Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive120

Simple English wikipedia not for "second chances"

Resolved

sorry —Random832 18:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Last month, User:Iamandrewrice was told (I can't find the discussion in the archives, but I do recall it) to try contributing to a different wiki (wikinews and simple english wikipedia were among those suggested) to show that he is serious about contributing - apparently the folks over at the simple english wikipedia don't appreciate that - see in particular this comment. Jeffpw seems to have seen it, but I thought this should be read by everyone (I don't recall that it was Jeffpw who originally suggested sending him elsewhere), as a reminder that other projects set their own standards, etc. Just something to keep in mind next time this sort of situation comes up. —Random832 14:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It was me, and I did not suggest simple English. I was suggesting that if he could demonstrate successful collaboration at another project, that would be evidence he might deserve an Nth chance here. Obviously that's not happening because he's causing friction elsewhere. I regret the inconvenience. Jehochman ^Talk 21:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

He is not causing friction, and is settling in well. After discussion on the AN board there, it was decided to let him prove himself by his work there, and not judge him by what transpired here. I am mentoring him there, and do not understand why this needs to be brought up for discussion here.This is a non issue. Jeffpw (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Oddly, I went looking for the diff, and it's not there. This is something I wanted to recommend, but I am not sure if I did. Sometimes I type out comments and just delete them. How odd. Jehochman ^Talk 21:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said on the discussion there, I suggested Ben edit there, and apparently EconomicsGuy also did. We are both registered there, and are watching Ben's edits for vandalism, and providing mentoring assistance as necessary. I made the suggestion as an individual, not as a representative of Wikipedia, and I made that fact plain in the discussion, as well as saying I took full responsibility for Ben's presence there. At no time was it suggested that Wikipedia administration contemplated exiling banned users to the Simple English Wikipedia. Jeffpw (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Article on Chua Soi Lek

Resolved

 – Blocked per Wikipedia:USERNAME#Inappropriate_usernames

Please KIV the article on the former Malaysian Health Minister. A user called Botkill recently posted a biased and opinionated statement which is controversial and disputable ( ref the article's history ). I have deleted the statement, but cannot trace or contact this user to warn him/her to cease and desist from making such statements. Posted by Atanlf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atanlf (talk • contribs) 01:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's here and is a very sporadic editor apparently with a particular interest. I doubt if his username is intended to convey the meaning it does to me, but I feel there is something strange going on here. He has a reference to an image on his talk page but the image page itself does not refer to this user, unless he's changed his name. I have also left a courtesy notice on his talk page informing him of this discussion. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here, folks

What happens if I suspect someone of vandalism? Specifically, User:Used1. all he's done is add a myspace link to a page about a city. I have no idea what to do. Also, he's probably made several other accounts to plaster his name around the place. Could someone take care of this? Mathwhiz 29 (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, in August. Link removed. Poster advised on talk page. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to read about how and when to revert, see the vandalism and reversion policies. If you believe a user has vandalised past a final warning, they can be reported to WP:AIV. Thanks, Martinp23 12:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

St47 and Betacommand

Resolved

 – AN isn't for nonsense John Reaves 21:13, 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)

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 [1] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [2] 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)

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

"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)

My view of "in popular culture" sections (and articles) is that they help demonstrate "where would people have heard about this thing?" In that respect, they help to establish the notability and overall importance of the subject. However, it's often not black-and-white as to whether a given reference to a subject is incidental or substantial, which leaves editors drifting toward one of the two extremes: include everything or delete everything.--Father Goose (talk) 05:19, 7 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)

bump — just a quick reminder on this :P --slakr^\ talk / 09:36, 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)

I'm guessing by this you would say no. What's your reason? Gimmetrow 05:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

m:Requests for Permissions. Sorry to see you go. Keilana^talk_(recall) 02:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Me too. If you ever feel like coming back, you can always ask for it again. bibliomaniac15 02:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Just not under a new name, even if you are just renamed, unless you want to inspire a massive... Ok I will stop now. Good luck with life. :) Prodego ^talk 03:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't give him ideas. Keilana^talk_(recall) 03:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Goodbye. —BoL 04:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Keilana (and thanks for the well wishes from the rest of you). Does the English Wikipedia not have its own permissions procedure, though? — Amcaja (talk) 05:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Not for de-sysopping. That's a meta job, and one for a steward. Best of luck, wherever you go. Thanks for putting in all the hard work here over the years and, needless to say, you'll be very welcome back :) - Alison ^❤ 05:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There are no stewards on enwiki, and it takes a steward to desysyop. (There are some users on enwiki who are also stewards on Meta, though.) That's why the request has to be made on Meta. --ais523 11:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/L.L.King

Resolved

 – Socks blocked.

This case has recently ending and the socks may need blocking. --EoL talk 22:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

All those listed as confirmed are now blocked. - auburnpilot talk 22:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you block PPG2008 as a sockpuppet of PPG2007 (see sockpuppetry case)? The name and similar article editing kind of give it away. --EoL talk 22:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. MastCell ^Talk 22:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Crocker Motorcycles

Resolved

I have fully-protected this page due to an edit war. A user has just posted a request on the talkpage that seems reasonable if true, yet I am not sure it can be verified. How should I proceed, or anyone else, please get involved. I am not sure what to do. Woody (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe they have to email the Foundation at info@wikimedia.org and have left a message to this effect on the talk page. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

T:DYK over an hour late.

Resolved

As usual, T:DYK/N needs to be transcluded onto the main page by an admin, and the update is late. Although 1 hour isn't too bad, we have been seriously overloaded with hooks of late, and need the update to be done as soon after 6 hours as possible. I unfortunately do not have the time this morning to handle this, but if an admin could please get it and the credits taken care of, it would be helpful. Thanks, Wizardman 12:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to User:The Placebo Effect for quickly handling it. Wizardman 12:55, 9 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)

Since you are all so bent out of shape over this, I'll do what I can to improve my use of edit summaries. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Enough, you saw what happened today, and it was by one renegade admin, what would happen if the regulars would get this toy? An Apocalypse would fall on WikiPedia. Go back to your edits, and see what you reverting so you can prevent Disaster as it showed its ugly head today. Igor Berger (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

They'd get it removed very very quickly - unfortunately it's not that simple with an admin as he would have to lose all his tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Um... what happened today? - UtherSRG (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You got reported to this noticeboard for misuse of rollback.--Phoenix-wiki 19:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"Today" is probably still true wrt to this discussion in a couple of time zones (and was so in even more when Igor originally posted). Martinp23 19:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

