more information and is also preventative of future individual unneeded links which were previously covered in the search. I've also learned to amend that search by sorting it with the highest user-ranked (not simply most-watched) parameter in hopes that the reader gets a better quality video from the selection to view. Another point to consider is that colleges are now posting lectures on Youtube which greatly benefits people worldwide who hunger for the knowledge but have no means to sign-up for the courses themselves. Benjiboi 08:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If someone has a problem with YouTube content, contact Kathleen Fitzgerald kfitzgerald at google dot com Make sure the content is a violation of Youtube TOS. Igor Berger (talk) 09:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Serb propaganda

Hello.

I have contacted administrator delldot (talk · contribs) yesterday regarding this issue and compiled the following statement for his talk page. He offered to help but told me to also seek another opinion and I thought that a request for comment might not be the right way to go. I am now just pasting that statement over here because the facts of the case haven't changed.

Serb propaganda is as article that was started about a month ago and has been fairly controversial within the Wiki community of ex-Yugoslavs. Its stated goal was to

"describe efforts made by Serbian leadership to create fear and hatred and particularly incite the Serb population against the other ethnicities (Bosniaks, Croats, Albanians and other non-Serbs) and to describe Serb media efforts in justifying, revising or denying mass war crimes committed by Serb forces during the Yugoslav wars on Bosniaks and other non-Serbs".

From the beginning it was seen as POV, starting with the title itself, and it was nominated for deletion but the result was to keep since no concensus to delete was reached. Myself being Serbian, I agree that an article like this is needed and the subject matter, however controversial, is more than appropriate given the amount of Wiki material about the Yugoslav wars. But I do have an issue with what's been happening since the decision to keep the article and I'm not sure quite how to handle it.

It is my feeling that a few of the major contributors are using the decision to keep the article as a carte blanche and the article has turned into a coatrack and heavy POV pushing from the Bosnian editors' side. There are 2 main examples of how this is being done:

1. Insertion of bold and accusatory POV pushing statements not sourced in any way such as:

• Once the armed conflict had broken out, on some occasions the media openly incited people to kill non-Serbs.
• After so many years of domination and with no competition, Serbian Television has been outstandingly successful in its mission to create a pliant population.
• After his visit some of Serb media portrayed him [Bill Clinton] as the Al Qaida supporter.
• Following such activities Serb propaganda tried to deny the genocide and to present victims as the terrorists or foreign Islamic fighters.
• During the Yugoslav wars, Serbian TV propaganda described NATO forces which intervened against Serb forces attacking non-Serb civilians as the Nazi troops invading Serb lands. President Bill Clinton was portrayed as Adolf Hitler.

2. Copy and pasting of large portions of text from other articles related to the events. These texts describe the wrongdoings of Serbian armed forces in the conflict but do not explain anything about what role the Serb propaganda played in the events. Examples of copied text without context specific to the article:

• The entire The first Markale Incident section was copied from Markale massacres, First massacre
• The entire The second Markale Incident section was copied from Markale massacres, Second massacre
• The introductory part of the Srebrenica genocide section, before the discussion on Serb casualties

Some of the major contributors of this article, namely The Dragon of Bosnia (talk · contribs), Bosniak (talk · contribs) and Grandy Grandy (talk · contribs) have become very aggressive towards editors with different views and editors that have altered their contributions, going so far to use the article's talk page to make following statements:

• People should really use ICTY documents to stop serbian apologists and their nazi propaganda.
• You might read more about what Serbian Fascist and Christian Terrorists are doing in the Balkans
• But constant apologies from supporters of Serbian fascism, as well as ridicolous nominations of this wonderful article to be deleted are coming from extremists themselves. It is very disturbing to watch people portraying themselves to be objective, and yet stading in defence of Serbian fascists.
• Islamophobia is trully a mental disorder, not an opinion
• We all remember those events - editor's answer when asked for a reference

I am of an educated opinion that someone writing statements like these is wanting to present an opinion more so than they are trying to write an objective article. Bosniak (talk · contribs) has a long history of personal attacks, incivility and edit warring that have garnered him 7 blocks so far and I am seeing a continuation of the same trend here.

Getting to the point, I would like your opinion on what to do here in order to fix the article. The one thing that I will not do is to start editing, deleting and reverting information I see as non-encyclopedic and POV because I do not want to get into an edit or revert war. There is already somewhat of a revert war happening with the POV tags and such being inserted and removed. I am not sure about nominating it for deletion because the article is fully salvageable and could turn out to be a pretty informative one if cleaned up properly. Protecting or semi-protecting it will do more harm than good, in my opinion. Please let me know, if you have the will and the time, what I could do to stop the very rapid degradation of this article into an edit war or a heavy POV piece of text.

Thank you for even reading this.

SWik78 (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You could start removing unsourced material from the article. You may have to revert a little, but if you start to hit WP:3RR, just put a notice on the talk page (or some more-visible talk page like Serbia) so other people can take care of enforcing an NPOV. If that doesn't help, you might try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR if the other user keeps reverting. Hope that helps! -- Ddxc (talk) 04:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Naming issue on Japanese Emperor

Can someone look into the recent edits of user:Švitrigaila. Mr Clown moved the article on Emperor Hirohito to Showa (the name given to his reign after he died in 1989). Our policy is to use the most common english name, and this one isn't even close - Showa is basically unknown in western literature. The article had been moved once before and immediately moved back by John Kenney.

After Mr. Clown moved the article, user:Švitrigaila went and started changing all of the redirects from Hirohito to Showa. Since very few people in the west actually know who Showa refers to, this was a big step in the wrong direction. I moved the article back, and dropped a note on his talk page, after which he proceeded to edit war with me. Could someone please look into his actions? Raul654 (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No time to do anything personally, but I agree that Hirohito is the name that should be used, and that all references to Emperor Showa should be changed back (unless they really mean 'Showa' and not 'Hirohito'). See here for what needs checking. Carcharoth (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I reversed a bunch, but now I'm off to bed and no time to check what remains. Persistent cuss: he even changed references in The Shining and John Wayne. --Calton | Talk 15:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've made a minor edit on the Emperor Shōwa redirect in order to try and stop the lame move war (6 moves today). Hopefully someone will take the hint and take it to WP:RM if they are really persistent. However, as noted about, I can't see that anything buy Hirohito is the correct title per WP:COMMONNAME. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"Showa" is another way to spell a historic principality in Ethiopia. Anything with that name should be a disambiguation link. This person is clearly on his way to annoy many different people. -- llywrch (talk) 06:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Hirohito#RFC:_Appropriate_Emperor_Name

An RFC on this issue has opened, comments are welcome. MBisanz ^talk 01:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Heads up for Monday the 7th - schools reopening

I thought I'd go ahead and get this out there for admins who might be bored on early Monday morning and/or throughout that day: by sheer probability alone several {{schoolblock}}s have expired over the winter vacation for North America, and even today, on the 3rd, I'm seeing a considerable influx of schoolip vandalism. Judging by a lot of the block set dates from last year, most of the school-related vandalism seems to peak around this time. Anyway, undoubtedly it's going to be fairly chaotic starting around 10am UTC on Jan 07, as a lot of kids are going to be pissed they're back in school. :P There will be donuts, tea, and coffee for those involved in helping out. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 22:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll do my part by yelling at my school's vandals. :P Keilana^talk_(recall) 22:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A good portion of schools on the east coast to the midwest returned to class yesterday and today, hence the influx. Having family who are teachers and kids, I know this to be fact. I also drive past several schools and got stuck behind buses this morning. Schools back in session and the kids are out to play. KellyAna (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to say that, Kelly. Most schools begin the 2nd and 3rd, from my experience. At least starting on different days makes a slower transition into crazy, sudden school vandalism. нмŵוτнτ 00:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, here's a school I blocked today 216.11.202.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Looks like school's back in after summer. James086^{Talk | Email} 13:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm doing my share too. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Film

I left a request for a significant protected edit at WP:RPP, but it looks like a bot decided to sweep it under the rug after only a few hours. Since I'm not feeling like Sisyphus today, I thought maybe requesting the protected edit here might be a better use of my time. Details on the template talk page. Many thanks in advance! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Difficult admin

I have given up trying to talk to Ryulong, he deleted Fourchan & Four chan because "No one is going to use "four chan" or "fourchan" i thought we discussed that at WP:RFD? Then he reverted my edits on Moot and 4 (disambiguation) with no meaningful edit summary. I have given up speaking to him because he just deletes my messages, the only time he did respond i had to go searching through the history of his talk page to find it. So I was wondering if it would be possible if another admin could tell me why my redirects and other edits were deleted?--Seriousspender (talk) 08:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have recreated these redirects as they look like reasonable search terms. Catchpole (talk) 09:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I had deleted them because I felt they were not reasonable search terms. I will not delete the items again, as there are other users who have said that they think the deletions were not necessary.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Not quite true. This was the second time you've deleted them, Ryulong. Shouldn't that have already told you that "other users" found these redirects reasonable? You can add me to that list if it will help. I do hope RfD didn't suggest deleting them - can you point us to that discussion? Carcharoth (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Neither Fourchan nor Four chan have cross-references from RfD listed in their 'what links here' lists. I would have expected such cross-references if they had been discussed at RfD. However, there have been several RfD activities related to redirects pointing at 4chan:

1. Longcat and Fgsfds (both kept - now deleted)
2. Pedobear (deleted)
3. Caturday (kept)
4. Trey Burba (speedy delete)
5. Pedo Bear (pending)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

