Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sceptre (talk | contribs) at 23:44, 11 April 2008 (→Sigh...: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

    You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    information Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)



    • If you cannot edit this page, it may be protected. Please leave a message here instead.

    Pedophile activism on Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia_and_child_sexual_abuse_in_songs

    Link to Project: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    So I'm confused. PetraSchelm claims that mainstream society doesn't view pedophilia as sexual attraction to children. If so, then what is it? No, mainstream society does view pedophilia as sexual attraction to children, but it views actually performing sexual acts with a child as "wrong".--Urban Rose 00:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly in the UK a pedophile is synonymous with a sex offender who commits child sexual abuse either directly or through viewing child porn, as well as the more traditional "attracted to children" definition. Really this is an issue for the pedophilia articles rather than the admin noticeboard. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, except technically couldn't it be perfectly acceptable to source from the lyrics using the song as a primary source? By personal observation do you mean contentious interpretation? 86.44.26.69 (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, because it requires a value judgment: is lyric X about subject Y? Where the subject is contentious, solid sourcing is absolutely necessary. Guy (Help!) 12:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Plus, of course, there is the small issue that that particular song specifically namechecks Vladimir Nabokov, who was the author of Lolita - the subject (of sexual attraction) being a pubescent girl, and therefore unrelated to paedophilia; which is the attraction toward pre-pubescent children. Therefore the schoolgirl mentioned within the song is not a child, so the song does not belong is a paedophile related category (although if there is a category related to "lolitaism" then that is appropriate.) I raise this point (or WP:POINT, if you prefer) to illustrate precisely why the subject of paedophilia needs to be handled so carefully, much of what is written in the popular media regarding, and supposed examples of, paedophile attraction is not - it is something else which is equally impermissable upon being acted upon, but does not equate to the encyclopedic definition of paedophilia. Hence it is imperative that accusations are not bandied around, and those experienced Wikipedians who have taken on the editing of this thorny subject be allowed to calmly and objectively do their work. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Alison given oversight access

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

    For the Arbitration Committee,

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Community ban proposal on Fredrick day

    Resolved
     – No ban enacted, multiple admins against a ban. Fredrick Day remains indefblocked, and NEGATIVE edits should be reverted. (Positive edits should not be reverted without good cause).