*laughs* Fair enough. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

24.6.182.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Can someone intervene here? 24.6.182.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been tag-warring Love & Monsters, by renaming the "Outside references" section to "Trivia" and tagging it with {{Trivia}} ([3][4][5][6]). Since the section is not general trivia at all, but specifically deals with real-world references, the renaming is completely unwarranted. I tried explaining it to the editor, but get no response. Judging form the edit history (placing Trivia tags on his first dozen edits), it is not a new user. — Edokter • Talk • 15:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a content dispute, and edit warring between an admin and an anon. I've left them both notes reminding them of WP:3RR (see Edokter and anon). I personally think it could be called Trivia, as that is what it looks like to me. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've stopped reverting and came here, so the comment was unnecessary. And there is a difference in what it looks like and what it actually is. Point is, the anon doesn't seem to know how to communicate, and I even suspect it may be a sock; why else would an anon (seemingly static) IP start placing Trivia tags out of the blue? — Edokter • Talk • 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You post that and then you revert again. I don't know what to say here, other than apparently admins are allowed to revert war, even though the rest of us are not, and are blocked for doing so. 3RR even says that you dont have to revert more than 3 times in 24 hours to be blocked, and now you've reverted 1 ... 2 ... 3 ... 4 times in less than 48 hours, but since you are an admin, that is okay!!?? Sorry for sarcasm, but this just doesn't seem right. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not OK for an admin to edit war. Please don't turn this into a drama... I partial reverted but left the tags. If the IP refuses to communicate and simply keeps on adding tags or reverting without discussion, then my good faith is going to run out at some point. — Edokter • Talk • 21:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:TODAY / WP:5AD

Apologies for the spam, but there hadn't been a proper Look At This post on AN or ANI. It was on VPP and the CENT template, however, and spawned out of a thread on AN last week. Please review and help out at:

Wikipedia:Task of the Day

Posting here, as it would obviously require some administrative support, as it involves protected pages. Basic initial idea work is now done, and the (surprisingly basic) technical Mediawiki work as well. Please review it, and weigh in on Talk there, so we can see if the idea has proper legs. Thanks! :) Lawrence Cohen 19:23, 7 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)

This has nothing to do with any assumption of bad faith. Making useful contributions generally requires two things - good faith and competence. This means you have to have the desire and the ability to do the right thing. You made a mistake, an you were unresponsive to discussion of it. You gave no indication of knowing why it was a mistake. So, it's perfectly sensible for someone to want to check whether you've made other similar mistakes. Friday (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolute and Ryulong, by going on your logic of thought, that is similar to the scenario of finding a badly placed brick by your collegue, mentioning it to him, and telling him what he did wrong, and then not bothering to check any other bricks. Would checking the other bricks be trying to prove my collegue is a bad builder or am I trying to maintain the integrity of the building? In this scenario, am I trying to prove Ryulong deletes things out of process or am I trying to fix very probable mistakes made by him so he can learn from them, aka maintaining Wikipedia? I feel like the bad-finger is just being pointed at me. There is assuming good faith, then there is assuming the user does everything right/never made the same mistake twice, I think some users in this discussion have chosen the latter.--Seriousspender (talk) 09:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to view my comments as you wish, Jeff, however I stand by them. A mistake was made, it was corrected. That is rather the point of this forum. Ryulong, I am certain, will get the message without being told to go back and check everything he's done in the past. Any previous mistakes - real or percieved - have likely already been corrected (i.e.: recreated) or weren't so bad as to warrant a complaint. I'd rather see a "please follow this process in the future" message than a "you must have screwed up before, go find and fix it." One message is productive, one is not. Resolute 16:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't speedily delete redirects just because there are no internal hyperlinks pointing to them. Redirects can be perfectly legitimate alternative titles, mis-spellings, and sub-topic names without their being internally hyperlinked to. Uncle G (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we have an admin restore Fgsfds and Longcat as well? They were also deleted by Ryulong, without an RfD (as pointed out above, the only RfD on them resulted in a keep). -- Ned Scott 10:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Both of those were in August of 2006. Both items were deleted as articles. Is it really necessary to have internal references that are not brought up in the article they redirect to? If people want to know about Longcat or Fgsfds, Wikipedia isn't going to help them in any regard. What purpose would it be to have those redirects, at all?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not completely familiar with the redirects policy, but if you went on that rule for every redirect you found, you would end up deleting thousands of them. For example all the redirects to the RuneScape, and other popular articles.--Seriousspender (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It is fairly common to recreate redirects after articles are deleted. Redirects are cheap and not all redirects are mentioned in the articles they redirect to (though they should be). In cases like longcat and fgsfds, protected redirects are sometimes better than protected redlinks, though this does seem to be a borderline case. Carcharoth (talk) 10:50, 8 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 [7] and an admin subsequently reopened it [8].

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 is 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) Too much of a material for an incident report. Striking out. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, dear! As soon as I mention the editor's behavior around the image he takes the image to Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 January 9. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Striking out. This trouble is getting nowhere. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:13, 9 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 [9] . 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)

It can't be Sangosmum since Sango's real name is not what is given. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

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

One thing that companies should be aware of is that Wikipedia editors and administrators are under no formal obligation to treat these situations confidentially. We almost always do handle them quietly out of courtesy, but remember that one year ago Microsoft had a major PR debacle when they tried to hire a blogger to edit Wikipedia...and instead of accepting the offer the fellow blogged it. The risks of this type of offer far outweigh the advantages. Durova^Charge! 03:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

While I understand that Wikipedia editors are under no obligation to treat such things confidential, and this editor would be well within his/her rights to say whom the company is, I suggest prudence. Perhaps explaining to the person who is offering the money, how things work, and how they don't work would suffice. Then after unwanted persistence, by all means, raise a flag. But let us assume that the company just requires a little education. Just want to be fair, and give a fair chance. You have a point, conversely, so do I. Regards, M-ercury at 03:53, January 7, 2008

Oh, absolutely. I suggest it too. I've done a lot to provide that kind of education. Durova^Charge! 03:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I misunderstood you then, but I am glad we agree. :) Best regards, M-ercury at 04:06, January 7, 2008

Should we even be talking about this. Posting the name of the company may constitute a violation of WP:NPOV may even be WP:ABF and WP:COI. I would recommend to forget it and move on. But what you do outside of WikiPedia is your business. Just ask John H Gohde and his friend Hate bloger. We deffinetly do not need more WP:SOAP. Igor Berger (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Meh - It is ok to discuss here as it may involve mainspace, as it expands our understanding of these things. M-ercury at 04:06, January 7, 2008