So the deletion and discussion process does not apply to admins and can be bypassed?--Seriousspender (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not it at all. There was a mistake, and it's been fixed. This is what we do. Is there some remaining problem to be solved here? Friday (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is a problem of all the past deletions Ryulong has done that have been out of process which need to be restored and put through the correct process. It shouldn't be my job or anyone elses job to restore them, it should be Ryulong as he created the work to start with.--Seriousspender (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't dole out work based on who we think deserves it. Which past deletions? The ones mentioned here are taken care of and there has been no decision regarding any other deletions. Can you be more specific? 1 != 2 17:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt these are the only instances pages of being deleted out of process by Ryulong, so I think he should review his past deletions and restore ones that were not put through the correct process.--Seriousspender (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Failing to assume good faith is not a valid reason to demand anyone do anything. Resolute 17:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Man, it's a serious pet peeve of mine when people don't know what the words "assume good faith" mean and use them anyway. Seriousspender, if you feel there's an ongoing problem here and you've been unable to resolve it by talking to the admin in question, there are other means of dispute resolution available. I don't see that there's anything left to do here on the admin's noticeboard. Keep in mind that pretty much anyone with any sense considers getting the right answer to be more important than which path was used to arrive there. So, if your concerns are merely procedural, don't worry about it. Friday (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well if someone Ryulong happilly listens to would remind him of the deletion processes and the problems I have had with communicating with him, that should solve any future problems.--Seriousspender (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Really? Last time I checked, assuming that someone *must* have done other things wrong, therefore they should go back and check their past actions is a textbook case of failing to assume good faith. Given that the user's complaints have been handled, he should either be happy with the resolution and drop it, or go find other examples himself he feels the need to complain about. Continuing to pester another editor even after the resolution of the complaint smacks of a witch hunt to me. Resolute 18:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolute, your tone in this discussion is unnecessarily hostile. As you suggested Seriousspended sould review WP:AGF, may I suggest you take a look at WP:CIV? Your tone is unbecoming an administrator on a site that emphasizes civility and discussion. Jeffpw (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the redirects on both occasions because they had nothing at Special:Whatlinkshere. I would not think that a website that uses a numeral in both its URL and its name would be looked for in a search engine. I now know that I am mistaken, and it is a serious assumption of bad faith on Seriousspender's part to want to review every other deletion I have made, just because of these two particular redirects that I mistakenly saw as unnecessary. I think this needs a nice {{resolved}} on the top.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance

There seems to be more drama at this article, with cross-allegations of defamation and possible violations of WP:3RR. I got a message on my talk page at [18]. Could a neutral sysop look at this please? Cross posted from WP:ANI, due to no response. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Image categories and NO GALLERY

I'm trying to work thorough Category:Disputed non-free images as of 1 January 2008, but there are only links there. The names are not always very informative. Given the large number of images there, I'm asking whether it would be possible to get the "NO GALLERY" thing turned off to help people find images they want to work on? An example is here (it is much easier to see which images are screenshots, which are album covers, which are historical images, and so on). That method only works for the first 200 images, as if you click "next 200", the old "NO GALLERY" default returns. An alternative would be for me to create a user subpage, copy the image names over there from the category (current 1345 images), create a gallery there, revert the gallery creation, and work from the old page version. Would this be acceptable? I'm sure there is an image category somewhere that allows the NO GALLERY thing to be turned off, but I can't remember which one it is. Carcharoth (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the tag (magic word) at the bottom. Seems fine now.... -- Kendrick7^talk 20:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is that we aren't meant to do that. I'm trying to find a way to allow people to scan the images and help out where they can, while not serving up huge masses of non-free content in category space. I've reverted. Oh, and it is the replaceable ones where NO GALLLERY is removed. See Category:Replaceable fair use to be decided after 4 January 2008, for an example. Carcharoth (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You could use your method (of making a gallery from the names) and not save, just work from the preview. —Random832 21:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right, because the thumbs themselves violate fair use (well, unless you are Google images -- wait, didn't they win that case?). I think as a transient solution in order to review a temporary repository, this is a good time to WP:IAR, but follow your bliss. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Preview is a good method. I've done that. See User:Carcharoth/Image clean-up galleries. Carcharoth (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Attn: Coredesat Why was Empowerment Zone deleted?

Why was Empowerment Zone deleted? It's a federal income tax program prescribed by Congress that promotes economic development in distressed communities in the US. My citations were the IRS and HUD. It's not an advertisement. You have entries for Federal Urban Enterprise Zones, and state enterprise zones. It's the same damn thing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothymeyer (talk • contribs) 21:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Try User talk:Coredesat. John Reaves 21:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

How did you manage to find AN so fast? It was quite a few months before I found about this place. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Empowerment zone exists, and hasn't been deleted or moved since it was created. I'm also not seeing any deletion resembling that name is Coredesat's recent deletions. Natalie (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I deleted an article called Empowerment Zone (capital Z) in January 2007 as G11. I hope the writing of terrible articles on this topic each January doesn't become a trend, though I really have no opinion on this page now (there's obviously something wrong with it). --Coredesat 09:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

A year ago. That would explain why it didn't show up in your last fifty deletions :) Natalie (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Blood_libel_against_Jews#Tendentious_edits_on_this_page

Editing others comments, existing discussion

A certain editor is editing and blanking large parts of the above discussion as evident by the diffs and history. Some of the edits are his own in that he changed his mind about something so edited his original text. However, he also blanked a large portion of discussion (including some of my own contributions) for fear they would end up in a google search. An admin's attention would be appreciated. Bstone (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User:NAHID and non-admin AfD closes

I would like to clarify the role of non-admin closure for AfD discussions. User:NAHID has been closing debates after a day rather than the five days prescribed by deletion policy - "The discussion lasts at least five days". Examples of this include:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Baird (footballer)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourism in Tokyo

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Carson Middle School (2nd nomination)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cameltoe

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kazumi Tanaka

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1951-1952 United States network television schedule (weekday)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lycée Carnot

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophie Lancaster

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Pata (2nd nomination).

And another example where the user closed a discussion after a day [19] and an admin subsequently reopened it [20].

I know that there are some instances where out of process early closures are acceptable such as speedy keeps and (maybe slightly more controversially) snowball closes however I was under the impression that there was only consensus for non-admins to close the most obvious of prossess based keeps. Even though accepting the exceptions some of the closing decisions seem a bit off. For example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourism in Tokyo was closed as speedy keep after 19 hours without giving a reason even though I don't think it meets any of the speedy keep criteria (nomination seems to have been in good faith by a non banned editor and there was an additional editor who thought the article should be deleted). Other examples are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Carson Middle School (2nd nomination) closed as keep after 22 hours as keep despite multiple editors stating that they thought that the appropriate action would be to delete the article and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophie Lancaster closed after 17 hours without a unanimous consensus. Most of the other closes had only recieved keep !votes at the time of closure but none had the overwhelming pile-ons that usually justify snowball closes. If the discussions had been allowed to continue past a day then editors with dissenting opinions may have contributed. Additionally where a reason was given for closure it is usually just a policy (links to essay), such as: "The result was Keep. Based on the discussion, it satisfies WP:N." or "The result was Keep per WP:N.". These seem more like arguments to give in the discussion rather than a reason to close it - which should be based on the consensus established by the discussion.

I tried to discuss the issue with the user (see hereand here) and have informed them of this "thread". I think the issue of who can close AfD and in what circumstances should be clarified in addition to WP:DPR#NAC. [[Guest9999 (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)]]

• I think in the areas where there is a dispute as to the merit of the AfD non-admin closes should be prohibited. In most of the cases cited above (all but 2 I think?) the keep !votes are unanimous. In these cases, he should be citing WP:SNOW not individual policies, because he is not empowered to make a policy judgment in the closure of an AfD. ^Avruchtalk 22:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Still, you are right - you can't judge SNOW based on a listing that lasted only one day. One day AfDs should only be closed IMHO if they are bad-faith nominations. NAHID needs to take a step back and let the process work the way it is supposed to. ^Avruchtalk 22:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree absolutly. I make non-admin XFD closures regularly but closing after one day of discussion is ridiculous.--Phoenix-wiki 22:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of the unanimous Keep debates had only 5-8 !votes, after only a day does this really represent enough of the community to support a WP:SNOW close? [[Guest9999 (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)]]

• I've found some admin / non-admin closure (or if you see other afd discussion achieve) within 1 or 2 days and even within few hours. Just curious about them (Though in some cases we usually close afd discussion as keep / speedy keep and delete / speedy delete, we should stick with policy.)--NAHID 08:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:SNOW may not be the right idea to quote in these closures, as 17 or 22 hours don't provide enough time to outside editors to raise a "reasonable objection", while drawing people to consensus is part of the reason we take AfDs to WikiProjects. Besides, this particular editor doesn't seem to well versed on policies and guidelines, much less the spirit of Wikipedia. As is evident from my recent interaction with the person (including bouts of borderline stalking and lamest of edit wars, where the editor's repeating excuse was WP:OWN). Non-admin closures are for editors in good standing (and that would include constructive contributions, not just assiduous RC patrolling), and that too may not apply here. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Aditya, please don't discrediting other contribution and don't bring your personal matter here (You did these before with other editor). Through the links you took it personally. Seems like, you're getting a chance here and taking advantage by making false accusation on me. --NAHID 07:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This exactly is my point. On this very thread the editor in discussion has already gone against WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:WQT (going WP:MASTODONS of course) and, more importantly WP:OTHERSTUFF (other stuff exists is one of the lamest of reasons for any action, both on and off Wikipedia).