    Per rampages of the last few days (most recently documented yesterday at WP:ANI#Edit warring by blocked User:Fredrick day, I propose that the indefinite block on Fredrick day (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be endorsed as a ban. It is evident that he has degenerated into vandalism and trolling, and the indefinite block hasn't stopped him. It is highly unlikely he will ever be unblocked, yet I make this proposal to support block/revert on sight of all of his edits. Blueboy96 20:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As far as I'm concerned, he's already banned; I can't fathom any admin proposing unblocking him, and certainly none has. Regardless, I endorse the proposal. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In that edits by socks of a banned user may be reverted without discussion, I agree that Fredrick day should be considered banned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's make something clear ... I'm of the mind that among the VERY FEW circumstances that a banned user's edits shouldn't be reverted on sight are instances of very egregious BLP violations and copyvios. However, the fact that Fredrick day is hiding behind the need to enforce BLP in order to rationalize his other actions is not acceptable to me at all. Blueboy96 21:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only that, he may be trying to entrap editors into getting in trouble for blanket reverting his edits. (Or it might be just a coincidence, and he just happens to have gone on the crusade against BLP violations in the wake of his recent indefinite block and Abd's attempts to revert all his edits.) Sarah Lynne Nashif (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Abd has been indiscriminately reverting his edits despite me saying five hours ago that BLP violations do not get reverted, such as this edit for example. One Night In Hackney303 23:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that such content should not remain unless reliably sourced. And in fact I was going to look for some sources but the kind of websites you run into trying to find it tend to be somewhat unsavory, and I'd rather not have that recorded in my access log. Sarah Lynne Nashif (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support understanding the indefinite block to be a community ban. My proviso is that reverting his edits should not be done en masse without checking the content. Since he has recently been playing games with BLP, we should avoid getting into a tangle there. EdJohnston (talk) 04:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support a community ban. It's almost like the user is trying to entrap people by tricking them into reverting legitimate edits, which then enables him to get up on a soapbox and rail against... Enigma message Review 06:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Enigmaman, this user looks like he's trying to get editors into situations where he's playing wiki-polcies against each other, and trying to disrupt the system. Comunity ban, revert any stray edits, then double-check the content to make sure no WP:BLP violations sneaked in there. Redrocket (talk) 06:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Went ahead and tagged as banned per this discussion. There appears to be no opposition or any administrator who is willing to unblock for another chance. Feel free to revert if you like. — Κaiba 07:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I oppose a ban, and will revert. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 19:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Frederick day may be a bad character, but so far the only bad behavior that I've seen in this whole debacle has come from parties other than him. Assume all kinds of bad faith about his reasons for doing so, but he has been making legitimate edits to remove BLP. Why on earth would we ban someone for doing that. Have you all gone mad? He's indefinitely blocked. Leave him at that. Block his sockpuppets. But there is no reason for a ban. That is simply excessive, punitive, and detrimental to the encyclopedia.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 19:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, have you even read the SSP report? [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] (he's right about this one it seems) [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] and uh, the list continues for quite a long time. I see no reason not to ban, he's made it perfectly clear that he's only interested in trolling our contributors and reviewing his IPs I see endless examples of attempts to wind people up. We're not banning him for making BLP edits. We're banning him because he keeps harassing people. -- Naerii 19:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And we're not banning him because there is an administrator willing to unblock. None of you are assuming even the slightest amount of good faith. Why on earth would we ban someone for making valid, helpful contributions, EVEN IF THEY WERE BLOCKED? That's not at all helpful to the encyclopedia, and I would oppose that under any circumstance. Fact is, none of us know what the IP's motivation is, and attributing those edits as harassment or attempts to trap someone is simply failing to assume good faith and predisposing him of guilt. He is being helpful, and as long as he continues to do so, I oppose a ban. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Lets point out that the only difference right now between an indef block (which he already has) and a ban, is the ability to revert all of the IP's edits on sight. Since the edits are at the moment perfectly fine, there is no legitimate reason for the ban. He should stay at an indefinite block.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Swatjester, I have to disagree. While I don't doubt he's being helpful, I believe he's doing so to cover up his actions of the past--borders on gaming the system. Blueboy96 22:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Or maybe he's turning over a new leaf. Since you admit that he's making helpful edits, then why would we ban him (thus giving us a duty to revert those edits) instead of leaving him indefinitely blocked? ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The only reason he is making 'good' edits it to game the system and watch editors fight over reverting all his edits or not, etc. This user has no place here. — Κaiba 00:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good edits have no place here? Once again, you don't know what his intentions are. What you do know is that his edits are good. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't doubt for a second the disruptive intent behind choosing BLP violations as a target while making it glaringly obvious who he is. I do think it needs to be clear that even if he's banned, people still need to be accountable for reverting edits that introduce unsourced contentious material into BLPs. --Onorem♠Dil 00:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like if his goal was to improve the encyclopedia, he would just quietly do that- as he points out, he does know how to avoid blocks. Posting each change at the BLP board seems to indicate that his primary goal is disruption, not improvement. Maybe I'm wrong. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He's a poster boy for WP:POINT, but that doesn't mean that the edits are incorrect. "R", "B", but don't automatically "I" his talk page comments...and take a moment to review the article edits when good, clear reasons are being given for why they're being made. --Onorem♠Dil 00:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please tell me the jester is joking. The bad behavior is from others and not from him? What? Enigma message Review 02:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Since this BLP debacle began (I'm not talking about events before that), all of the IP's edits that I have seen have been good, and at the same time I've seen User:Abd deliberately disrupting the encyclopedia to ensure that this IP's edits are reverted. Fredrick Day may have been a bad editor, he may have been a serial killer for all I care. But he's currently making good edits, and we simply don't ban people for that. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was originally neutral on this, but Swatjester has convinced me this user should not be banned, at least not yet. Kelly hi! 03:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you need to pay more attention then Jester, [17] [18] [19] are just a few of the edits he's made since the BLP mess began -- Naerii 14:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to agree with Swatjester here. Is this what we've come to? People are complaining that edits of a user are being mass reverted, inserting potential libel back into articles, so now we're trying to ban the user to get a better reason to revert all his edits? Have we lost all common sense? Revert the disruptive edits, then block the IP once it becomes disruptive (it seems he's used only 1 sock account and all but one of the IPs have been in the same range, so its not like he's going to great lengths to evade) but other then that, just leave it be. The encyclopedia comes first, before rules that are not necessarily binding and silly drama. Mr.Z-man 03:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The only "silly drama" being caused is by people that assume banning also means restoring negative content to BLPs. And as for, "the edits he's making now are perfectly fine" Swatjester - [20]. -- Naerii 14:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not me - I write in English which means that the expression "p'wnd" appears on my special list marked "phrases/words I'd rather cut off my fingers than use". --Fredrick Night (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And what about [21] [22] which are pretty obviously you considering the later edit [23]? -- Naerii 16:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Different IP's. Perhaps had you all not been condemning him, he wouldn't have made those edits. I still don't see behavior rising to the level of a ban. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 16:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Coincidentally from the range that Fredrick is known to use and with edits later made that had edit summaries the lines of edits he'd previously made... also note that Kurt has not been involved in these ban discussions and has not been condemning him since the BLP issues began. People condemned him in the first place because he'd been harassing Kurt, and he is still harassing Kurt in an unacceptable manner with no justification whatsoever. Also note that throughout this mess he has not made a single apology, indeed he has openly admitted to be trying to play people. Please stop enabling trolls. -- Naerii 17:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So by not agreeing to a ban, we're enabling trolls? Are we saying not to block him when he trolls? No. A ban isn't some magic device where if we put a {{banned user}} tag on his talk page he'll just go away. Very little will change from what we're doing now, the only difference is that people will be further emboldened to revert all his edits without checking for quality. Revert the unhelpful edits, leave the good ones, block for disruption. Why is that so freaking hard to do if the user isn't "banned"? Mr.Z-man 17:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Because people keep complaining about his edits being reverted as he's not banned. Jeez. It's like people walk along to these discussions and don't bother to review the history at all. Oh wait. -- Naerii 17:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know the history, don't patronize me. Mr.Z-man 18:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c)So he's made some disruptive edits. Since when do we initiate a community ban discussion for userpage vandalism? "The only "silly drama" being caused is by people that assume banning also means restoring negative content to BLPs" - And for some unknown reason, people seem to think that's perfectly acceptable. The stated reason for this ban is so we can revert all his edits and block his IPs on sight. That is a terrible reason. Mr.Z-man 16:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Quote from the originator of this discussion... "Let's make something clear ... I'm of the mind that among the VERY FEW circumstances that a banned user's edits shouldn't be reverted on sight are instances of very egregious BLP violations and copyvios. .... Blueboy96 21:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)" I support a ban because he has engaged in unacceptable behaviour towards our editors (and is still engaging it) and is abusively sockpuppeting. Should we allow someone to edit people's pages with intolerable abuse 50% of the time just because the other 50% they remove BLP violations? I would support a community ban for any other vandal that went out of his way to antagonise people as much as this one does. -- Naerii 17:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the point? Is this just symbolism? Mr.Z-man 17:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's because people were complaining about the more obnoxious of his non-mainspace edits being reverted as he's "not banned". -- Naerii 17:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good grief! Why is this so difficult for people to understand?! We revert things that are disruptive, leave the things that aren't! If people disagree with the reverting, maybe it wasn't so disruptive or they're just process wonking and need a good slap upside the head. Being banned should should not change that at all, and banning someone just so his edits can be reverted is an absolutely terrible reason to do so. Mr.Z-man 18:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I look forward to your proposals to unblock every banned user. 22:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naerii (talk • contribs)
    Naerii, I'll ask you to stop the strawman arguments. It's not helpful, and is borderline trolling. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary section break 1

    WP:BAN specifically states:

    Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of core policies such as Neutrality, Verifiability, and Biographies of Living Persons.