Mercury, in that rspect yes, but I just do not like the smell of it, and I am sitting down wind..:) But all I can say is this, if you are a social media consultant and you get an email like this from one of your clients. Asking you to social engineer their article page, I would delete it and would not even bring it up to anyone. I would also stop making business with this client, because they do not understand what SEO is about. Now if you have a client who has an article on WikiPedia and you keep an eye on it as a courtecy with WP:NPOV in mind, there is nothing wrong with that and it is WP:AGF. I am sure User_talk:Jehochman will concur with me. Beyod this I do not know what to say. Igor Berger (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot one important thing, the recent PR downgrade of PPP blogs for not using rel=nofollow, and if our editors would start editing WikiPedia for money than that would need to be disclosed on each article as a PPP or Google will see it as a violation of Google Quality Guidelines, you can ask Matt Cutts about this. Igor Berger (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know Durova. People were insisting this would be private only weeks ago. The company that offered the bribe owns the copyright to the correspondence, etc. etc. Surprisingly, a counter policy to explicitly allowing the sharing such correspondence, WP:COFF, isn't getting much traction. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify: my comment addresses the bribe offer, not the medium by which it was conveyed. In my own experience, the vast majority of such offers are extended in good faith ignorance about the ethics and ramifications so they ought to be treated with appropriate discretion. Discretion implies choice. Durova^Charge! 20:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I should hope anyone making such offers would be wise enough to do so in off-wiki correspondence, and I'm sure the company will just move on to trying to put another editor or more on the take, so it's foolhardy not to let the community know so we can keep an eye on the relevant article(s). These sorts of things are increasing common.[10] -- Kendrick7^talk 22:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Kendrick7, how do I know the company your going to shelve up is not mine or some other poor schmoe's? Have some one fabricated the email in the fist place to feed the rumor mill? It is extremly easy to fake document headers and make the email come from CIA.gov...enough, don't we have enough WP:SOUP and WP:COI to last us all a lifetime. You want to do something youseful go help John Gohde, he is sure can use your wiki-lawyering advise. I hope you are getting my point Ne? Wakata? Igor Berger (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Kendrick, it's important to assume good faith in these situations. Remember that much of the popular press and business world thinks of this site as "Web 2.0" and groups us together with other social media sites where there wouldn't be any ethical problem with an offer to hire an experienced member as a freelancer. A lot of the ways this site functions seem strange and counterintuitive to outsiders. By and large, the regular professionals who handle social media have to keep tabs on eight or ten sites at once. A good share of the information that gets published about us in reliable sources is written by people who have a flawed understanding of this site, and most people who aren't regular volunteers here find the Wikipedia namespace confusing and overwhelming. Certainly, some folks will break the rules no matter what. Most would comply if they knew how. Durova^Charge! 22:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how to relate your comment to the topic in the thread. Explain a little? M-ercury at 18:34, January 7, 2008

Durova said One thing that companies should be aware of is that Wikipedia editors and administrators are under no formal obligation to treat these situations confidentially however that's rather uncertain, and a proposed policy which would have made sharing this grounds for a WP:BAN was only rejected last week, and the proposed policy to permit it, Wikipedia:Correspondence off-wiki, will probably be rejected as well; you'd need to have been following WT:PRIVATE to understand the context fully. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if I start editing for money, I'll be sure that I disclose my conflict of interest. [I won't edit for money as a personal choice, ever.] I can disclose without pasting the email. You may have to explain the context for those of us following, unless this is between Durova and yourself, in that case, you may want to address it on her talk. :) I don't think I get your point, I don't mean to be dense. Regards, M-ercury at 22:28, January 7, 2008

Apparently they didn't offer you nearly enough money... Dragons flight (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not for sale..:) But I would probably make more working at Mc'D than geting paid by some Wipe Ass company to Spam a Wiki. And Wikipedia:NOT#ADVERTISING. Time for a siesta! Igor Berger (talk) 04:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Why does nobody offer to pay me to create articles for them? Bah. Personally, I think the abhorrence of paid editing is mostly jealousy. IMO, if it benefits the encyclopedia, great - I don't mind if people make money out of it. I know I'm jealous. Neıl ☎ 10:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You are paid in the respect of your peers, a currency far more valuable than money. Especially at the rate the dollar is dropping. MastCell ^Talk 17:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

So we can be paid in euros, then? Lawrence Cohen 22:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I'll break with everyone else and say that I'd be perfectly willing to be paid for Wikipedia editing. That said, I'd declare the hell out of that arrangement, make sure that everything I wrote followed WP:NPOV (which thoroughly trumps WP:COI), and any monetary arrangement would have to be done without the payer's final approval (ie: I'm paid to write an article about them, good and bad, not paid to write a fluff piece about them, and if they're unsatisfied with the end result because it isn't positive enough, too bad so sad). I've edited the article for a client of ours at work, but that's been strictly voluntary, and had more to do with the fact that there was tons of crap in the article than anything. So, I guess that makes me a whore, which is honestly one of the nicer things I've ever been called. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Being paid to edit Wikipedia is not automatically a conflict of interest. It depends on the assignment and how the editor approaches it. If people make money while they make good articles that comply with policy, we should not be against that. To give an analogy, a paid photographer takes a high-quality photo of a celebrity and released it to commons under creative commons license: we applaud. When a paid PR person writes an informative article on the history of <company> and releases it here under GFDL: we should applaud again. All that matters is whether the article complies with policy. We should not discriminate on superstition. Johntex\^talk 22:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Discriminating because of either superstition or jealously was exactly what happened with User:MyWikiBiz and Arch Coal, which can be seen here. A stubby neutral article was written (and can be still seen in the history), for which payment was assumedly taken. Claims were bandied about claiming that no one could write a neutral article if paid by the subject, because we're all stupid and blind enough to do this. Here are some choice claims made by arbitrator User:FloNight - [11] and [12]. The first link tells me that it is impossible to write neutral articles if corrupted by money, and that it will hurt the purely subjective image of Wikipedia; the second link tells us that the material must be laced with all sorts of "subtle biases" that we can't spot, yet will affect us, and do exist. Jimbo also calls the piece a travesty of POV. Paid editing should be allowed, providing it is disclosed. - hahnchen 00:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Last year, I worked as a paid consultant for a company that was trying to start its own private wiki. (Specifically, it was a contractor that had put in a bid to start a private wiki for a large government agency) They wanted to leverage my experience in Wikipedia (specifically as FA director and arbitrator) to help them avoid some of the pitfalls they might encounter. Unfortunately, they didn't get the contract (so the wiki never got off the ground), but the money was very good while it lasted ($80/hour). Raul654 (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Intellipedia? Hmm? Cough up the good stuff, Raul. ^Avruchtalk 00:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Intellipedia got off the ground. The one I was consulting for didn't. Raul654 (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's the same company but I was also offered money recently to add links to Wikipedia. It was a guy who does interviews with celebrities (that should be enough info to know if we were contacted by the same person). I replied saying that the interviews could be linked in the form of sources where info from the interview is used and he is credited with the interview. I also made it clear that payment was out of the question. I'm currently trying to explain to him how Wikipedia cites sources and that if there is information from his interviews used, they will be linked to in the form of citations. James086^{Talk | Email} 07:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What I find most interesting about the OP's situation is that the editor removed content about a company, & was approached by someone who offered money if the editor would restore it. Maybe I'm failing WP:AGF here, but no matter what one thinks about being paid for editting Wikipedia, it is hard not to see this specific situation as a clumsy attempt at a bribe. (For the record, I have no problems with paid editting, as long as it is done under the terms Johntex states above.) Dina was right to refuse this offer, & I hope that anyone making similar offers of money in the future will think first about how it might appear to outsiders. -- llywrch (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

CobraGeek

Please would someone check this person's userpage and history of edits/writing and do something about an obvious POV agenda to do nothing but smear USC athletics in every article he can find on Wiki. This is not the forum for someone's campaign of hatred of a rival school. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.38.31 (talk) 07:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Also if an admin could give some attention to the deletion of an attack article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_South_Carolina_steroid_scandal) written by CobraGeek and linked to numerous other Wiki articles, it would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.38.31 (talk) 08:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, getting tired of this already. User:Igorberger is removing the deletion template from the article and has taken a nasty tone with me on my talk page about doing so. Help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.38.31 (talk) 08:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You can place {{helpme}} on your talk page and a clerk will come to you. Igor Berger (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