WP:SNOW may not be the right idea to approve of a weak grip on policies and principles, as it very much turns AfDs into Wikipedia:Ballots. Well, I'm outta here to keep my WP:COOL and seek some WP:LOVE... how was that for using cuts (a.k.a. WP:WTF)? :). Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Aditya, I'm assuming good faith here. But, you should aware about your issues and above matters (Kettle). That's not acceptable.--NAHID 09:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of these closes are not correct, in that they are inappropriate speedy/snowball keeps (something non-administrators should not be doing) and the closer asserts his/her own personal view on the merits of the deletion discussion in the close, rather than evaluating the consensus. Suggest blanket-reopen and admonishment to avoid further such closes. Daniel 11:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Daniel has armbarred the correct here. east.718 at 18:15, January 5, 2008

Armbarred? Natalie (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Well, when I first visited this topic, I thought there is something going really wrong. Then I visited all the Delete Discussion and found it absolutely pointless to bring such a complain against the user NAHID. To my surprise only one vote for delete was submitted in one discussion and rest of the discussions received either keep or week keep. Some discussions also received Strong Keep as well. A better consensus than this one can ONLY be found in an Utopian world. I know we have some policies that recommend us to keep deletion debate open for five days at least. But we shouldn't forget that at the end of the day Wikipedia is for the users, not for the ill-minded Wikipedians who try to convert it as a text war playground (it's my right to express my view, and I am not being uncivilized at all here :-p). When an article receives so many KEEP vote, even less than a day, it clears the picture that someone tagged them intentionally (unfortunately nowadays it became a common culture here in Wikipedia). And for the betterment of WP, I strongly support a quick closing of such discussion. You may talk about policy. Remember, policy is not an unchangeable religion book that we can not modify. In such case, if requires, I prefer to start a debate on Policy Modification. Cheers. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 14:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Presumably you mean policy modification to make what he has been doing acceptable, which it is not at present. Good luck with that. In the meantime, he should be asked not to do it any more, even if none of his closes actually need re-opening. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as a point of fact, this discussion (mentioned above) involved multiple users who expressed the opinion that the article should be deleted - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Carson Middle School (2nd nomination). [[Guest9999 (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)]]

While I agree in principle that there's no reason to keep debates open longer than necessary to gauge concensus, I'll also note that Wikipedia is for the users, not the users who may have been online on a particular day and saw the debate. It's possible that all those who would recommend deletion happened to be offline on that particular day, or busy elsewhere, or just didn't see the notice. That's a major reason for the five-day rule. To delete an article without giving due process is unnecessary, and may actually increase the headache (with additional debates, discussion, and DRV). Also, per WP:SNOW, uphill battles are still winnable, and 5-8 keep votes could easily be overcome with sound policy arguments in favor of deletion. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep. That would definitely mean a lot of hassle. Like when the user in discussion disputed fair use of a non-free image I uploaded. When I put a hang-on tag and detailed the rational on talk page, he went on to put it to speedy. Luckily, another user saw it and removed the tag, and rebuked the user for that. He also managed to get the image deleted, though it was restored (it involved three highly active image patrolers, too), and the user apologized to the rebuking party (no concern about me, of course). But, overall it was quite a hassle. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jackkofspades seeks admin mentor

Jackkofspades was indef blocked by me on 30 Dec 2007 for socking. He contacted me via email about unblocking him and working towards better editing. In this case, I feel Jackkofspades is sincere about this and I have outlined a proposal on his talk page that basically says if he familiarizes himself with more wiki policies and accepts an admin as a mentor, I will not object to his being unblocked. I will forward the said email to the admin who accepts him as a mentor when Jackkofspades agrees to that mentor. It is up to Jackkofspades as to which admin mentor he accepts. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please create account for me

Can you please create the account "EvanS" (without the quotes) for me, as it is my former username. I wish to register it as a doppelganger account to prevent impersonation. Thank you. Diligent Terrier (talk · contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 23:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. - auburnpilot talk 23:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Saul Steinberg

don't know how to do it correctly myself. could someone please edit or clean up (or whatever the correct term is) this illiterate and unreferenced article. thank you. Marciamaria (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, I don't see a serious problem. Is that the right link? -- Kendrick7^talk 00:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

They might be talking about Saul Steinberg (business), which does have some puffery. I agree that Saul Steinberg, the cartoonist, is a perfectly fine article. Natalie (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember you can always use the village pump for things that don't need administrator help. Jackaranga (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Recently Ended RFCU

This case may need some looking-at by an administrator to block the appropriate socks (in the newest case). If Freedom_skies is blocked for violation of probation, you might need to record it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ember of Light (talk • contribs) 01:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Socks blocked and tagged, but I don't think the master will be editing soon. east.718 at 09:33, January 5, 2008

72.226.138.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This editor has added some seemingly true bits of information to several articles, but I noticed his/her contribs being reverted by other users and the user being warned for vandalism. I suspect that this user is adding false information to articles, but I'm not familiar with the subject matter in question so I can't confirm this. Could an admin please review this editor's contribs throughly. I've left a note on the user's talk page asking him/her to find sources for his information.--Urban Rose (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The edits to Chaka Khan were obviously vandalism, but the edits to Evanescence don't seem to be problematic, as they reflect facts included in the article of the fellow who's being linked. I could be missing something there. But, there have been no edits since the final warning was issued. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like it's the Chaka Kahn edits that were getting him in trouble. I don't know enough about the subject matter to say the other edits are true or not, but I noticed he added {{fact}} tags to some unsourced factual allegations and cleaned up some stuff on Love Metal and other articles. I don't think anything made after the final warning warrants a block. Gromlakh (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The tendentiousness of Blackworm

I'm not sure about bringing this here. It's not an acute situation but troublesome. Blackworm (talk · contribs) apparently has a long history of contentious argument with other editors, particularly on articles and user talk pages. The main articles are Circumcision, Female genital cutting, Reproductive rights, and Prevalence of circumcision, although there are some others. I'm not going give specific diffs but a quick skim through his talk page will reveal various conflicts. Of particular note is the Circumcision article where his conflict has been with five editors, three of them admins, who he accused of WP:OWNing the article. I'm not going to qualify whether anyone in the discussion is "right", just that the arguments often got very heated and accusations of violations of WP:NPA flew from both sides.

A look at Wannabe Kate's summary reveals a 4 to 1 ratio of talk page to mainspace edits which seem unusually high to me, particularly for so few articles. After I had a few moderately productive exchanges with him on the Talk:Reproductive rights page ([21] [22] [23] [24]) clarifying points, I let the matter rest. User:Phyesalis, who had asked me to look in on the Reproductive rights talk page because of the conflicts there, decided to disengage from the discussion. I left her a note supporting this break and saying "Blackworm has a point as well as an obvious POV in relation to this article. However I believe his time would be better spent conceptualizing a structured counterpoint section with relevant and valid sources/cites than haggling over wording in the first few sentences. Such a section would make it much easier to incorporate the view into the lede of the article." Now, saying I believe he has a strong POV (about abortion in this particular case) is not the same as saying he is deliberately inserting POV into the article text. Yet Blackworm extracted only that bit to post on my talk page, ignoring what were good suggestions for him to productively add to the article. So there were these posts to me, also taking me to task for my sexist characterizations of the vandals of my user page as "boys". (Perhaps it wasn't clear to him that I actually meant boys, as in under 13 years of age, because of the level of immaturity of their comments. And no offense meant to our younger editors, many of whom are quite mature and responsible on Wikipedia.)

None of this specifically violates policy yet as an overview it concerns me. I would hesitate to call him a troll but he sure tries to fit the bill in several ways. Because my exchanges with him have been over content of an article, I'm wary of taking any action. And I'm not sure whether any action is really needed. However, I'd like feedback on whether I'm being overly hard on an abrasive but productive editor or whether my perceptions are on target. Cheers, Pigman☿ 05:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking over the diffs, he seems exceedingly quick to ABF and look for offence where none is intended, and lash out at those who are trying to help. My impression? - he's here to fight and POV-push more than build the encyclopedia. I'd say he bears watching. I need to go a bit further back in his contribs, but if this has been his pattern for awhile, and if it's not improving... I'd support some sort of limit-setting. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize in advance if this response is too long. I will admit past failure to remain calm, assume good faith, and (especially in the case of circumcision) failures of WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA. I am a relatively new editor. I don't believe I have recently violated any policy or guideline, unless I'm misunderstanding something. I attempted to research "tendentious editing," but found only this essay, which states, This is [...] not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.

I agree with Pigman that the situation seems troublesome. I respectfully submit that a reasonable editor would have interpreted comments Pigman authored and posted in Pigman's User space as sexist, regardless of whether the reasonable editor would believe them offensive. I presented an objection, while quoting my evidence, on Pigman's talk page here, and asked him to consider removing or rephrasing the material.

I began the thread, perhaps hastily, on a completely different subject; namely Pigman's obscure accusation on another editor's Talk page that I displayed "obvious POV in relation to this article" (the article apparently Reproductive_rights). In the context of recently trying desperately hard to assume good faith in my contributions, especially in discussions with User:Phyesalis in Talk:Reproductive_rights and elsewhere, this accusation from Pigman came as a huge blow; making that particular guideline even harder to internalize.

I first encountered Pigman because he was called upon by User:Phyesalis to help resolve a dispute involving gender bias. (Phyesalis did this at the apparent suggestion of User:Cailil, and both Phyesalis and Cailil are members of WikiProject Gender Studies, where I am seemingly involved in yet another dispute, this time mainly with Cailil.) Forgive me if the combination of Pigman's (IMO) unfounded accusation of "obvious POV" on my part, and the apparently gender biased comments in his User space, caused me to question Pigman's judgment in a matter concerning gender bias (sexism) in gender-related articles. I don't believe that means Pigman's claim of tendentious editing on my part is supported.

To respond to Kathryn NicDhàna's apparent concerns, I will relate some history in this paragraph, which some readers may wish to skip. Recently I have somewhat stepped away from circumcision, after the one RfC I have ever initiated (after several archives' worth of often heated discussion, and some soul searching), drew a total of four editors; two opposing opinions, one of them from Phyesalis, who was not until then a contributor to the page to my knowledge. Two editors (including myself) supported my proposed changes. I disengaged, and did not touch the article. Yes, I use article Talk perhaps disproportionate compared to making article edits , but I believe this appropriate in articles on controversial subjects -- I view my high ratio of Talk posts to article edits as meritorious, not as evidence of disruption or other wrongdoing. In the spirit of WP:TEA and other accepted principles, I then shifted my focus toward correction what I saw as policy violations (especially WP:NPOV) in other gender-related articles, and refining my understanding of Wikipedia and its principles.