    Even without that to consider, it's simple common sense. No matter who finds them, egregious BLP violations and copyvios must not stay in an article a minute longer than when it's obvious what they are. Period, end of discussion. This doesn't change the basic fact--there is no reason that a user who has engaged in the kind of harassment Fredrick day has engaged in should be allowed formal editing privileges. If I'm reading this right, not even those opposing a ban are willing to unblock him.

    I do agree, though, that Abd's actions in this border on disruption, and he should be given at least 48 hours to cool his heels next time. Blueboy96 20:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There ain't gonna be a next time. I stopped two days ago. Here is the sequence of events:
    I was reverting User:Fredrick day, on sight, and was indeed not making sure that edits were improper before reverting them, he was making lots of edits, using many different IPs, and I was trying to keep up. I had taken a cue from User:Sarcasticidealist who was doing (and continues to do) the same with User:Sarsaparilla. (But BLP issues were not involved.)
    I had stated to the community that I would stop, quickly, if the community asked me; to this point there were only isolated objections and a fair amount of support. I am not claiming that my actions were proper, indeed they were in conflict with policy. By the way, nobody told me about this discussion. Here is what happened at the critical point:
    23:32, 7 April 2008 I made the last unresearched edit to articles touched by Fredrick day. [24]
    23:42, 7 April 2008 Swatjester asked me to stop.[25]
    23:45, 7 April 2008 He made it a formal warning.[26]
    I had not before been warned, though there had been some level of disagreement.
    23:55, 7 April 2008 As soon as I saw it, I responded to Swatjester's comment that I was done.[27]
    That was it. I did not continue. I had said I'd come to a screeching halt if the community asked, and administrators, acting to warn, representing the community pending further discussion, did warn me and I did stop.
    I made one more edit to a pornstar article, and it's remarkable, because what has been asserted, for example by Swatjester, as being so dangerous was, in fact, easy to source, and the source was already in the article, already being used, and is still there. The references hadn't been made explicit. So I did that. It was taken out by Fredrick day again.[28]. And so it stands. A block-evading user has been allowed to remove sourced material. His edit summary was this: (1) you have linked to a general frontpage 2) you have added "alleged" to a BLP - this doesn't cover you from comitting libel 3) the source you use is not considered a Reliable source.). Now, I have no particular interest in that article, no axe to grind about it. My purpose here is not to resolve a content dispute, but to raise the question of allowing a blocked user, quite willing to edit war, to decide what content stands. I did not link to a front page, I did not add "alleged" -- this was simply the prior language, and it is harmless --, I haven't libeled anyone, but have restored to the article material which can be found easily on the net, including what appear to me to be reliable sources, apparently not controversial, and the source is actually the same source as for the information that was left in, that the actress contracted AIDS. I added the sources, Fd reverted it again. Because of the flap, I've left it alone. However, notice the first reason, about "you have linked to a general frontpage." From what I've seen of him, he said this simply to waste my time rechecking the sources. That's his point, to make it tedious and difficult to revert his contributions. And he wasn't blocked for making good edits....
    One more point. Some writers above seem not to be aware of the extent of Fds socking. I haven't kept up with the last two days, but I was logging all the IP he's used at Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day. *Most* of his edits come from a single range, but if you want to see what he was up to, you can look at the links provided there. He has been logging in, occasionally, through ISPs from all over the world. His claim is that he cannot be blocked, and that he is freer as an IP editor. Is he? It somewhat looks like it.--Abd (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Assuming Abd knows that he did the wrong thing, and won't do it again in the future, than he's good to go. I have to admit, I'm less than 100% certain that's the case, but I'll assume good faith on that. However, the purpose of this AN section is done. There are now at least 3 admins who oppose a ban, so there is no ban. Arguing further about it is pointless, and won't help nor solve anything. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mikkalai is abusing power

    Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • I live for the day that we get a comment about Mikka from someone who was not engaged in edit-warring to promote a particular POV. Let me go and see if the day has arrived... Nope. Copy-paste moves are Bad, ethnic disputes are not best solved by edit warring. Guy (Help!) 12:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, if by POV you mean only mainspace-related issues, and not philosophical differences regarding RfA, here's at least one: Mikka can be unfriendly as hell and frequently displays behaviour fully and utterly incompatible with a position of trust in this project. However, I agree that the issue at hand happens to be purely content-related. Dorftrottel (harass) 15:48, April 8, 2008
      • Make that two, I can't disagree with anything Dorftrottel just said. (1 == 2)Until 18:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Discuss it on the talkpage and come to a consensus on the name according to the best sources available. Moving it back and forth is counter-productive. While I don't necessarily think the protection was good, I'd be in favor of leaving it in place to prevent a move-war from going on. ^demon[omg plz] 14:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I can tell, Mikkalai was asked about the protection, then removed it. Mikkalai then requested protection via RFPP which I granted, as there was an active dispute about the pages title. It is currently protected for about 19 more days. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With two threads in a row claiming it, "Abuse of Power" is becoming the new "Wikistalking"--do we maybe need to invoke WP:CLINGPEACHES?Gladys J Cortez 17:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good to me. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Admin abusing power = admin doing exactly what they should do, except they did it to me... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like all the admins are having a good laugh about what other admins do, no matter whether it's right or wrong, and despite whether it might be disruptive to Wikipedia. It also seems to me that administrators are considered more important that other editors, which surely should not be the case. I don't consider anything has been resolved here. Rapido (talk) 08:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    runescape pages