PLease block User:65.188.38.31 he is a Black Hat hacker. Igor Berger (talk) 09:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because you can't seem to follow Wiki procedure doesn't mean you can label those who do however you like. Don't remove the deletion template on that article again, I have followed Wiki rules, a discussion is started on the talk page. The decision does not belong to YOU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.38.31 (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, User:Igor Berger just violated 3RR by removing deletion template for the 3rd time in a row. Please take action against this out-of-control user. I am restoring the template per Wiki rules, there is a discussion started on the article talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.38.31 (talk) 09:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This User:65.188.38.31 is a Sockpuppet I am going to buy cigs..:) Igor Berger (talk) 09:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I created the AfD for this user, although frankly I don't understand his reasons at all. JuJube (talk) 09:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Just take a look at the creator's (CobraGeek) userpage and I think the reasons will become pretty clear. Or are attack articles welcome at Wiki now? Because I can certainly sign up and write my own in response. Is that the direction Wiki needs to head? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.38.31 (talk) 09:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I see, you are an admin and you have been royally Trolled by cabal... Is your face still red, because when we finish with you it will be white. Igor Berger (talk) 09:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing other editor's comment' cool, Mr. 65. And from what I can figure out, this looks like a run-of-the-mill content dispute, and as such does not really belong here. Use dispute resolution, instead. JuJube (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering the language used, it does certainly belong here. (or AN/I) It's not a dispute over content--its a determined attack by one WPedian on another. I'd support a block for the IP editor. And I'd suggest to CobraGeek that the links on his user page might not be appropriate there, for they do indicate an intention to use POV editing. DGG (talk) 11:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to deal with this IP. This one just returned today from a 7-day block for hacking my user page, and he is immediately back to old tricks. This IP is a known sockpuppet, with apparent access to many more IPs. I will let the article stand on its merits (and it has many). I stayed out of the discussion following the anon IPs request for speedy deletion, and it passed just fine.--CobraGeek (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

New Tool

After many many many hours and countless failed attempts I have figured out cgi web interface coding and have adapted BCBots image checking into a basic interface, its at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~betacommand/cgi-bin/check?&file= just add a image name to the end of that URL, http://tools.wikimedia.de/~betacommand/cgi-bin/check?&file=Image:Barrybigbands.jpg is an example. Im going to be writing more tools now. I do take request too. β^_command 17:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Bravo!. Many thanks, this is an awesome tool that should help many users check their images. MBisanz ^talk 18:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you log the queries and make your bot tag the bad ones ? Jackaranga (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Right now there is no logging. and due to obvious issues about confriming the fact the the image is non-free. this tool by no means verifies that the image has a good rationale. all it does its a WP:NFCC#10c check. this does not check for other issues with the rationale that might exitst. β^_command 23:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Surely it only detects the presence of the name of the article the image is used in? It is easy to find random images from Category:Non-free images lacking article backlink that pass Betacommandbot, but fail a human inspection. For example: Image:Amanda Lear - I Am A Photograph-Sweet Revenge (Russia).jpg. That image has the article name as part of the description field, but not in the correct part of the rationale. Ditto for Image:American Samoa FA.gif, which passes but has problems. In other words, this only confirms part of 10c, and it can't distinguish between missing rationales and incomplete rationales. But thanks awfully for putting the code up as a tool - it really is much appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That is that I meant :). β^_command 00:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Roger Clemens

It was reported in the media that baseball player Roger Clemens may have used steroids. Just today it was reported in the media that Roger Clemens was threatened with jail-time by a prosecutor. Clemens reacted by suing the prosecutor, claiming he lied in court. Right now Roger Clemens is semi-protected. As expected, though, the edits are still flying in. I just thought I'd let you all know to keep an eye on things. Sports, after all, is often just as contentious as politics. Zenwhat (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not involved in this at all, but that's not what happened. Clemens' former trainer was threatened with jail time if he didn't tell prosecuters what he knew about Clemens' steriod use. The trainer claimed Clemens used steriods and Clemens sued the trainer for defamation. Clemens did not sue a prosecuter. Just to keep the story straight...--Tex 15:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Buscema

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. In particular, Tenebrae and Skyelarke are banned from editing the article John Buscema for a period of three months, and may be further banned from this or related articles if either engages in any form of disruptive editing during or after the three month period.

For the Abitration Committee, — Coren ^(talk) 18:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus on pop culture bits

After all the hullabaloo earlier I thought it boiled down to to limit pop culture references to notable ones, namely ones which had been referenced elsewhere in an independent source. eg a book talking about rabbits in movies etc. or book on symbolism etc. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This is how I approach pop culture sections, I ask myself: Is it important to the subject of the article that it was in this film/tv show/video game etc. if so then a paragraph could be written about that appearance, if not then it should be removed. James086^{Talk | Email} 03:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Not bad. Though I do feel it is always courteous to tag for cite needed first before deleting :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, good idea (& tagging first for cite is clearly newbie-friendly) but I do have some concerns over the implementation. Consider the situation in the first Jurassic park movie, where they show computers made by Thinking Machines: at the time, TM had a reputation for producing some of the most powerful, cutting-edge computers. Although I believe I could find a cite for that statement (they were a more-or-less familiar manufacturer of parallel-processor supercomputers), it is one of those details that is more or less obvious to anyone who worked in computers at the time -- which made the girl's comment "Hey, I know UNIX!" all the more silly. (What was her intended solution? "killall -9 velociraptor"? ;) -- llywrch (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

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 [13] 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)

Viridae! Did you just link to a BADSITE? The minions of Hell shall surely beat down our doors any second...(WP:SARCASM not withstanding) - auburnpilot talk 03:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way to force Google to update their cache? See Dubya's current cache [14] - it contains the text "IS A COMPLETE DICKHEAD AND THE BIGGEST DICTATOR SINCE HITLER!!!!" That's probably not a good thing. --B (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Emailing them usually works. I can't recall who, but when the George Washington cache or summary contained vandalism, an email resolved this situation quickly. - auburnpilot talk 03:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it be beneficial or desirable to ask the devs to enact the META NAME="GOOGLEBOT" CONTENT="NOODP" mentioned by Quatloo? Lawrence Cohen 14:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

So Google no longer includes Wikipedia's snippets onto their search results to stop Google itself getting vandalised? That lack of trust makes Wikipedia look pretty bad. Still, it's better than having Wikipedia lower ranked, which will probably happen when knol appears. - hahnchen 19:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Shortening indef IP block

Hope I did the right thing here, it wasn't clear to me why the IP was indef blocked. Apologies if I've missed something obvious. Can someone with more of a clue check and make sure this is OK? Thanks much, delldot talk 17:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I would have left them blocked AO ACB. its a school IP that has been blocked countless times before. β^_command 17:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I would personally tend to avoid leaving them indef blocked, but if anyone wants to undo my action, I'm perfectly fine with it :-) delldot talk 19:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to avoid indefinite blocks on IPs whenever possible; we can apply very long blocks when the need arises, without running into quite as many potential problems later. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD to close