I point the reader toward my recent contributions, as well as recent entries my User and Talk pages, as evidence of a positive shift in my behaviour. I humbly believe I have especially displayed considerable patience and understanding in my many recent interactions with User:Phyesalis; an editor I (again, humbly, please review the evidence and judge) consider very new, very inexperienced especially in matter of Wikipedia policy, and presently disruptive. I invite specific questions, I welcome suggestions that I strikeout mistakes or offensive content, and I welcome requests for me to consider apologizing for specific actions. I will abide by any consensus arrived at by neutral administators here. Blackworm (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think all you guys need to take a step back and try to understand where you coming from and where you going. All of us have feelings some are more sensetive than others! Igor Berger (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Pigman is right. I was going to bring something here myself but due to the wikistress of dealing with Blackworm I'm trying to take a wikibreak. Blackworm, as he has admitted above, has failed to assume good faith. He has escalated disputes to other areas of wikipedia. This behaviour is consistent with treating Wikipedia is a battleground.

At this point I must mention that I am involved with Blackworm's dispute at WP:GS. I have also responded to his content dispute at Father's rights movementTalk:Fathers'_rights_movement#Removed_Bias and his comments at Talk:Women's rights[25] (which I called soapboxing, Blackworm says he was not, so I take his word for it) - basically it would be fair to say I have a history with this user.

However I am not involved in the dispute at Reproductive rights. I did offer an outside opinion. I did request that somebody from Wikiproject human rights who understands all the issues in that dispute have a look, and I did recommend that Phyesalis seek a third opinion. I consider Blackworm's above post - naming me to reflect his pattern of escalation.

A summary of recent tendentiousness from Blackworm

1. Blackworm was been in dispute with Phyesalis in articles relating to Category:Circumcision - especially Female genital cutting & Circumcision since October-November 2007. This dispute has spilled out into Reproductive rights. That page is on my watch list - I made a post to that page not supporting Phyesalis's position. She contacted me and I recommended she either RFC the article or ask "someone like Pigman" - Pigman is an uninvolved admin. Asking an uninvolved sysop for a WP:3O is normal practice.
2. Blackworm accuses Phyesalis of canvassing. Which to my knowledge is totally untrue. I came to Talk:Reproductive rights because it's on my watch list. And Pigman was asked as an uninvolved for an overview of the situation.

   Blackworm did not accuse Phyesalis of canvassing. Blackworm recommended that Phyesalis read WP:CANVASS if the user had not done so already and asked Phyesalis how many users Phyesalis had contacted. There was nothing "untrue" about what Blackworm said in that context; and the question and recommendation seem reasonable, as Phyesalis is a relatively new user, and as Phyesalis has made a number of requests for outside views, (presumably all within the guidelines of WP:CANVASS,) including, I believe, at least one article-content RfC and also including a series of talk-page messages to a number of users including this one, which I saw and which is how I got involved in the discussion at Female genital cutting, and from there subsequently Reproductive rights. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The diffs I'm referring to are here and here. It would also be of benefit to those not aware of the situation to know that A) I agreed with your position on talk:Reproductive rights and B) that you have worked very very hard to keep that discussion on-topic and productive.--Cailil ^talk 23:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

1. I added the wikiproject gender studies (WP:GS) template to the talk page along with Wikiproject Human Rights (I am a member of both projects and both were pertinent to the discussion). On January 2nd Phyesalis joins WP:GS. A day later, Blackworm makes this post[26] to its talk page (WT:GS). This post is flame bait, in saying "is this truly a project for "neutral documentarians" as stated on its page, or is it more of a collective of pro-feminist editors?" he basically describes the project as a povpushing cabal. I responded with this[27] - which Blackworm called a personal attack[28]. I had my behaviour overviewed by User:Jehochman[29], an uninvolved, User:EdJohnston[30] also endorsed my remarks. As did 2 other editors (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gender_Studies#Neutral_Wikiproject.3F).

He, then raised some concerns with the project's overview I stated I wouldn't have a problem changing them if there was consensus to do so. Consensus has not yet been sought, but he went ahead and changed the project's overview to his preferred state[31] today. Wikiprojects are defined and organized by their members. Blackworm is welcome to join, but at present he is not a member and even then he would need consensus for such a change. For the record I prefer his version - but due to the stress of dealing with him I am on a break, another member of the Project will have to moot it for a !vote.

History of similar behaviour

His comments to WT:GS are not the first time that Blackworm has engaged in drama to make a point[32][33]. A discussion on his talk page about his objections on Talk:Circumcision illustrates this further[34].

These are talk page discussions (very very long ones) demonstrating a history of this behaviour. Talk:Reproductive_rights#3RR_violation Talk:Reproductive_rights#Undue_weight_re_men.27s_versus_women.27s_rights Talk:Female genital cutting Talk:Circumcision_and_law#Data_from_Oregon_court_case

Conclusion

Wikipedia is about achieving consensus on talk pages based upon staying positive, on topic and assuming good faith of the other editor. Blackworm has made a number of good contributions to the Project but is failing to assume good faith. His dispute with Phyesalis has produced deadlock on at least 4 talk pages. But the matter is that Blackworm has escalated his dispute with Phyesalis to prove a point. The project is not a battle ground but he is treating it like one. I fully endorse Pigman's view. I see only 3 ways forward this goes to a user RFC, there is sysop review and intervention or it is taken to Arbcom.

Last night Blackworm left this comment at my talkpage[35] I will not be responding to it. And I am formally asking that Blackworm not edit my talk page again. If he has any issue with me take it here or to RFC--Cailil ^talk 14:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not take it to ANI and see if others can help you deescalate this. If that does not solve the problem you can go up the Authority Igor Berger (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Cailil, I will respect your request that I do not edit your talk page until you tell me otherwise. I dispute several of your claims above:

• "Blackworm [...] has failed to assume good faith." Not in your case, or the case you accuse me of, namely, here. Sadly, the reverse is not true, and as I understand it the only remaining issue between us is your accusation of bad faith on my part, having agreed on all article content we have ever discussed.
• "He has escalated disputes to other areas of wikipedia. This behaviour is consistent with treating Wikipedia is a battleground." I deny mixing disputes between pages, or personally targetting editors, and I do not share your view that cordially escalating disputes by official channels is inappropriate. If that were so, Pigman's "escalating" the dispute here would be inappropriate. It is not.
• I deny accusing User:Phyesalis of canvassing. I noticed activity which, if continued, may be seen as constituting canvassing, and wanted to make sure Phyesalis, a new user, was aware of the guideline, so I suggested ([here] and [here]) that Phyesalis may wish to read the guideline.
• I apologize if editing the Project page while not a member was inappropriate. As I make clear here [(diff)], there was no attempt to bypass or deny consensus. [Late edit - Actually, my attempts to edit the Project page were motivated by a desire to join the Project, but I did not want to "sign up" before fully agreeing with the stated and implied aims of the project, or questioning whether editors with certain viewpoints were welcome. Blackworm (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC) ]
• I deny that I "basically [describe] the project as a povpushing cabal." Nothing here warrants such a strong accusation.

Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I do apologise if you found my tone or attitude aggressive - it was not intended to be. However I'm calling it as I see it. You have stated above that you have not accused me of bad faith. I would point you to your claim that I personally attacked you[36] - which you still I hold I guess - with this post[37] and your thoroughly inaccurate description of my editing practice and philosophy at Father's rights movement[38]. I submitted my behaviour to sysop review immediately[39] and have done so again in order to address your concern that I have wrongly stated that you have failed to assume good faith. I await the views of outside editors on this matter and will abide by consensus. If the community feels I wrongly accused you of anything I will withdraw the remarks--Cailil ^talk 23:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not hold your apparent view that an accusation of having made a personal attack is necessarily an assumption of bad faith. I used the word "seem" in my impression of your editing philosophy, in direct reference to your previous comments, but I apologize if the suggestion offended you. I disagree with Jehochman's assessment of my behaviour and asked for clarification [here] (obtaining none so far), but nonetheless in the spirit of WP:AGF I am willing to unconditionally withdraw my accusation of your having made a personal attack in that instance, with my apologies. I now ask that you consider withdrawing the accusations you make which I deny above. Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm, Jehochman's is a very respectable senior editor at WikiPedia, disagreeing with his evaluation of you does not help your case. Furthemore, after looking more into your issues, and understanding the motivation for your behavior, I recommend you work with your peers and follow the guidance of User:Pigman for the good of WikiPedia ™. I hope we can adjourn from this matter and enjoy our fine weekend, but I will leave the decision in Pigman's capable hands, being that the admin is your mentor. Igor Berger (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice Igor Berger. Could you please consider expanding on your understanding of the motivation for my behavior? Use my Talk page if you wish.

Forgive me, I do not know who the "senior" Administrators are, nor do I see why disagreeing them and discussing the case with them hurts my case any more than it would with any other Administrator, or arguably any editor. I am generally honest with people and share my views, favourable or not. I have withdrawn the accusation (which seemed to bother Jehochman) of Cailil's making a personal attack and have struck out my comments on the relevant Talk page. I consider my issues with Jehochman solved until Jehochman tells me otherwise.

No disrespect intended, but I believe I am in the best position to evaluate my choice of mentors. If why wish to read why I am reluctant to accept Pigman as my mentor, the following small text comments may offer insight. If you do not, which I would fully understand, please skip them.

Pigman's parenthetical comments ("I actually meant boys, as in under 13 years of age, because of the level of immaturity of their comments") in the post that started this thread are not a defense against my accusations of his User space comment being sexist. Even if we were to accept as given that Pigman's User page vandals must be under 13 and immature (I do not take that as given, and see no reason to), how does that imply they are male? Why boys to describe two seemingly unrelated vandals of presumably unknown gender? Pigman has not explained this crucial point. Pigman seems to assume his first User page vandal is male, and the second one is too. What is stopping him from assuming all his future User page vandals are male? At what number of vandals will Pigman start considering whether any of them are girls?