    hey im trying to make redirects to runescape plz can you help me, here is list of armas that need making http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Ranged_armour ok —Preceding unsigned comment added by Z3Z1AAA (talk • contribs) 16:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This isn't the right place for this- perhaps try a related WikiProject? However, I personally question the need for all those redirects... Is someone really going to try searching for it, wanting information about Runescape? There are plenty of games that have all sorts of items similar to Runescape. J Milburn (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    hey why are they being deleted?--Z3Z1AAA (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The reason given was R3: redirect from an implausible title. Those redirects are not really needed, make a list instead. --Tone 17:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    what is a implausible title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Z3Z1AAA (talk • contribs) 17:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've answered your questions on your talk page and on my talk page; you can read the answer in either of those places to save me the effort of typing it in a third place. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    well why does Blackplastic get his redirect name then and like 100 other names? why are you guys picking on me for?17:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Z3Z1AAA (talk • contribs)

    They probably still had a redirect because nobody had noticed it. That redirect has now been tagged for deletion as well. --Onorem♠Dil 17:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    what about all the others too??--Z3Z1AAA (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tag any inappropriate redirects with {{db-r3}} and they'll be dealt with too. GBT/C 20:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    there is probably hundreds i gonna make it thousands soon!!--Z3Z1AAA (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Is that a threat? JuJube (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Looking at this user's edits, all I see is an account for the purpose of vandalism. Others have tried to help him, and he doesn't seem to care, nor does he care to find out how Wikipedia operates. It seems clear with edits like the one above, and edits like this that he is well, a troll. I don't know what to say further, his contributions and remarks speak for themselves.— Dædαlus→quick link / Improve 21:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, in response to his above edit:

    there is probably hundreds i gonna make it thousands soon!!--Z3Z1AAA (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

    I believe he should be blocked before he further disrupts WP.— Dædαlus→quick link / Improve 21:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hm, almost 160 redirects, several of them R3. Anyone interested in cleanup? --Tone 21:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Is that question directed to an admin? If not, I'd be glad to if you told me how to.— Dædαlus→quick link / Improve 21:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, someone needs to check them. If admin, you can delete the redundant ones straight forward, if not, just place sd tags on them. --Tone 06:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Socks and more socks

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

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

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

    Non-admin closures of AFDs

    Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    There is no reason these pages need to be deleted.

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

    Amazing that Calton brought this here!

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

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

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

    Yeah, Calton tagged this users talk page...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

    Weeding required in odd walled garden

    Resolved

    one perp blocked, watching for more disruption

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

    I think your first instinct was about right. If they carry on after a warning, particularly if there's no constructive edits, block em. Neıl ☎ 22:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorting out in progress. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    On-wiki discussion of GFDL/CC changes?

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

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

    Informal debate on wiki-nationalism

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

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

    IFD backlog

    There is currently a one-week backlog at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion, consisting of about 70+ nominations scattered across 7 daily logs). Help would be appreciated... Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 19:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh what fun... I dealt with April 3 for you. If any admin with more IfD experience than me (which will be 98% of admins, I'm sure) thinks that my one "keep" was the wrong call, feel entirely free in overturning it. BencherliteTalk 20:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! (I'm working on April 2 at the moment). As for the one "keep" close, I think it was the right call: it's a user-created freely-licensed image which could be used in and contribute to an article (it's not used right now, but that could change...). Black Falcon (Talk) 20:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I added some comments. Will keep looking through and see where I can help. Won't actually close any, but hopefully my comments will make the closing decisions much easier. Carcharoth (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Has this image been deleted or not? It looks like it has, but no entry in the log! Issue complicated because the italics ('') markup appears in the filename. Carcharoth (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at the user's upload log, I'd say that it has... I have no idea why there's no entry in the deletion log. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Would the italics markup thing have confused the log. I would have thought not, as it should represent it as %27. I'll drop a note over at VP:T. Carcharoth (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Technical problem with article "air-raid shelter"