Resolved

Would anyone mind closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wade Load; it has been open for nine days and there does not appear to be any ongoing discussion. [[Guest9999 (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)]]

Thanks. [[Guest9999 (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)]]

uncivility/attacks

Resolved

 – User blocked by Krimpet. Acalamari 17:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody look over my talk page and the contributions of Alfred Legrand? He's been uncivil in several instances ([15], [16], [17], [18], creation of attack page ImmortalGoddezz)and is disrupting my talk page with accusations of sockpuppetry (and User:TexasDex by association). Since there has been several admins already involved with this situation (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. S. Wenocur) can somebody uninvolved take a look at this? I do believe that the user has been warned a few times for civility and has been brought up on AN/I for suspected sockpuppetry and disruption. Thanks! --ImmortalGoddezz 02:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have check into this and it is clear that Alfred Legrand is guilty of being uncivil and personal attacks. I'd refer everyone to this and this. I have warned Alfred Legrand for being uncivil. An admin's attention is clearly warranted. Bstone (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've warned him as well, the second time today. If he continues like this, he'll be blocked. Acalamari 03:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

So 7 warnings in one day and still not blocked? Hrmm. -- ALLSTARecho 04:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've given him a final warning. If he does one more thing then I suggest a block. Perchance a block is already required, but I lack the ability to do so. Additional, a community imposed ban may be appropriate if he continues. Bstone (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Alfred Legrand needs to be immediately block. He just left this on my talk page. I believe an indefinite block/community ban is immediately appropriate. Bstone (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd definitely sign on to a community block, especially since your warning now makes 8 and the recent additions he made to his talk page and Bstone's talk page are cause for disruption. -- ALLSTARecho 05:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

He just restored his personal attacks to User talk:ImmortalGoddezz here and here. -- ALLSTARecho 05:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have cross-posted on the incident board Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Alfred_Legrand Bstone (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And now just general harassment of ImmortalGoddezz here. ANY ADMINS AWAKE? -- ALLSTARecho 05:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Will any admin please issue an immediate block to this user? I shall be going onto the IRC channel in order to alert an admin. Bstone (talk) 05:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

They are all at Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback fighting over rules and regulations for something newly implemented without rules and regulations. -- ALLSTARecho 05:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I left a note there, so hopefully somebody will soon come around. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

He's been indef blocked. Please be on the lookout for sock/meat puppets. Bstone (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

{edit conflict) Thanks. I was just about to do that myself. --Merovingian (T, C) 05:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've blocked him indefinitely for blatant harassment. Sorry, the ball was really dropped here - this should've been caught much earlier. :( --krimpet✽ 05:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Krimpet. -- ALLSTARecho 05:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Very much appreciate your response and willingness to indef ban him, Krimpet. Just wish there was an easier way to page an admin. Cross posting here and AN/I yet still receiving and seeing harassing and uncivil messages from this fellow was really disturbing. Good thing I knew about freenode and the wiki channel. Bstone (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly this isn't typical, usually AN/I is enough for a pretty speedy response. :/ IRC is indeed always a great place to flag down an admin, though. :) krimpet✽ 05:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow I go to work on homework for a while.. all I can say is thanks to everybody who watched over this and helped with the situation! Since I was the one being harassed I didn't want to be the one to warn (and cause further animosity) I just didn't expect him to be so persistent for so long, to say the least. :/ --ImmortalGoddezz 06:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:SamuelM555 moved into mainspace

Resolved

User:SamuelM555 was just moved into mainspace as Samuel Mouly. However, the layout is completely in the form of a user page. I'm hesitant to start moving other people's user pages around, but clearly there's something weird going on here. Also, the user page has many copyrighted images which should not appear on user space. Kelvinc (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Moved back, removed images and informed user. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The user undid Carribbean HQ's changes, and I fixed it again and left a note asking the user not to do it again. Maybe it wouldn't hurt to check back on this a little later. WODUP 14:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Otis Blunt

Resolved

 – page has been deleted as nonsense

Not sure what's going on here at User:Otis Blunt, but this may violate WP:BLP. I don't see a ban discussion anywhere, nor is there an actual block log.[19] -- Kendrick7^talk 21:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the nonsense pages. Just to picky, this should probably be on /Incidents. John Reaves 21:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I suspect simple cluelessness from the newbie creator, perhaps to the point of paranoia: escaped criminals don't usually create an account here on Wikipedia, either for the purposes of responsible editing or for petty vandalism. It might help law enforcement if they did, but then the FBI/Scotland Yard would need to convince our checkusers to help find them and drama would ensue. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 21:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm trying to imagine a wikipedian version of The A-Team (or for you young'uns, Prison Break). We've got to break out of here, clear our names, and fix that broken reference on the Queen Victoria bio! -- Kendrick7^talk 21:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC) OTOH, if prisoners can't edit here, I've got a new compelling reason to be a law abiding citizen!

I'm still waiting for Bea Smith to pitch up and threaten to burn my hands in the steam press for something I've done at AfD... ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 21:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as a reference the page was refering to Otis Blunt, a prison escapee (you may have heard of the 2 guys who escaped Shawshank Redemption style), and was caught yesterday. Moving along. --Ali'i 21:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at the deleted page User:Otis Blunt - a page without a user attached, marked as indef blocked by the creator of the page. And, for the record, I thought the user was sweet for trying to protect us. Albeit holding back the waves Cnut-style. But sweet nevertheless. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 21:55, 10 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)

Is it going to break twinkle or stop me from manually entering a reason when I want to? --B (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion - have it blank by default and only let the delete button work once text has been manually put into the deletion summary. Or would that cause problems by requiring the careful deletion of content? Neıl ☎ 10:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Requiring that it only work if somebody first puts their own summary into the box tends to defeat the purpose. The summaries provided within ^demon's script, which I use, are more than adequate; especially for user requests, deletion of commons images, and bad redirects. Some deletions don't require anything more than the standard summary...it has nothing to do with the careful deletion of content. - auburnpilot talk 15:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There is now a related discussion at the page above about whether we should re-enable the automatic deletion summary (I guess deleting or reverting MediaWiki:Excontent and MediaWiki:Excontentauthor would do the trick). Some people claim that poor deletion summaries including disparaging content are a common problem. Is there any evidence that this? can't be solved by educating a few people to be more careful with their sysop tools? Kusma (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Can someone knowledge add this gadget to the gadgets menu?

importScript('Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Six tabs');

All this does is make it so their are 6 tabs at the top, Article/edit/hist Talk/edit/Hist. I tried looking for a way to install it, but couldn't figure out how. The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't a Developer (or somebody special) have to do this? - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No, admins can add them (I think). See WP:GADGET. — Edokter • Talk • 21:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh ? Pretty sure you would need a developer to modify the basic monobook file for everyone. However any user can add this script for themselves, just link to it in your monobook.js no need to be an admin. Just add the bolded text to Special:Mypage/monobook.js: importScript('Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Six tabs');. You might want to save a copy of Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Six tabs into your userspace though first up to you. Jackaranga (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing now this probably wasn't your question, I thought maybe you were a new user. I don't even know what the "gadget menu" is lol, sorry if the explanation above wasn't what you wanted. Jackaranga (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The Gadgets tab can be found on your preferences page. — Edokter • Talk • 16:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Jim62sch is instructed to refrain from making any comments to another user that could reasonably be construed as harassing, threatening, or bullying. Should Jim62sch make any comment that is or could reasonably be construed as of a harassing, threatening, or bullying nature, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator. Any such action should be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch#Log of blocks and bans and should also be reported to the Arbitration Committee.