I wouldn't normally care at all, to be perfectly honest, since I seem to routinely perceive sexism in places others do not, and have learned not to mention it. I also believe one can be mildly or perhaps even moderately sexist and still edit most of Wikipedia neutrally. But one member of WikiProject Gender Studies went to Pigman at the suggestion of another member to resolve a dispute in a gender-related article, and to my complete shock and heartbreak, considering our seemingly positive and fruitful discussion, Pigman accused me of obvious POV in relation to this article on the Talk page of one of the editors involved. That accusation is on the record. I made a huge effort to remain patient and neutral throughout that ordeal, and the effort was a failure in the eyes of an Administrator. I would enjoy hearing from that Administrator, if he is truly a mentor, why he thinks my effort was a failure. I do want to become a better editor and be neutral.

If I'm bound to live with Pigman's silence on our remaining issues, so be it. Maybe I offended him somehow, maybe he is just keeping an eye on me (I can't say I blame him given my history), or maybe Pigman is simply a busy admin; in any case, I ultimately don't believe an explanation is owed me from Pigman regarding his accusation of POV or the contents of Pigman's User space. I invite discussion between Pigman and I elsewhere, such as on my Talk, if Pigman so wishes. I apologize to Pigman for any missteps, past or present. I'm fine with dropping all current issues with Pigman if that is fine with Pigman. I'll strikeout or delete my messages on Pigman's Talk page if he so wishes.

One thing I would beg for an Administrator to limit as soon as possible, however, is this ridiculous talk of escalation by non-Administrators, such as Phyesalis' multiple RfC:User threats against me in article Talk and on my User_talk (threats never reciprocated by me, but yet never actually carried out by Phyesalis), and now, sadly, Cailil's talk of escalation below. I'm dumbfounded that Cailil is now advocating escalation of this issue in this forum. It's not about article content as far as I can see. Is it about the petty issues between Cailil and I? If this is really to be escalated, I'm begging that someone please do it -- this instant, tomorrow, in a month, whenever you feel it appropriate. But stop threatening to do it, especially if you're not an Administraor, please. This is one reason (out of many, I'm sure) to respect Pigman. Thank you, Pigman, you moved the process along, asked for outside opinion, and expressed your concerns always assuming good faith. But my patience with non-Administrators' talk about formal escalation or disciplinary measures (Phyesalis and Cailil), highly debatable claims about my actions (Cailil), and reckless, disruptive editing of articles (Phyesalis, but at least that has stopped, for the moment) has its limits; and with all respect, I would really, honestly, rather be helping articles than defending myself in meta-discussions in this forum about my behaviour and especially about my underlying motivations or the possibility of disciplinary action against me. Either I'm doing okay, or I'm not. Please let me know, and I'll take it under advisement and perhaps work on it. I will take everyone's good faith comments here seriously, and will try hard to assume good faith in others. Blackworm (talk) 09:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Horse Shit, I am not interested in entering in your protractive convoluted justification of strawman defence. I came here to give you a hand but you are exibiting the same type of behavior as you are beeing blamed for by everyone else who is involved with you. Your protracted essay, has not interest for me. If you cannot work in Tranquility and harmony with your peers, you should consider the consequences. I am getting ready to recommend a ban on you to sysop. If you cannot do a 180 here and now, you will pay the penalty. Have a nice day, Igor Berger (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Igor, I know how difficult dealing with this issue is, but would you mind moderating your above post a little.--Cailil ^talk 11:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Igorberger, if you feel that banning me from Wikipedia is both warranted and desirable, I invite you to justify it in the appropriate forum. Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 10:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm this needs to cleared up - I am not saying, and have not said that you "are acting in bad faith" - there would be no discussion in that situation. Comments made in bad faith are reverted and reported as trolling. I have said that you failed to assume good faith. This is the same as saying you have not assumed good faith. It's not about your edits, it's about your attitude to other editors and comments to them. I recognize that you have made good contributions to the encyclopedia. However your comments about Pigman[40], about me (above and otherwise detailed here) & about WikiProject Gender studies (above and in the User talk:Pigman diff), which is in effect a comment on all of its members, show you not assuming that any of the rest of us are working in good faith.

Again unless the community tells me I am misundersting WP:AGF in this case I will continue to stand over my comments. Notwithstanding that, you can start assuming good faith at any time and I would be happy to see my concerns become past tense and if that happened I would recognize that any failure to AGF was historical, as I am sure would everyone else. Everyone deserves a second chance but that chance needs to be taken--Cailil ^talk 11:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You assert that I failed to assume good faith. I deny this and assert that I was assuming good faith, but express an apology for and made amends for any behaviour I can reasonably see that would lead you to that conclusion, including striking out comments. In light of this, you continue to assert that I failed to assume good faith. Who, in your opinion, is presently acting in good faith -- me, you, both of us, or neither of us?

WP:AGF: Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. Blackworm (talk) 11:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Response from Phyesalis

As the main editor involved with Blackworm in this series of pages, I would support that venue which would most likely have lasting and productive results. As previously noted, I have disengaged from 4 pages because I find there is no productive approach to co-editing with him. I would like to get back to working on the articles. I am a newbie and am unfamiliar with this process, but it seems like there is a consensus building toward some formal step, I see no reason to present arguments or respond to Blackworm's characterization of me and our interactions at this time. I think my stats speak for themselves. However, I would be happy to provide additional information with diffs upon request. Thank you for your time in this matter. Phyesalis (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Coppertwig

I've been trying to encourage Phyesalis and Blackworm to get along with each other, and to discourage them from posting comments about editor behaviour on article talk pages. After initially getting involved (Dec. 2) I've seen improvement in the behaviour of both users, and the article talk page discussions, in which I'm involved, seem to me to have gotten more productive, focussing on article content issues.

After a number of exchanges such as this one, in which Phyesalis had used the phrase "disrupted a constructive and good faith attempt between two editors" and Blackworm responded by patiently and civilly explaining Wikipedia policy, I posted this message to Blackworm on Blackworm's talk page, commending Blackworm for calmness and civility in responding to posts from Phyesalis.

Phyesalis has been focussing on trying to insert certain statements into the articles and Blackworm and I have been trying to explain that they violate WP:V and WP:NPOV. Some progress has been made in discussing the different points of view on this and a number of compromises have been attempted, and I expect that if discussion can be kept civil and openminded we will eventually reach some sort of consensus.

I would like to encourage everyone involved (without implying that some are not doing so already) to remember that things look different to people with different points of view, so that what looks to one person like a perfectly justified and useful remark often looks to another person like an avoidable and inflammatory remark. Therefore, we all need to take extra care to ensure that our posts not only seem courteous in our own eyes but also seem so to others; and we also need to realize that a remark that appears discourteous may not seem so to the one who wrote it. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Coppertwig, I know how difficult it can be trying to mediate (even just informally) between editors and I think you've done your best and a pretty good job. This is an open suggestion to Blackworm and Phyesalis as well. In regard to the on going disputes between Phyesalis & Blackworm would you all be willing to try formal mediation? As this requires all party assent Coppertwig you would need to be willing to take part in at least the Reproductive rights mediation, if the others both agree to it. WP:MEDCABAL is a dispute resolution method and could/should help resolve their dispute--Cailil ^talk 02:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to respond to Coppertwig's comments by first mentioning that I recognize him to be a valuable member of WP. However, I would like to point out that Coppertwig has accompanied Blackworm from Circumcision, to Female genital cutting, and onto Reproductive rights. His post does not make it clear that he also edits these pages and is an active participant in the related disputes. Originally, I considered mentioning Coppertwig in this dispute, but due to his general civility and the fact that he did compromise or work toward solutions in a few instances, I was willing to overlook some tendentious edits/arguments and continue to AGF.

In response to Cailil, I would be most willing to enter into formal mediation with Coppertwig and Blackworm. I acknowledge I am a newbie, and made some newbie missteps, but I feel justified in my perspective. I would welcome mediation (as I hope it will be a learning experience). Phyesalis (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If either of you feel the need, I'm in. Be WP:BOLD. Blackworm (talk) 09:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to Phyesalis: I don't remember any specific allegations of me doing "tendentious edits/arguments" or of me apparently not trying to work towards solutions in any situation. I thought you and I were getting along well, in spite of being on opposite sides of a couple of disputes. If you have any problems with my behaviour, please take it up with me on my talk page, providing sufficient specific details to allow me to respond constructively.

Re mediation: since Phyesalis and Blackworm have agreed to mediation and my participation is apparently required, I also agree to mediation, at least tentatively. Would one of you like to file the mediation request, or shall we work together on defining what the dispute is before filing the request, or what is the next step? I won't be completely sure I'm agreeing to participate until after the request is filed, so I can see the description of the dispute. --Coppertwig (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize: I should have stated at the beginning that I've edited all four articles mentioned at the top of this section, and that I've very often agreed with Blackworm on article content issues. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Touhou Project characters

List of Touhou Project characters used to have a number of images tagged with {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}}. User:Betacommand removed these, probably related to this NFC discussion; the images were subsequently deleted. Since the deleting admin seems to be offline, discussion ended up here.

The official site of the team has a support page which links to a geocities site for questions on derivative works. A specific subpage page of that geocities site was cited for the licensing. (For instance, see this deleted image).

I've done what I can. We need the license/translation verified, and some discussion of whether the images uploaded by User:Deadkid dk should be undeleted. Gimmetrow 06:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:User ja-N: there has to be some trusted users in there. east.718 at 15:31, January 5, 2008

Ive talked to a few ja.wiki users and have gotten mixed translations, for that reason I asked that we get a confirmation by having the copyright holder e-mail m:OTRS β^_command 15:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

What kind of "mixed translations" are you getting? It will help us better if you specifically state them. _dk (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

A question I think would be if the "license" could be classified as "free", mostly based on the third point: "3. Please don't modify the image such that it's not clear that the image had been modified. So changing colours, adding fake bullets onto the image, and changing the names of spell cards are not good." _→AzaToth 15:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

In the images you deleted, this was followed by "However, if you state that you modified the image for the above case, then it is fine." Assuming the text/translation is accurate, this is not disallowing derivative works, but imposing a condition that they be identified as derivative works. Gimmetrow 16:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I was reading the text on the talk page, and assumed it was the same as for all images in question. _→AzaToth 18:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

So, do you plan to undelete them? Gimmetrow 20:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I can do that when a confirmation has arrived via otrs, I'm still uncertain that the license would hold. _→AzaToth 21:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You've already admitted you didn't read the image page; you didn't state a CSD criteria for deletion, and you didn't give notice to the uploader. Do I need to take this to deletion review? Gimmetrow 21:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I had read the talk page of List of Touhou Project characters, and then checked the image page, and as the pre formated text boxes looked so similar, I thought they had the exact same content. A couple of points, why I think the license isn't ok: §2: "but please keep their ratios the same", don't know how to weight "please" in a legal document, but I'm afraid it would resolve to probition. There is no statement that the images can be reused, if the license is only for wikipedia, then it's unfree, also there is no statement of the abillity to use the images for comercial use. _→AzaToth 22:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't need to explictly allow commercial use. The text/translation, if accurate, doesn't forbid commercial use, and it refers to strategy guides and such which would typically be commercial products.