    Resolved

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

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

    WP:UAA

    Resolved

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

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

    Wikipedia:OptOut

    I'm aware of much discussion about how wikipedia handles biographies, but haven't been able to find a concrete proposal.. so I started one! (click above). All thoughts most welcome - the other area I feel this is being most clearly discussed in currently is User:Doc_glasgow/The_BLP_problem... Privatemusings (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a bunch of related discussion to a parallel proposal to Semi Protect all biographies at WT:BLP as well... Privatemusings (talk) 05:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a bit thin on the ground and I can foresee problems with verifying the RL identity of BLP subjects in a reliable yet confidential manner, but there's nothing that cannot be resolved with a bit of effort. I think this is an excellent start! - Alison ❤ 06:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And that is those in a position to approach the foundation. People in jail or without English skills would be at a disadvanmtage. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently there is nothing you can do, making it possible is a step forward, its more than it was before. People in jail/that can't speak english well can't do anything now either :) (in fact even less, the english speakers can at least rail against the injustice of it all etc o.O) I think this option (if coupled with a solid way to validate identities) would be a step forward on the touchy subject of BLP's.195.216.82.210 (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongly disagree with this policy. First of all, Doc seems to take a rather extreme viewpoint on BLPs. His essays do not necessarily reflect the broader view of the editors and seems to be euro-centric in their legal reasoning. Like WP:BADSITES we are once again considering censorship in the pursuit of making some individual feel good or to right some perceived wrong. Quite frankly, we don't need more rules to cover ones we already have. Either there are facts to make a decent article or there aren't. It isn't our business to judge what is right or wrong - we are neutral - so we should simply present the facts and let the chips fall where they may. If they want someone to coddle them, then go find a therapist or hire a PR firm. Or even better yet, provide better sourced material for their article while keeping their contributions within the scope of WP:COI. It is not our job to make them look good or feel good, no matter what their circumstance. WP:NPOV must be adhered to, which means we don't take side for or against said subject. Meanwhile, we should not allow them to opt out because they want to. People don't get to opt out of news coverage, it should be no different here. Wikipedia is covered under US laws, so your overly-lawyerly EU libel laws do not apply. It is well established case law that the 1ST Amendment provides the publisher with the right to publish accurate information, no matter how insignificant you may feel it is. Again, if there are facts to justify a decent article and the subject doesn't want it, well that is just too bad. We don't operate based on feelings of WP:IDONTLIKE. The only sticking point is we get the facts right and not allow opinion or emotions to interfere with our editing. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Dragon. It violates NPOV, which is not an optional policy. It also takes content decisions out of the hands of the communities consensus, and outsources it to a person with a clear conflict of interest. The proposal even states that it cannot be appealed via DRV. (1 == 2)Until 18:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Really not a fan of this idea. Really, what someone thinks should have no bearing on our content; it's not their call. If they don't pass our notability guidelines, it's because of our guidelines, not because of their opinion. Like 1==2 said, the community has the final say in such matters, not the subject. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. All these untended BLPs on marginally notable individuals are like ticking bombs scattered throughout the project. It's only a matter of time until a disgruntled ex-spouse or business competitor trips the fuse on one, and it blows up in our faces. We can't let George W. Bush opt out, obviously, but obscure people should be allowed to have their articles deleted as a courtesy. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. If their obscure, then their not notable. If they are notable, we should have an article on them. Look at WT:OptOut for a much more extensive reasoning of why this is a Bad Idea. MBisanz talk 18:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. without NPOV why should we bother working here? if we wanted to work on doing PR, there are paid jobs available. The net result of this criterion is to let anyone other than a politician remove any article about them they dislike seeing. The provision was for obscure, it was for anyone. DGG (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What alternative are you proposing? Everyone conveniently forgets that doing no harm is a fundamental pillar, merely because Google have abandoned it (as a money making company they had to) does not excuse us for abandoning it via wikilawyering, what I see is lots of excuses for wikipedian teenagers to trash whoever they want with not only impunity but our support, and that is so far from our original goal. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well we haven't tried semi-protecting all BLPs, or a specialized XFD for them, or a protect on request system, or flagged revisions, or subject rebuttal area. Those are all steps I'd take and fail at before this. MBisanz talk 01:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have put up the proposal Wikipedia:BLP subject response which will allow the subjects of BLPs to respond to the biography. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Anti-United Kingdom Editor

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The category tracker is back

    Template:Category tracker <--- HERE.

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

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

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

    Bug reported. MER-C 13:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Big backlog at WP:AIV

    Resolved

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

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

    IP evading a permanent ban

    I put a month-long block on the following IP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/72.186.213.96 Looks to me like a clear-cut case of evasion of a ban by User:Licorne. See User talk:Licorne for more information on this persistent anti-Semite, who was banned indefinitely a few years back. The above IP, along with being in a known IP range of the user, has the same obsessions (obsessed with homosexuality, with Catholicism, with "Jews", using all caps when confronted, and, most of all, with the idea that Albert Einstein plagiarized the work of Henri Poincaré and others). I thought I ought to report it in here, since it has been awhile. I have no doubt myself that this is the same person, the likelihood that a similar IP would be editing Wikipedia in all the trademark ways of this past abuser seems nil. --Fastfission (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Backlog at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

    Resolved
     – All caught up now. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    A few paragraphs up on this page, user Signsolid launches an attack on user Keizuko. Having looked into the matter a bit more, I'm amazed that Signsolid had the guts to do so, since the facts seems to be 100% the opposite. For a long time, Signsolid is repeatedly attacking Keizuko with very aggressive and personal attacks, often accusing Keizuko of being "hateful" and attacking Keizuko over his nationality. For the record, I haven't found a single such attack by Keizuko, while they seem to be a trademark of Signsolid. The following diffs are just a few examples, many more are easily found [29], [30], [31], [32]. As the user accused Keizuko of being motivated by "nationalist POV", I'd like to point out that I've found no such pattern in Keizuko's edits, while they are very obvious in Signsolid's edit history. At the moment, he is repeatedly first changing a sourced article and an agreed upon compromise as well as inserting meaningless nonsense that looks quite much like vandalism to me (inserting a country called "Heffo" in a table over countries). [33], [34], [35]. I think it is rather obvious that in the conflict involving Signsolid and Keizuko, it is Keizuko who has behaved in a calm way and respected Wikipedia policies while Signsolid has failed to do so. JdeJ (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Userfication request

    Resolved
     – Done --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Non-free image policy