All involved editors are reminded of the prohibition against harassment and threats. Editors are also reminded that sensitivity should be shown in making any reference to another user's real-world circumstances in connection with their editing Wikipedia, even where this is done in good faith, due to the likelihood that such comments may be misconstrued. The Committee also asks that any incident of a user's engaging in grave acts of real-world harassment of another editor, such as communicating with an editor's employer in retaliation for his or her editing on Wikipedia, be reported to them immediately.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel 13:59, 9 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 ([23] [24] [25] [26]) 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[27] (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[28] 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[29] - which Blackworm called a personal attack[30]. I had my behaviour overviewed by User:Jehochman[31], an uninvolved, User:EdJohnston[32] 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[33] 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[34][35]. A discussion on his talk page about his objections on Talk:Circumcision illustrates this further[36].

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[37] 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[38] - which you still I hold I guess - with this post[39] and your thoroughly inaccurate description of my editing practice and philosophy at Father's rights movement[40]. I submitted my behaviour to sysop review immediately[41] 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[42], 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)

Clarification: Nothing I said above was intended to mean that either of the users mentioned had violated any policies or guidelines. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If there's a feeling on all sides that mediation would be useful, then a request for mediation is probably the best next step. Of course, mediation is only useful if all parties are committed to it. MastCell ^Talk 17:55, 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)

Framing this debate as a "war" is not helpful in any way. The Foundation encouraged local projects to create a viable EDP through consensus and rational consideration of editorial needs, not by favoring absolutist stances based on free content evangelism. Rallying troops to your defense, as it were, is a disingenuous attempt to dismiss rational objections by creating opposing factions. If we are to have any sort of fair use on the project, we must welcome input from content editors as well as image patrollers. Our policy for claiming fair use is already stricter than what is dictated by US law, tightening the yoke in hope of some day eliminating all fair use from the project will only raise tensions.

I'm all for approaches that attempt to limit copyright infringement or liability, as long as we avoid arbitrary limits on "excessive" fair use because of paranoia. If a non-licensed copyrighted image can be replaced by free content, there is sense in deleting it. If this is not an option because any attempt will only create a derivative work, then you have offer editors some discretion in claiming fair use. Take the cue from outside publications that use promotional materials to illustrate their content. Alternately, consider whether the copyright holder would actually object to a content provider using their work. In cases of illustrating pop culture articles, the threshold is usually pretty low. Using cropped screenshots to identify characters or locations is fairly common outside of Wikipedia, and is indeed allowed by other free content wikis. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Ahem! Talking about "framing this debate as a 'war'" not being helpful, and then immediately framing the debate as "paranoia" in the next paragraph is somewhat self-contradictory, at best. "copyright paranoia" has never been a helpful label, because in part it misses the point made by those who want to reduce non-free content to its minimum that the project goal is to create a free-content encyclopaedia that can be used by anybody in any country. "Outside publications that use promotional materials" do not have the goal of being free-content. Indeed, they are predominantly non-free. Comparison to other projects and publications, with different goals, is a red herring. Our goal is, and has been pretty much from the start, to create a free-content encyclopaedia. Uncle G (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Our ability to create free content is limited because of the extensive and longlasting protections offered to proprietors of intellectual property. So I agree in limitations that force a free content or nothing at all approach where the possibility for creating free content exists. As for how much non-free content is too much, the guidelines are hazy. It is common practice to use samples of up to thirty seconds of a piece of recorded music for fair use claims. Similar guidance is not available for screenshots or other visual content. Several editors are arguing for a conservative reading of non-free content criteria that requires an inflexible limit defined as "excessive fair use". While I was a bit hasty in characterizing this position as paranoid, it does require an insular view of editorial consideration in illustrating articles. For instance, the claim that album covers should not be used in discographies because many non-free images will occupy a tight-nit space is absurd. Online and print publications routinely use galleries of album covers to chart musical careers.
  • Ultimately we have to accept that the goal of crafting an general encyclopedia necessitates use of non-free content for purposes of illustration and criticism. The alternate approach is to completely abolish the exemption policy and depend wholly on free content. This position holds some merit, but users must be direct if they wish to advocate in favor of it. Gradually limiting fair use claims with the goal of eliminating non-free content is a dishonest approach. I'm not saying that this is the position of everyone who advocates for stricter standards, but this is why framing the debate strictly from a free content point of view is unfair. I don't think the creation of free content and taking advantage of fair use laws are mutually exclusive. We have many wonderful articles that depend on non-free content for educational purposes. Hammersoft's post was a dramatic plea that sought to turn our appreciation of free content against the purportedly destructive views of a large number of pop culture editors. Of course this ignores the fact that those editors are well within their right in demanding to have a say in crafting the exemption policy required by the Foundation. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 13:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images. I have contacted several media outlets, but so far I have been unsuccessful (I am much more successful when contacting Flickr users, even professional photographers, though). That is why I asked candidates for the Board if they would help us contacting media representatives (meta:Board elections/2007/Candidates/Danny/questions#Free resources, asked the same question to everyone else), but I guess that will never happen (you know, never trust politician on campaign). Jimbo himself would have supported a press release to media outlets (discographies, agencies, etc), but it was never created (mostly because I can't redact a serious request, and not many were interested in that). We have negotiation power, but prefer to stay the way we are unfortunately. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• LOcal policy cannot override foundation policy, if people think the local policy is no longer in line with foundation policy they probably need to take it up with Florence and/or Jimbo. That's the only thing likely to stop te silliness, IMO. Guy (Help!) 08:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• The problem is clearly that we're well within what's allowed by the foundation resolution - we could accept nonfree media more liberally and still be within it ... but we're also allowed to be as conservative as we like (within the realm of possibility, obviously we can't go past zero fair use) ... so we're stuck here, trying to work it out for ourselves ... The foundation could never out and out outlaw fair use (for example, wikiquote would be royally screwed) ... WilyD 14:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

War? good to know. Just leaving a comment here because sometimes I search for things that way. Carry on then. R. Baley (talk) 08:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