I would read "don't change the aspect ratio" as a condition, but if others think this condition is so burdensome and limiting to derivative works, then it needs to be discussed first, rather than deleting the images without prior notice. This is, I think, an out-of-process deletion, and you really should undelete them. (I had some concerns about the images too, but since nobody has so far brought up anything even remotely related to my own concerns, I won't bother with them.) Gimmetrow 23:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"Don't change the aspect ratios" only applies to the original screenshot in its uncropped resolution (800x600), since the images are cropped from said screenshots (permissible under #4), that criteria does not apply here. _dk (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

We could solve this perhaps by answering following question: Am I allowed to use these images to create an own computer game? _→AzaToth 15:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate block

Hi. I made some minor edits to 7-Eleven and so have been watching it regularly on my watchlist. Recently I noticed that User:Duhman0009 complained of someone removing a piece of trivia from the article in his edit summary when he restored it. This trivia was promptly re-removed by User:Deiz with the edit summary "Reverted to revision 181250194 by Jnelson09; rm minor unreferenced trivia." [41] This raised some interesting questions in my mind, as it appeared to me that the other trivia in the section was also "minor" and is also mostly unreferenced; in addition, it seemed to me that trivia saying a dialogue happened in a movie is inherently referenced.

Deiz then removed it, claiming violation of verifiability policies, and Duhman009 restored it claiming a "POV" edit by Deiz. I was then surprised to see a revert by Deiz with the edit summary that Duhman009 was blocked. It seemed to me, given my comments above, that Deiz was on pretty shaky ground. I then checked their talk pages and noted that immediately after the removal by Deitz above, he left a message on Duhman009's talk page, stating "If you don't want your contributions deleted then don't add useless unsourced trivia to WP. Pretty simple." [42] That seems like a rude, unhelpful message to leave on a newbie's talk. Also, Duhman's comments on Deitz's talk [43] seem to be in good faith, and he does make some good points (which I mentioned above).

Basically I'm writing this because I was shocked to see Deiz was even an admin. This seems like an extremely immature exchange and overreaction. I don't know if this is the appropriate place or what ought to be done (as it is only a 24 hour block), but I think it's important not to leave some kind of permanent black mark on Duhman009's record for actions and comments which I think are perfectly understandable. --C S (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh don't worry about me, I'm actually thinking of framing this as a fine example of Power Abusage :)Duhman0009 (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Without delving in the details of the edits (something which is, actually, not that germane), what you describe is edit warring; the repeated insertion (or removal) of the same information without trying to achieve consensus on the article talk page. A short block is a common measure to nip that sort of behavior in the bud (and, indeed, is supposed to be automatic after the third revert). It's usually considered bad form for an administrator to block someone for edit warring when directly involved in the same edits— but not necessarily inappropriate. Have you expressed your concerns to the administrator himself? (For instance, by leaving a polite inquiry on their talk page). — Coren ^(talk) 15:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Coren, the IP I used to type yesterday (128.121.126.103) was not mine, it's one of the many proxy servers that has not been banned from Wikipedia, you might want to add it to the list :) Duhman0009 (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Block seems a bit long and would have been best enforced by somebody not involved.

As to the content, I believe the word you are looking for is "crap" :) --kingboyk (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The entire section was crap, I just figured, might as well add to the pile :P Duhman0009 (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol, he's actually an admin, wow, didn't even noticed nor would I ever have guessed by his attitude. Just goes to show you that 95% of people with any sort of power shouldn't have any because he or she will abuse it. Any way, all of my points were valid: He was using his PPOV to determine what should and shouldn't be on the page, he did not give a proper reason why it was removed, the content was more or less the same as the rest, the entire section was un-sourced and now I learned that there was a conflict of interest. I'm starting to think that I would make a better admin or mod (not that I would want to :P). I personally see this as a victory since the entire section was removed, it's fair justice. Thanks for the support guys. --Duhman0009 (talk) 11:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.121.126.103 (talk)

(ec)While Deiz probably should not have issued the block (as he was involved in the dispute), Duhman's complete lack of civility costs him any possible sympathy. Twenty-four hours may be a bit long, but I do not disagree with the block here. faithless (^speak) 16:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The first comment I left was pretty much neutral and straight to the point, but after his harsh reply, I started talking to his level of rudeness. I don't see why I should stay civil when someone else (especially someone with the title of admin) can't do the same. --Duhman0009 (talk) 11:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.121.126.103 (talk)

Deiz didn't act perfectly here; specifically this comment was a bit out of line, I think. But your reaction overshadows his slight rudeness. Just because someone is rude to you is no reason to stoop to their level. And besides, as far as the original content dispute goes, Deiz was right; it was an incredibly minor piece of trivia which was completely irrelevant to the article. It appears that now the entire section has been removed (rightly, I would say). You seem to have been acting in good faith, so I would just suggest to take this as a learning experience and to remember to remain civil at all times. If someone is uncivil to you, there are ways to deal with it. Answering incivility with incivility will often result in a block. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 16:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm a big believer of "an eye for an eye", but putting that aside, I doubt that anyone would take any action against and admin who's being rude. Anyway, I think you're dancing around the main issue here, which is that the removal of the content was never about something "useless" or "unsourced", it was about Deiz not wanting anyone to defy his authority. As I stated, the entire "Pop-Culture" section was technically irrelevant, unsourced and I'm sure that Deiz is neither dumb or blind, so he must have known that as well. If he truly believed in the reasons he told me (that my post was irrelevant and unsourced), he would have removed the entire section like Kingboyk did. How can you justify Deiz's action if not tyranny? Duhman0009 (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldnt exactly say "Deiz probably should not have issued the block (as he was involved in the dispute)," -- I'd say "Deiz certainly absolutely should not have issued the block... " regardless of the bad behavior of the other party. This is about as basic as its gets--any of the rest of us thousand active admins he mighthave asked would have looked at the situation & done it. DGG (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I won't make this topic any longer than it already is. Everything I just told to faithless applies here as well, but I will add something else. There are rules on Wikipedia and they apply for everyone, including mods and admins. Also, like in real life, some rules and crimes have higher importance than others. Personally, I see myself right now as a shoplifter Vs a crooked cop.Duhman0009 (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a question. Has there been a longer term pattern of bullying? Linkboyz (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with much of what has been said above. I could have passed this on, but given the clear, repeated violation of policy after warnings and Duhman "daring" me to call an admin to take action against him - when he had clearly not taken the time to check whether the editor he was shouting at was an admin himself - a 24hr block seemed entirely reasonable. I have been involved in cleaning up / editing this article in the past, but very little recently, and certainly have no conflict of interest with the subject of the article. The 7-11s here don't even sell Slurpees :( Nice to see Linkboyz still has it in for me for no apparent reason. If the unsourced trivia has been removed entirely, I see a victory for WP:V, not for an incivil editor who repeatedly added unsourced trivia. If any offence was taken at my comments (which I admit were direct but imo entirely accurate and certainly not unhelpful) then I humbly apologize, but if Duhman has learned a few things about policy and generally how to go about communicating and editing on Wikipedia (sadly not clear from some of the comments above regarding POV when the issue was verifiability, but we can hope) then I'm happy with how things transpired. Deiz talk 02:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As for you my friend, the only thing I can say for your brilliant acting right there is this: http://i8.tinypic.com/8a055b7.gif Duhman0009 (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Sango123

Does anyone know anything about this? Can anyone confirm or deny? —Wknight94 (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Last edit to en.wiki was in October 2006, so I'm not sure how to go about confirming or denying this. The fact that Sangosmom posted in January 2008 that she died in May 2007 is raising a red flag for whatever reason. --Coredesat 17:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, just noticed that Sangosmom was blocked indefinitely less than 10 minutes before I replied here. --Coredesat 17:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that doesn't necessarily tell us anything since we don't know on what basis that account was blocked. I'll ask the blocking admin to come and comment. --kingboyk (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It was this edit [44] that. User evidently does not even know Sango123. I feel the block was valid. If there are any other questions email them please.--Sandahl 18:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

At any rate, I removed the section left on Sango123's user talk page and sent her an email through Special:Emailuser. --Coredesat 18:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

R. S. Wenocur

I'd come across the article R. S. Wenocur a few days ago and started to fix it up; upon further editing I came to the conclusion that notability per PROF had not been established and that this article (and several reincarnations Roberta Wenocur, Roberta S. Wenocur) has been a bone of contention among several other editors. It was my intentions to take it to AfD within a week if notability hadn't been established however two editors (both of whom seem to have been previously involved with the article) seem to be determined to WP:OWN the article and it has slid into civility issues on their part. Because it has been prod'ed and AfD'ed so many times and I don't feel that the people who have dealt with this before are available to deal with this right now (User:DGG I know is one of them..) it needs to be looked at by somebody other than me because quite frankly with the civility issues I'm not sure I'm the best one deal with this. I apologize if this isn't the proper place for this but I know it will be the one to get the fastest results. Thanks. --ImmortalGoddezz 19:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Note also that User:MathStatWoman, the creator of a previous version of this article has engaged in Checkuser-confirmed abusive sockpuppetry, been blocked more than once for other offenses, and may be back under a new username. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Please watchlist China

The article China has been under long term protection from a very determined sockmaster. A high profile article cannot be long term protected against vandalism. Please add it to your watchlist. This diff [45] highlights a typical edit from the sockpuppet. While it looks like a legitimate content dispute this is a behavior based block. The sockmaster is not willing to discuss the issue, is not willing to abide by 3RR, and is not willing to engage in community editing. The rest of the editors involved have gone over this section of the article multiple times to revise any content issues.