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

    Your inappropriate reversion has been reverted. Nothing was "quickly rushed through"--discussion was extensive and lasted for two weeks. The claim that "a small group of editors took it upon themselves to declare a 'consensus'" is specious--not a single voice was raised in opposition, and the actual change was only applied well after the consensus had become clear, allowing ample time for objections to be registered. Finally, a very clear notice was posted at WP:VPP: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 42#Non-free content: proposed change in Criterion_8.—DCGeist (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I only reverted what was inappropriate. See mine and Carl's comments on talk. This should not have been even tweaked - totally against Foundation policy - when it is such an emotive subject. And especially by an editor with such an obvious disregard of policy. Black Kite 23:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Black Kite, you are still misrepresenting what happened. The change made was not against Foundation policy. The change produced this: "NFCC#8: Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." Compare that to the wording of the WMF resolution: "Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works [...] or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works." There is nothing specific in the WMF resolution about significance (other than the reference to historically significant events) or to detriment to understanding. What you have to realise is that Wikipedia's NFCC has a different history and different emphasis. All the project EDP's need to satisfy the WMF resolution, but they can be more restrictive and use different wording, and that is the case for en-Wikipedia. So talking of something being "against Foundation policy" is simplistic. We are supposed to be on the same side here, so why not discuss things instead of edit warring? Carcharoth (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have suggested at WT:NFC that we set up a working party to look at the wording of NFCC and, possibly more importantly, at the interface that editors see when they upload non-free content. I am quite happy to set up such a party. Thoughts, again? Black Kite 00:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you ever read WP:NFCC-C? Carcharoth (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I did. 99% of the issues, I think, can be narrowed down to two, possibly three sections of NFCC, and that's 3a, 8 and possibly 1. Of course, these are the three that need a human to analyse, which is where the problems arise. Have you seen this, incidentally? It's very out of date, and a lot of those articles have since been "fixed", but I'd guess that at least as many have become problematic since then. Black Kite 00:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Minimal use can mean different things. If lots of images from the same copyright holder are used on Wikipedia, they won't care whether they are used on a list article, on a single article, or spread out over hundreds of articles. They will just see overuse of their images. Then you have minimal use in terms of an image - is it used once or more than once? Then you have minimal use in terms of the product (eg. screenshot from a film versus a 3-minute clip from the film; and low-resolution versus high-resolution; cover of a book versus the whole book). Then you have minimal use in terms of Wikipedia as a whole (300,000 images in 2,500,000 articles; or should that be 300,000 images in 400,000 articles where no non-free content is possible). What does minimal really mean? It means different things to different people. What is needed is a coherent policy that calms things down on the ground. Carcharoth (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, agreed, although ironically the articles that we have most problems with are the ones where the image overuse is the least controversial in terms of NFCC - that's why the second clause of #8 was so important in explaining the problems nicely to recalcitrant editors. Black Kite 01:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The criterion was not removed. It was discusssed at length in an advertised discussion and changed with a view to coming up with a wording that is less conducive to endless arguments. That talk page should be more visible, and more people should have it watchlisted. It is in no way "non-visible". By all means join the discussion, but don't ride in and disrupt things. I'n not going to edit war over this, but please, Black Kite, don't misrepresent what happened here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see it's been protected now. Probably best. Seriously though folks, this was a really retrograde step. Just wiping that important section of #8 was a really bad move because it leaves that section even more open to wikilawyering on FU abuses. As someone who deals with NFCC on a daily basis (in the last 48 hours alone I've been called a "twat" and a "nazi" for example) I don't disagree that NFCC needs re-writing - it's far too confusing and open to interpretation and causes people to fly off the handle because they haven't been told that their 24 images of anime characters aren't appropriate for that article - but this was a very bad idea indeed. NFCC as a whole needs a long and very open look by editors from both "sides" and it needs to be fixed by a proper consensus, not half a dozen editors making a quick agreement. Carcharoth, I'm sorry if you took it that way, but it's frustrating when editors who are trying to enforce Foundation policy are undermined by little coups like that. Black Kite 00:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • And I've said it before and I'll say it again, there are two ends to this spectrum. There are the old pictures (usually B&W with little photographer information) that may be public domain or will be soon, and which are usually encyclopedic and historical. And then there are the images of modern copyrighted works, uploaded ad nauseum by thousands of editors, producing a tide of images that you and others do good work in keeping under control. But please, join the debates instead of surfacing briefly from the trenches to fire off a volley of frustration and then going back to work. Carcharoth (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrative best practices

    Administrators, I've always thought, should be setting the standard for behavior on Wikipedia. Here we have a case where two administrators quite openly defied our standard process of consensus building and preemptively reverted a change to policy language that was enacted after it was (a) extensively discussed on the policy Talk page with the necessary eye toward larger-scale concerns of policy and practice, (b) well advertised at the Village Pump, and (c) supported by a clear, unambiguous consensus. The change was enacted without controversy—on a page that attracts controversy, the lack of it is indicative of the validity and strength of the relevant consensus. The page was entirely stable for nine-and-a-half days until editors Howcheng and Black Kite—both administrators—summarily reverted the consensus-based wording, without even making an attempt at forging a new consensus. That Howcheng and Black Kite (belatedly) disagree with the substance of the properly enacted change is fair enough; their manner of displaying their disagreement, however, was abysmal. I warrant that most non-administrators who find their way to the policy pages know better than to make substantive changes to policy in defiance of duly arrived-at consensus.