More like vigilante self-appointed Judge Dredds playing a bureaucratic MUD, often against miscreants who've added unnecessary or illicit images, but getting into wars against productive contributors who've made serious good faith efforts to comply fully with the policy and in particular with the EDP. Where criteria of the EDP are subjective, local consensus is essential, and treating it as a war fought by elite picture police is disruptive. We could all spend our lives joining policy debates and immersed in projects, and only touch on a fraction of those available. For most editors, the essential is that policy stays stable enough to make contributing constructive work possible. Anyway, back to the trenches ;) .. dave souza, talk 08:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I know nothing about this issue, but since the term "war" is being used I will say that wars are usually won by those who want to win the most and/or who have the greater numbers unless those with superior power apply crushing force to have their way (assuming those with less power are the ones who want to win the most and/or who have the greater numbers). My feeling, as one who knows nothing about the issue, is that Wikipedia core principles and general mentality preclude the application of such crushing force which brings me back to the theory that the side with the greatest numbers and most passion will likely win most "wars". Is some form of negotiated cease fire possible to give you time to regroup? Or could the issue be diverted into ArbCom? The tone and content right here does indicate that the "sheer numbers" are taking over so if it were me, I'd try to buy some time. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• ArbCom does not handle matters like this. I agree with your summary; the weight of the fair use inclusionists outweighs the weight of people trying to uphold the core principles of the project. If it keeps up, album covers will go back on discographies, episode screenshots will go back on episode lists, and fair use images of living people will creep back into BLPs. Count on it. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Naw, the "must not be replacable with a real or hypothetically createable free image point is wedged in there with glue or something, it's not coming out. Album covers on discographies and episode screenshots in episode lists are not really in any danger of occuring (although obviously a lot of this debate concerns what is, or isn't, a list). The sky continues to fall up, and it'll be harder to add a fair use image to an article tommorow than it is today, which is harder than it was yesterday. WilyD 16:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Scaremongering will not help your cause Hammersoft, what is there to suggest that fair use images will find their way back into BLPs apart from in unique/extenuating circumstances? There's a league of difference between a barebones list such as List of The Simpsons episodes and an article such as Characters of Final Fantasy VI, a difference that you ignore in all your arguments. - hahnchen 01:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• One of the problems here is how to define "excessive fair use" and the impact of any excessive fair use. Should this be assessed on an article by article basis (ie. justifying each use of an image as we currently do)? Should it be done by considering topics (ie. from the point of view of the copyright holder of a particular fictional universe - considering the Wikipedia pages combined to create a specialised guide to that fictional universe)? Should it be done by considering Wikipedia as a whole (the free content and distributability concerns)? It is possible that if you consider Wikipedia as a whole, the vast majority of articles (about living people, long-dead people, and places) will have free images on them. The amount of Wikipedia's content that involves contemporary fictional material (and hence involves fair-use) may in fact be fairly small when compared to the whole of Wikipedia. That might mean that fair-use is not, on the largest scales, excessive. Of course, from the view of a copyright holder, the use of their copyrighted material might be considered excessive within a topic area, but that shouldn't affect distributability as in the long-run that sort of thing can be cleanly excised from the encyclopedia if need be, either by identifying and filtering topic areas that are "contaminated" by excessive fair use, or by filtering by the non-free tags on images. Carcharoth (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use necessity is defined by comprehension. If something helps the reader comprehend the subject, it's apt.

I'm tired of copyright paranoia. All my featured articles except Frank Klepacki are now cheapened because they can't appear on the main page with an image. Why? Because WP:JIMBO decided without a discussion or policy ruling that copyrighted images can't appear on the main page because this encyclopedia is about "free content", and like ignorant sheep editors followed his decision without complaint. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It covers the entire world.

Fine. Let's go completely free content. After all, the only topics humans should be interested in are rain, dinosaurs, and clouds. Let's just pretend that copyrighted works don't exist, and that the fair use provision only allows one image per every 10,000 articles. I wouldn't count out such a proposal from this sick attitude of paranoia. Editors who write about copyrighted works are virtually punished because of it. Zeality (talk) 02:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Woah, what a mess... is it even possible to try and draw a neutral line here? both sides are being extremist towards their points, on one hand there is a group that says the other is trying to use FU images 'freely' and on the other hand there is the one saying the other wants to 'ban' images from character lists, is there a way we can build a consensus to deal with this? something like allowing a image per "x" number of bytes? - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There is an attempt to middle-ground this, at WT:NFCC. I'm involved, so I'm not impartial, but while those that want to maintain limited free use are will to move to a less extreme position, when it comes to other situations, my feeling (not necessarily fact) is there are some that refuse to remove from any less than one image per character on a page. An image every "x" bytes really isn't practical since it can be gamed (invis comments, full HTML text instead of wikimarkup, lots of 50 cent words); you're feel to provide more input though to help resolve the issue. --MASEM 03:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Once again, the overwhelming majority of fair use concerns seem to surround popular culture articles (especially TV shows and movies). As I have said several times before, this highlights the need for a separate popular culture Wiki with a lower inclusion threshold. The reason you're seeing a lot of pushback is that a lot of people worked on these articles and care about them. If they could be moved to a different Wiki without being deleted, this would defuse many of the problems. Our policies on fair use are much more stringent than required by U.S. law, due to the Foundation's understandable commitment to free content. A popular culture Wiki could allow more of what we consider "fancruft," such as writing articles from primary sources alone, and could allow the inclusion of trivia sections, memes, and other things that aren't really encyclopedic but that a lot of fans obviously care about. *** Crotalus *** 07:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Best idea I've seen so far. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That approach doesn't exactly help those of us who want the proper encyclopedic coverage of the "popular culture" class of articles - devoid of fancruft, unnotable subjects and meaningless trivia - regardless of the fair usage debate. Fans are already free to make use of the hundreds of Wikia projects out there which basically cover every popular culture topic out there, many consisting of the fancrufty primary source-driven styles you talk of. We don't need to split Wikipedia in two simply to sort out an image fair use debate. I haven't a clue who said this, but the quote "That's like going after a fly with a bazooka" is my view on that. -- Sabre (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not, but that approach does explain a large share of the hostility towards fair-use/non-free images: those against them cannot conceive of any reason to use them except to illustrate Yet Another Borderline Notable Article about The Simpsons or Family Guy. (And yes, I have seen individuals on the anti-fair use side dismiss the use of corporate & team logos as "mere decoration".) A large proportion of the visual elements of contemporary culture -- be it high, low, pop or folk culture -- is burdened with restrictive licenses, & until either this fact is accepted or a universal concesus emerges that Wikipedia will exclude all subjects with this encumbrance, this dispute will continue to drag on. -- llywrch (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not just about fair use. It's also about what is commonly known as "fancruft," about trivia sections, and about the writing of articles using only primary sources. All of these things are areas where modern popular culture clashes with the rest of the encyclopedia. Modern popular culture is a very important phenomenon and there are a lot of people who want to catalog their favorite parts of it — but much of this cataloging just doesn't fit well with Wikipedia's policies. Sure, there are other wikis, but we need one that is large and comprehensive enough that people don't feel that they are being blown off. A good start would be to transwiki all of the pop-culture articles from Wikipedia, and, if possible, those from other fandom Wikis as well. Then encourage everyone to work from there. I think this is the only solution to maintain Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards while still providing a repository for important aspects of modern culture. We can then tell users: "Wikipedia focuses on describing the most prominent pop-culture topics from an external, encyclopedic perspective, devoid of trivia. If you want to discuss these subjects from an in-universe perspective, Popculturepedia (or whatever) is the way to go." *** Crotalus *** 23:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

(EC reply to Llywrch) It's not in dispute that, in most cases of contemporary visual elements, copyright applies and a free content license is not present. I think everyone accepts that. However, accepting that, since we're a free content project, and such elements are not free content, we should not, generally speaking, be using them. (Including corporate and team logos.) There may be some exceptions (such as when a corporate or team logo itself is the subject of critical, sourced commentary), but generally, they really are just decorations. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