These sockpuppets need to be instantly banned the moment they edit, we suspect there are dozens of them pre-baked as semi-protection did not stop them before. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Please consider making a check-user request at WP:CHECK. They can determine, and possibly block, the IP address of this sockmaster. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, already done. The user is on an ISP that gives dynamic addresses. There would need to be a /18 blocked and that is too collateral. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Here is the next one: Pufae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Weird Google results on BLPs

Is this something Wikipedia is going, or something Google is doing? I noticed on some BLP articles, but not all, the text of the article isn't what is appearing in the Google search results, but some other content. For example:

• Dennis Kucinich: "Hyperlinked encyclopedia article about the US Representative for Ohio and presidential candidate."
• George W. Bush: "Open-source encyclopedia article provides personal, business and political information about the President, his policies, and public perceptions and ..."
• Barack Obama: "Hyperlinked encyclopedia entry provides an extensive personal and political profile of the US Senator for Illinois and candidate for US President."
• Bill Gates: "Growing detailed biography, with links to related topics, a wealth of information. [Wikipedia]"

But not all BLPs are affected:

• Mwai Kibaki: This is linked off our front page, the current President of Kenya. It doesn't do it for him: "Mwai Kibaki (born November 15, 1931) is the President of Kenya. Kibaki was previously Vice President (1978 - 1988), and has held several other cabinet ..."
• Ray Nagel: I went to find the mayor of New Orleans, and found this fellow instead by misspelling his name by mistake: "Ray Nagel attended Los Angeles High School from 1941-1945 and played quarterback for the football team. He was a third team all-city selection his senior ..."

Non-BLP articles don't appear affected (I've yet to find one that is):

• Volvo: "This article is about Volvo Group - AB Volvo; Volvo Cars is the luxury car maker owned by Ford Motor Company, using the Volvo Trademark. ..."
• McDonalds: "McDonald's Corporation (NYSE: MCD) is the world's largest chain of fast food restaurants, primarily selling hamburgers, cheeseburgers, chicken products, ..."
• Microsoft: "[5] [3] Headquartered in Redmond, Washington, USA, its best selling products are the Microsoft Windows operating system and the Microsoft Office suite of ..."
• Japan: "The characters that make up Japan's name mean "sun-origin", which is why Japan is sometimes identified as the "Land of the Rising Sun". ..."

It only seems to happen on BLPs, and very inconsistently. If this is us, where and how is this controlled for which articles do or don't do this? Does anyone know what this is? Lawrence Cohen 22:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This could be a developer attempt to mask vandalism from Google. (I remember specifically an incident a couple months ago where Google crawled a vandalized version of George Washington, causing the first result for all GW searches to be "George Washington is a fucking douchebag".) The four examples you give are often-vandalized articles, so I'd hazard a guess that it's manually implemented into robots.txt based on the level of vandalism. Sean William @ 22:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think these come from dmoz. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of these are obviously from DMOZ. This misfeature of Google can be turned off using META NAME="GOOGLEBOT" CONTENT="NOODP", but I don't think Wikipedia does that. Quatloo (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

So, is there a way to correct this? I noticed months ago that the Google result for Ted Kennedy incorrectly summarizes the article as "Hyperlinked encyclopedia entry provides a personal and political profile of the US Senator for Alabama." (For those outside the US, Kennedy is from Massachusetts) - auburnpilot talk 00:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of us from outside the USA do know where Mr Kennedy, the well-known motorist, is from!DuncanHill (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"the well-known motorist" - Too funny. - auburnpilot talk 00:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it require the developers? Lawrence Cohen 00:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I went over to the dmoz site and their feedback system isn't working right now. I'm not sure if this is an issue on our end or theres. - auburnpilot talk 00:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have used "update listing" at [46] to enter the correct state. It may take a while before a volunteer editor reviews it. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It may take until the end of time. Large portions of DMOZ are abandoned wasteland. Quatloo (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Some WR folks noticed this a whle back and came up with an explanation, I will try and find it. Viridae^Talk 21:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Here we go: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=13014 Viridae^Talk 02:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Reconfirmation RfA notice

Dear Community, as some of you may know, a thread was started on WT:RFA about admins retaining their admin bit after changing names under the Right to Vanish. I am one such admin, this thread mentioned me, and I stated that if anyone wanted me to, I would stand for RfA again. I received a request today, and have honored that request with a reconfirmation RfA here. Please look at me, not the process, I would like this to proceed with as little drama as possible. This was entirely my decision. Regards to all, Keilana^talk_(recall) 03:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to change the directory template at the top of this page

... a.k.a. Template:Editabuselinks. The proposed version is here, you can comment on it at the talk page. MER-C 04:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for putting it here. I had dropped it on the various Wikipedia talk: pages, but didn't know if it was important enough to get full billing. Hopefully this will bring more discussion. MBisanz ^talk 04:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we need a discussion for everything? I've just gone ahead and done it. east.718 at 10:11, January 6, 2008

So I just got offered money (via email) to edit Wikipedia: several offers exists, some posted in WP

This has never happened to me before. I guess I should say that I believe the offer was made in "good faith", that is, the editor in question was unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies, was having difficulty adding links to his webpage and creating an article about himself/his company (it was all spam/COI and apparently I reverted/deleted a lot of it) and so decided to offer me money via email to create his article and add his links appropriately. Since I "seem to know my way around" etc. Of course I refused, citing WP:COI as the relevant policy for both why he shouldn't be doing that and I couldn't take any money for editing article (neverminding my own ethics and the fact that I'd almost certainly be de-sysopped). Has this happened to anyone else? I know there's been some issues in the past relating to pay-for-editing, but is there an actual policy against it? Just curious mostly and in no danger of going over to the Dark side. Cheers Dina (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Paid editing is a conflict of interest. I think it is not expressly forbidden because COI editors are still allowed to do things like place comments on talk pages, revert vandalism to own articles and remove WP:LIVING violations. A public relations agent could in theory charge clients to monitor their articles, keep them free of policy violations, and use the talk page to suggest new references. If anyone chooses to do paid editing, I personally think it should be fully disclosed so that the community can ensure propriety.Jehochman ^Talk 15:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Dina, this practice has been around for some months now i believe. I totally agree with Jehochman re transparency. We should make sure that there is no WP:COI being involved. Please have a look at Wikipedia:REWARD#Money. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, money! Considering how many hours it takes to write, it's low pay but it's still money! I didn't know that there was a WP board. Someday, WP may be sold. It could get a lot of money. Jimbo is a smart man. I presume he'll get a lot of money and the world will have an encyclopedia. 2 winners! Spevw (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo doesn't own Wikipedia. --B (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jehochman While I agree with your statement, I am worried that this can be abused. Having a proper disclosure is a must in anything that may be seen as WP:COI. Solicitation of clients via WikiPedia is not advisable. As a notable editor we will be approached by outsiders who will try to influence our edits making this a gray area. WikiPedia is not for Sale ™ and if one comes to edit WikiPedia thinking of a monetary reward, they are very mistaken. Not intended at J. Igor Berger (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what was the company? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

While I know Jeff's question was in good faith, it may not be a good idea to out the company. Just a thought. :) M-ercury at 01:08, January 7, 2008

Personal information

Resolved

Keilana^talk_(recall) 16:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

A user gave out a name which is "apparently" mine. I have been the victim of stalking before and am very uncomfortable having a name where I have never given it out. If I provided a diff to an admin, could I have it deleted? This is a deeply personal issue. Charles 15:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I would recommend having an admin delete the diff and then request oversight, so it is invisible to admins as well. I'd be available to perform the deletion if need be. Keilana^talk_(recall) 15:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you prefer if I posted the diff here or on your talk page? Charles 15:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

My talk is fine, thanks. Keilana^talk_(recall) 15:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"fake move attack" comes back again

• (See Archive118 Please) This guy comes back again, he uses ip 63.215.28.110 to add information of a fake move Tom & Jerry: The Great Beginning into Spike (MGM), thanks for giving a hand for this.123.193.12.44 (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

  I've issued the IP a level 2 warning on introducing deliberate factual errors. That's really about all that can be done, as the issue doesn't appear to be pervasive and ongoing. If it happens again, continue to remove and warn. Once you've issued a level 4 (final) warning, if the IP continues to vandalize, report the user at WP:AIV to be blocked for disruption. Gromlakh (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, this rabbit hole might go deeper yet. I've reverted two of their edits to BLP articles (one from over a month ago) for lack of sources. I think more eyes on this IP's contribution history would be called for. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

And 63.215.28.109 too. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback abuse?