    If this is how certain of our administrators are going to behave in regard to our most core procedures, in as crucial a realm as our policy language, how can we expect our contributors to accord the respect to our (a) administrators, (b) procedures, and (c) policies that they deserve? For shame, gentlemen.—DCGeist (talk) 06:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • IMHO, the lack of controversy merely demonstrated how few people actually noticed the debate. Black Kite 07:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I oppose that section change to the greatest extent as well. Did anyone in that discussion post a notice on AN or AN/I to notify users who may like to comment on the changes? That is a serious change, a change that would likely cause more lack of understanding of fair use and all around wikilaywering. This is a core policy of this project, and any change needs to be with a confirmed consensus with the majority of editors (If there is, I would like to know exactly how many participated in that discussion). Furthurmore, a band of a couple editors cannot expect to make changes of that magnitude, a lot more discussion and time needs to take place before anything like that occurs. And as for your clear and unambigious consensus, I think it's cloudy and full of holes if there are administrators reverting you. — Κaiba 07:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, Kaiba? A consensus forged over two weeks of discussion in which all the participants support a proposal and none oppose it suddenly becomes "cloudy and full of holes" because someone comes along nine days after the fact and disagrees with it? That's your view of the Wikipedia way? Wow.—DCGeist (talk) 07:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, stop arguing over the process and restart the discussion. Advertise it as before and notify the previous participants, and advertise on AN as seemingly people think the village pump is not good enough any more. Also try WP:CENT, and then see what consensus is. Any this is not a substantial change to the meaning, but only to how to get a workable criterion in place. Carcharoth (talk) 08:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already brought it up at the pump. Can you handle WP:CENT? That thing gives me a headache.—DCGeist (talk) 08:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's very easy to miss things at VPP. I've got it watchlisted, and I missed the single posting to it advertising the debate. Black Kite 08:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    DCGeist, looking at it, it was about 7 editors who decided that change. Does 7 editors suddenly represent the entire community (much less, the 1,000+ administrators) of Wikipedia? You posted on the Village Pump, now that's good and all, but what was wrong with posting a notice here and at AN/I (where a lot more discussion happens than at the VP) saying "come here and discuss this", or were you afraid of someone actually looking to see what you were changing? Posting a couple more notices wouldn't have hurt or made it any less of a centralized discussion. — Κaiba 08:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, Kaiba, do I or Tony really seem afraid of discussing anything with anyone anywhere at any time? If you believe that any change to the policy page under debate is such a "serious" one, as you wrote, surely you keep an eye on that page and its Talk page all the time. Why didn't you post all these notices you now say should have been posted? (Including on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents?? What incident?) What were you afraid of? Or are you just late and very loud to the dance?—DCGeist (talk) 08:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, no, I know your presence is very much here, and your edit warring on policy makes that very obvious (your block log makes your agenda towards images clear as well). I have better things to do than to moniter NFCC 24/7 for editors who try to change policy to make Wikipedia more unfree than it already is. The reason I didn't post these notices or participate in the discussion this far is because this is the first I heard of anyone attempting to change it. Maybe had you posted it on AN or AN/I instead of VP, you would have double or triple, ZOMG, the amount of participation you had other than your 6-1 editors "consensus". — Κaiba 08:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Kaiba, while I share your concerns, could you please assume good faith here, please? Black Kite 09:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    His previous history and my history with this editor leave me little room to assume. — Κaiba 09:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to note here that however perceived in the debate, there was no administrative action that was undertaken (that is, in the form of closing a poll, rollback, etc...) and no administrative action can resolve this situation. This is a content dispute, and does not belong here. Keegantalk 08:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cool! Textbook WP:SILENCE situation: the guy you didn't talk with is the guy who reverts ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oversight action needed

    Resolved

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

    Um, actually, this isn't the place to report oversighting edits. You need to e-mail the request here. BoL (Talk) 23:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I only learned that oversight existed two days ago, so I'm still getting the hang of how it works.--Urban Rose 00:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done - Alison ❤ 00:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks (wow, an oversight appeared out of nowhere! :)) Majorly (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    AWB Approval List

    Resolved

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

    User:Haudcivitas

    Resolved

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

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

    IP signing as user

    At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blanket clemency we have a !vote from an IP with a signature that appears to be a named user. One editor want to strike the vote claiming sockpuppetry. Unless there's specific evidence of socking, I think noting the oddity is sufficent, but would appreciate an administrator's opinion. Thanks, Jfire (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    IPs are users. This one has simply piped-linked a name to his special contribs link. There is no lack of transparency. People do all sorts of funny things with their sigs, some of which are indeed worthy of complaint, but not this one. Not An Admin Opinion (talk) 03:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with the gentleman/lady above --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Very old unclosed RfA

    Resolved

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

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

    User:Vintagekits

    Is there a policy on blanking a banned user's page? There is an almost edit war by User:Giano II at User:Vintagekits. - Kittybrewster ☎ 09:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no rule that is set-in-stone that requires a blocked user to have their userpage blanked. It just appears to be common practice by most blocking admins to replace the whole userpage with the blocking template. Probably this is because the userpage simply cannot be used by its owner anymore, so what's the point. However, I think it's a fairly trivial incident to have an edit war about. Lradrama 10:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Might it be protected please? - Kittybrewster ☎ 10:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (There is nothing here in Wikipedia:Blocking policy that states a userpage should be replaced by a blocking template.) It's up to the admin, as the blocked user shouldn't care - he/she can't edit with that account anymore.
    I'll look into it closer, but I think rather than protect the userpage over something as trivial as this, the people who are having the edit war need to be dealt with. Lradrama 10:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have warned Giano II on his talkpage. If he continues to have an edit war over it all, he will be blocked. The userpage in question needn't be protected. Lradrama 10:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, in that case, he has been given a warning, and if he continues to be disruptive, he will be blocked. A page shouldn't need to be protected over something as minor as that. Do we agree? Lradrama 11:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering he has reverted four editors, Kittybrewster being the fifth to revert, make his opinion known on this, I would agree with a block if he continued, instead of protection. — Κaiba 11:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand this rationale. A block would stop a productive editor with regular mainspace output from adding content and improving the encyclopedia. Protecting Vintagekits's page will stop users from editing a banned user's page, which, apparently, should remain unedited anyway. How can the former be better than the latter? ---Sluzzelin talk 17:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I tell you what I'm getting sick of. I'm tired of going about sorting out these problems because a Wikipedian is being disruptive and showing lack of understanding and then getting a bucket-load of insults thrown at me. I know many other users who've experienced it also. It is the reason why RickK and RadioKirk left, and all that happens when this occurs, is the person in the wrong gets all the support. Lradrama 17:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I certainly didn't wish to upset you, nor do I pretend to know who is in the wrong, but wouldn't the problem (edit warring over trifles in userspace) be resolved without negative side effects by protecting the page, indefinitely? ---Sluzzelin talk 17:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No no! You misunderstood me! YOU haven't upset me - Giano II has upset me - I've never tried to reason with a more insulting person in my life. It's like talking to a stubborn child. Lradrama 17:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussed before Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive134#Brief_protection_at_User:Vintagekits. It was left as a userpage, so it'd be best if editors who don't have an axe to grind with Vintagekits would just leave it be. One Night In Hackney303 17:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For what history is worth, a quick check through this list shows that only about 5 or 6 of the two hundred or more banned users have been permitted to keep their user pages. Almost all, even of those who have bans of defined lengths, don't have one; that surprised me. I couldn't find any delineating factor between those who do still have user pages and those who don't. ៛ Bielle (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When thinking about it, I've come to a similar conclusion. When putting an indef-block onto a userpage, usually that is the first thing to be entered onto a userpage anyway. However, most other examples simply replace the whole page with the template, e.g. with former editor Runcorn. This argument (on Giano II's talkpage) has been ridiculous, and from what we've all gathered, it's best not to block an editor who can make good contributions when he wants to, but protect the page in question after all. Just keep the peace ( ;-) ). Lradrama 18:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Why not copy the useful contents of the page somewhere and leave a link in the template. Why not link from the template to the page history? Creative solutions like that might help resolve incidents like this. Carcharoth (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion policy discussion