We are a free encyclopedia. Unless you want to pretend all information that is only available through content encumbered with licenses does not exist (or is not notable), we will need to use content under "fair use". Which means there will be some, & based on the opinions voiced in this thread, this means too much for some people. I don't know what to say to people who don't want any fair use content, other than your vision of a free encyclopedia is not truly free nor an encyclopedia. -- llywrch (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Arnold Murray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) stubbified

This is notification that I have blanked the article Arnold Murray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), for constant violations of our policy on biographies of living individuals, in particular, BLP concerns; in short, 99% of the page is uncited. I request that all editors do not revert, but work to include verifiable material. Will ^(talk) 02:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus discussion ignored

At: Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article came off full protect today and not long after, Reginmund (talk · contribs) removed a section that he has been quite uncivilly fighting on the article's talk page to remove and which is why the article was on full protect in the first place. The consensus discussion on this particular section he keeps removing has not reached a consensus but he took it upon himself to remove it anyway as soon as the article was finally unprotected, and when he did so, he cited "no concensus". As I understand it, content is not to be removed until a consensus is reached and the discussion closed, which is not the case here. This diff is where he removed the content after the article was unprotected. This diff is where I restored the content because the consensus discussion was still ongoing. This diff is where he has removed the content again.

An admin needs to restore the content pending the outcome of the consensus discussion and I feel the article should go back on full protection.

And yes, I'm posting it here instead of Rfpp and ANI because this is where both of those places said to post it. ;] -- ALLSTARecho 02:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone delete Chocolate Thai, please.

I know that WP:Deletion recommends against requesting specific admins to check specific AfD discussions.

However:

The AfD tag has been up for over six days now ([43]) and if you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chocolate Thai (2nd nomination), you'll find there's a strong (if not universal) consensus to get rid of the article. Furthermore, for anyone worried about preserving information, the issue has been addressed, because the content has been merged into the main article on Cannabis. See Cannabis#Various strains of cannabis.

Despite the recommendations of WP:Deletion, I thought I'd just try and give Wikipedian bureaucracy a little nudge. If there's a better way to do this than posting here, let me know. Zenwhat (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Was the content merged actually from the article to be deleted? It doesn't look like it, but if it is, it should not be deleted but simply redirected to maintain the edit history. Mr.Z-man 21:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

See the discussion, please. Patent nonsense should not be "redirected." Zenwhat (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If it was patent nonsense, why was it merged into the main article? If an article is merged into another article, the merged article is redirected to the main article so that the history of the merged article is preserved. This is done so that the content remains attributed to the original authors per the requirements of the GNU Free Documentation License. - auburnpilot talk 22:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Because while the article was patent nonsense, the term is not. Please see the discussion. Zenwhat (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to reread that patent nonsense link you've provided, as the article was not Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. I don't close deletion discussions, but the proper close in this situation is redirect. Discussion doesn't override the requirements of our license (GNU Free Documentation License). - auburnpilot talk 22:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

To roughly paraphrase the article: "dude theres like this certain kinda weed, maaaaan, its called chocolate thai... i heard the made it in teh 80's in thailand... it looks like chocolate.. it smells like chocolate, and it tastes like chocolate. no kidding, dude, i saw it on teh internets, lol!11" is patent nonsense, no matter how any radical Inclusionist would like to spin things, otherwise, in order to preserve misinformation. The fact that the article has existed for this long and failed the first AfD is embarassing. Let's just get rid it, please? After all, in the AfD, there appears to be consensus to do so and the five days of discussion has since gone by. I'm just waiting for any good admin to please come along and delete the article, per Wikipedia policy. A redirect would only be called for if there was at least one person on there making a genuine argument calling for it. There isn't. Zenwhat (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be reading a different article than the one you nominated. Any admin who closes this debate as delete and merge needs a good strong reminder that we do not do that. You don't seem to be grasping this point. - auburnpilot talk 03:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

How hard is it to answer the question I asked at the start of this thread? Was any content from any revision of the Chocolate Thai article moved to the Cannabis article? If so, it should not be deleted so we can retain the edit history. If not, it wasn't really a merge and it can be deleted. Mr.Z-man 04:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was merged. See this edit by Zenwhat and his/her comment here. - auburnpilot talk 04:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not know if we taking about same same but different..:) But we called it chocalate brick, which is Hashish not Thai stick which is Marijuna but both are from Cannabis. Chocolate brick or stick is Charas..:) Dudes dont blow smoke up Siam...Kapaun Krab, Same Same but Different! (Actually it is a brick not a stick!) Igor Berger (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You must be thinking Thai stick == Budha stick which is dark brown...but today who knows..:) Igor Berger (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

So maybe one of you canibals can fix it to reflect WP:NPOV and put a suck into the dapartment of misinformation DoM! Igor Berger (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I've smoked cannabis recreationally before, which is why I have somewhat of an experience with this matter, and have heard of the term before. Cannabis, being illegal (so not subject to consumer review or civil law) is subject to widespread misinformation and fraud. Claims about "blueberry" and "chocolate thai" appear to be nothing more than a combination of urban legend, along with fraudulent drug-dealers making false claims about their cannabis to justify jacking up the price. You hear stoners put forth all kinds of absurd claims, such as the existence of the legendary chocolate and blueberry-flavored marijuana, where they treat it like the chupacabra. No one has any hard evidence this stuff exists, but oh everyone claims to have seen it at least once. This appears to be partially a desire to pass themselves off as "veteran" potheads and partially rationalization for being de-frauded.

So far, I've never seen the stuff myself, haven't been able to get it, though I've certainly known dealers who tried to lie about having it, and the only "proof" of it is sources on the internet of stoners talking about it. Per WP is not a dictionary for slang, this article is a clean-cut case of where it's patent nonsense that needs to be removed, which is what made me surprised to see the first AfD fail due to "lack of consensus." But Wikipedia is not a democracy. This is why it somewhat upset me to see User:Pundit, an admin on Polish Wikipedia, argue with me over it so much. Eventually, we compromised and she somewhat came around to my side because the sources she used were unverifiable and demonstratably unreliable (See our debate here and here). Despite passing the five days, though, and having consensus, the article still hasn't been deleted. This made me extremely skeptical of Wikipedia's ability to remove misinformation, so I posted the matter here, hoping that some brave deletionist admin would have the common sense to take care of business. Zenwhat (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Must be some dealer on a Mayhem mission chasing Moby Dick or just being a Dick.. time to dev/nul Igor Berger (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge ends with redirect, no admin action required. Consensus seems to support doing just that, so why not simply do the needful? It's unlikely to be challenged. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirected. Chocolate Thai is an obscure slang term for an urban legend, not a synonym for cannabis, such that a redirect seems inappropriate. Those proposing merge seemed to mean merge/delete, not merge/redirect. In a manner of months, Chocolate Thai will be back precisely because mobs of stoners vandalize Wikipedia like this. Zenwhat (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And it's now officially closed, merged, and redirected. - auburnpilot talk 04:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)