I'm hesitant to post here for fear of causing the oft-feared drama, but feel that given the user in question's actions I have been left no choice, with attempted rational discussion on his user talk page having failed several times already. I have been asked to look at UtherSRG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s use of rollback perhaps half a dozen times or more since Christmas, and have observed messages on his talk page being posted complaining about rollback use in that time. The issue seems to be this - under the guise of WP:IAR, Uther has been using the rollback utility to revert contributions which do not fall under the criteria for rollback cited in WP:ROLLBACK, where it is indeed called a "slap in the face to a good-faith editor". I would suggest that several users are by now in facial distress. What's the solution? Some sort of consensus either way - is Uther's use of rollback to revert good-faith edits without leaving a note acceptable, or is it not? Once we have that, if further action (strong warning) needs to be taken it can be done. Thanks for your time, Martinp23 20:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't personally see a reason to consider rollback really much of a special tool. To me, it's no big deal- it's just a quickie way of doing something that ANY editor can do. However, reverting good faith contributions without good explanation is a bit of a problem, whether it was done in one click or not. Friday (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

He's a bit snappy at those who come to his talk page looking for explainations--Phoenix-wiki 20:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick look through his contribs and I see many edits like this - it's a clear misuse of the tool and is extremely unbecoming of an administrator. A firm warning may all be required this time round, but future misuse should probably result in an RfC. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh please folks. There's a discussion going on to give non-admins the rollback feature, and there are apps out there that do the same thing... Look at the number of total edits I make per day (many while at work when I don't have the time to craft an edit summary for each one...). If anything, all I'll do is put "revert" into the edit summary. It's just not feasible to make the number of edits I do and craft an edit summary for each of them. So I invoke WP:IGNORE, the one rule that overrides all other rules. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Many of us here, including me, make 1000+ edits per month and still find time to write an edit summary.--Phoenix-wiki 21:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh please Uther, Ryan is right. Reverts like this need an edit summary, not just a blanket revert. Rollback is an admin tool, even if it is going to be granted to non-admins. Non-admins will need to use the tool properly as well as admins. This is not the end of the world, but you really should not continue using the rollback button outside its intended scope. Also, I don't think you are using IAR properly, I don't see how the rules got in your way, you just didn't bother. 1 != 2 21:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be your satisfactory explanation for misusing rollback? You don't use rollback on good faith edits - it should only be used for reverting things such as vandalism. I urge you to rethink this, because if you carry on misusing one, you're liable to lose them all. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you make ~25 edits a day, that's not a lot. There are plenty of people who edit more and still manage to find the few seconds it takes to type a summary. John Reaves 21:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:IGNORE is for situations when ignoring a particular rule is paramount to preserving the encyclopedia and preventing disruption. I can't see how ignoring the edit summary rule just because you don't have time to fill it in is doing much for it at all, considering the fact that your unexplained reverts are sure to cause confusion amongst other editors. Spebi 21:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Unexplained reverts are disruptive if the edits reverted are not vandalism. If you do revert with rollback, at least have the courtesy to explain why you did, afterwards. Majorly (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) WP:IAR states that you should use it if a rule prevents you from making a constructive edit. I think you just see the title and you start "ignoring all of the rules." I think that you're just using IAR as an excuse for misusing the rollback tool. Jonathan § 21:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflicted 6 times) Uther: There are many people on Wikipedia reverting stuff. You don't need to get X amount of edits per day, and I reckon that many people would find that leaving a good edit summary on all edits (albeit fewer edits that you can fit in) is better than reverting half the encyclopedia with almost no justification. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 21:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Martinp23, Friday, Phoenix-wiki, Ryan Postlethwaite, Until(1 == 2), John Reaves, Spebi, Majorly, Jonathan, and Stwalkerster above. Please either use an edit summary or stop reverting possibly good faith edits. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use war being lost

Administrators,

In the Spring of 2007 the Wikimedia Foundation released a resolution titled Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy regarding the use of non-free media on its projects. Subsequent to this, a huge amount of effort was undertaken to significantly reduce the mass overuse of fair use images across the project. This included removals of fair use images from discographies, episodes lists, and character lists.

Image removals from discographies and episode lists was severely fought on a number of fronts. Ultimately, it was won by the people removing the images, and discographies and episode lists across the project have largely had their images removed. There are few left with such images. The effort to remove images from character lists has run into massive resistance. Frankly, the situation is on a precipice.

Right now on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content there is heavy debate regarding this issue. The sheer numbers of people who are involved in that discussion is outweighing the voices of people who have been working in the trenches attempting to bring the project in compliance with the Foundation's resolution, in particular that fair use images must be used "to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works"

If nothing is done, if nobody is willing to do anything about this but the few of us who have been working on this, the status quo will be to accept images for depiction purposes only on every character in every fictional universe written about on the project. A case example of this is the use of more than 180 images in 17 lists of characters articles for the Stargate/SG-1 universe. See the various lists linked to from Template:Stargate Atlantis Recurring and Template:Recurring characters on Stargate SG-1. Another case example is Minor Harry Potter characters where the images have been removed several times over the last several days, and an edit war continues on that article. These are minor characters by the very title of the article, yet the fair use inclusionists insist they are in the right and are very willing to edit war into oblivion to have their way.

By definition, Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia. See m:Mission. We've been one of the greatest projects in the vanguard of free content. It now stands at grave risk from people who absolutely insist we must have fair use used as liberally as possible.

I am begging for your help.

Please.

--Hammersoft (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you think the war can be won if you contact the owners of the images and get permission to use them on WikiPedia. I understand you want to uphold the free use, but...? Igor Berger (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree. If I remember, Ubisoft agreed to let us use screenshots of their games on Wikipedia. If they've let us use pictures of their games, couldn't we ask other copyrighters to let us use their images? bibliomaniac15 23:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

One would like to remind those who view this as a "war" that Wikipedia is not a battleground. Discussion and consensus are key to our collaborative effort and treating others as the "enemy" in a "fair use war" is really at odds with our overall mission more than the spattering of fair use images are. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Wikipedia is not a battleground it's an attempt to build a free content encyclopaedia. The editors putting "free content" before "encyclopaedia" have been advancing their cause with amazing success the last couple years - if any group around here doesn't need help ... WilyD 00:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

edit conflict

Even if they agreed it would still be a non-free image, from wikipedia policy point of view it is no better than fair-use, there is no advantage in getting the approval of the owner (yes I know this sounds unreal, but read the policy again and you will see that even when the owner authorises the use on wikipedia, it still needs a rationale and non-free license).

As far as all the fan boy stuff goes, I think this is a much bigger problem than them just ignoring the non-free policy. In a recent AfD I started one admin went as far as to say that policy forbade me to nominate an episode article for deletion (lol!). For some reason I don't know why, they really do believe in good faith that the policies don't apply to TV series, video games, comics (...) In the same deletion debate others have said WP:OR and WP:VERIFY do not apply to TV series episodes, and often users say that each episode is notable because the series is notable. So the problem goes deeper than you think, and IMO concerns most policies, with he exception of the most blatant ones such as vandalism, personal attacks etc. Jackaranga (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

We are reaching a point here on WP where we need strong guidance (more than just consensus) in exactly what levels of contemporay fictional material we are going to want on here. I've been very patiently trying to guide WP:FICT through a rewrite and there's opinions on both sides as to which way to go, some feeling we should have full details of such works, and others saying we have way too much and needs to be cut down. TTN's recent arbcom case over TV episodes is just one facet (and somewhat unfortunately that the arbcom didn't state their case either way on the content issue, though understandably why since it was more behavior-based), this images in lists is another. We do have Wikia for that, but people keep bringing up COI and legal concerns with it. I don't know if we need more Foundation/Arbcom guidance, a WP-wide consensus, or what, but something is going to give soon, my gut tells me. --MASEM 00:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hammersoft is unfairly describing the debate. Here is a re-post of what I have asked of all editors:

"Editors on both sides of this debate, you are not allowed to write off everyone else as being image use extremists. Do not treat myself or others as if we completely disagree, or that we would argue for an image for every Pokemon or ewok. I've brought up examples where only a handful of images were being used, for main characters, and still have not heard any rationale on removing them. I've pointed out specifics of the past discussions and why we had them, and what the issues were. I strongly push for limiting non-free images, remove many, and try to educate others about the policies and guidelines. So as hard as it might, realize you are not talking to image use extremists, but are talking to rationale Wikipedians, who have points that are just as reasonable and logical as your own. I know it's a break from the norm, having to repeat ourselves to those who don't understand, but do try."

This is a situation that is very different from previous incidents, such as Lists of episodes. Editors such as Betacommand are starting to remove any and all images from any group character article, even for main characters. There needs to be a clear distinction that some of us are not defending excessive uses such as this. -- Ned Scott 00:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Also to the people who said "wikipedia is not a battleground" I think that expression was coined more as a goal to achieve, and while there is not war in the first meaning of the word obviously, it doesn't help to pretend edit warring is not going on. Yes consensus is the key, as is sensible conversation, unfortunately I have to agree that often it is more like a war. Some people want to uphold the mission of wikimedia foundation and some people really couldn't care less about it, but just want to promote and display nicely their favourite TV show characters. Neither is bad or good, both have different priorities. Jackaranga (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I sure as hell am not a user who "couldn't care less" about the mission of Wikipedia and the Foundation. This is borderline slander to try to off opposition by linking them with a more extreme group of users. What's next, are you going to call me a Nazi? -- Ned Scott 00:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I am confused about a couple of things. For instance, does the Resolution have the status of policy on Wikipedia? Also, the EDP that the Resolution highlights that is relevant to us is WP:NONFREE ... but that is a guideline, which would seem to be quite a problem in light of the current controversy, yes? Note that I'm as ignorant as they come about image-use policy, myself (apologies). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The resolution stands above policy: the pages states "This policy may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects." _→AzaToth 00:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No one is disputing the Foundation policy. -- Ned Scott 00:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The Foundation used the example of WP's non-free content criteria as an appropriate EDP, and that itself is policy; (WP:NONFREE is wrapped around that, as you may notice). In the current case, it is how WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 apply to lists. --MASEM 00:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, that clears up some of the confusion. Now, there have been changes to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria (>50 edits - approx diff) and Wikipedia:Non-free content (>100 edits - approx diff) since ratification of the Resolution. Are we confident that the Wikipedia EDP still meets the requirements of the Foundation's Resolution? As part of the controversy resolution, should the Wikipedia EDP be 're-approved' so it has the proper and specific stamp of approval of the Foundation? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Sysop.js/Admin opinion

Please can I ask as many admins as possible to contribute to MediaWiki talk:Sysop.js/Admin opinion. We need to choose which automated deletion reason tool to use (we have recently had a couple of differnet versions), and this is only possible by having the people that use the tool to take part in discussion. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Resigning adminship

Hello, all. I plan to leave Wikipedia soon, and I was wondering how to go about resigning from my administrator position. That way, if the abandoned account ever gets hijacked, the hacker won't be able to do much damage. Thanks for any help! — Amcaja (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)