    There's a discussion at WP:VPP#Deleted article about the extent to which editors should be allowed access to deleted content. Not surprisingly, non-admins tend to think they should have such access pretty freely, while admins would guard their privileges jealously. There seems, though, to be a shortage of convincing arguments (aside from cries of beans) as to why mortals should generally be denied access to ex-content that admins are allowed to see. Presumably there must be some good reasons why things are the way they are; would anyone like to pitch in?--Kotniski (talk) 12:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rollback for RyRy5

    RyRy5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    RyRy5 is a relatively new editor who I granted rollback to in the past but this was recently removed after a wrong rollback was initiated. Discussion ensued and so did the agreement that rollback should not be granted again within at least a week or so. I am here to ask if this is the correct thing to do. Some other links that may be helpful are:

    Seems sensible to me. (1 == 2)Until 14:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good call Rudget. MBisanz talk 15:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Rudget, how long was consensus? I notice on one of your links, Jossi has told RyRy5 to wait for a number of months. I won't deny I have serious problems with the social networking nature of this user and his method of increasing mainspace edits (adding and removing commas where they are not needed to be altered), but is granting rollback so soon after losing it a wise thing to do? George The Dragon (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't re-added it yet, hence the note here. Rudget (review) 16:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was somewhat dismayed that he started asking for it back almost immediately after it was removed. This combination of eager and clueless is a bad thing. I think the suggestion to wait a few months was a good one. He has mentors/coaches- I think they should be giving him guidance here. Maybe someone should get him to use IRC? He needs more guidance than is easily provided on-wiki. Friday (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems reasonable. I don't think rollback should be asked for just yet, especially after Jossi's (in my opinion, correct) comment that he should wait for a few months. Sure, rollback is easily removed, but then there's no point re-adding it if its going to removed again, which I fear is what will happen. Rudget (review) 16:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to back-up my comments about inflating mainspace count with unnecessary edits: [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]. These are all in the past 24 hours and there are a lot more. The problem I have is somebody needs to go around cleaning a lot of his edits up but that would look like edit stalking. And single world edit captions such as "grammar" or "fix" or "typo" when there were no problems in the first place are worrying. I know this is slightly off-topic, but I thought I'd mention it rather than start a brand new discussion elsewhere George The Dragon (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, his mainspace contributions are sometimes helpful, but frequently harmful. Come to think of it.. I'd rather see him rolling back obvious vandalism than trying to copy edit. He's way more likely to get it right. This is, as you said, a bit off topic, but this is why we should not find myspacers and tell them "You have to go edit articles." I'd rather have them playing in userspace where they're not touching anything important. I've fixed a few of his harmful edits, but I haven't said anything to him about it- I see no evidence that he is responsive to concerns left on his user talk page. Some greater amount of hand-holding is needed here. Friday (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, in hindsight it would be better if such users were out of article space. The problem is that this particular one clearly wants to run for adminship, and I think he has mentioned in August of this year. I think somebody needs to be clearly tell him that it is not going to happen. While that may sound harsh, surely it is better than seeing a user running around, thinking they are helping, adding "as above" to multiple AFDs in an attempt to get a higher edit count? Wouldn't it be fairer to say "Go for adminship if you want, but you haven't a snowball's chance"? Otherwise, between now and August, poor RyRy5 is going to be wasting time trying to achieve something that is impossible - surely we have a duty to prevent that? George The Dragon (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    people can learn a good deal in 5 months. But they need to do it more carefully than he seems about to. Encouraging him to use automated processes would seem exactly the wrong way to go about it. DGG (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Procedural note: I have informed RyRy of this discussion. - Philippe 16:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Would I be allowed to distribute Huggle?

    A user commented that he sent an e-mail for Huggle and that it had been over a week and he hadn't received it. As a Huggle user myself, I was wondering if I would be allowed to send users the application via e-mail.--Urban Rose 15:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You're best off talking to User:Gurch about this. I'm not too sure if I'm being honest because he does a lot of updates to the software and needs to send these out regularly himself. Might be an idea emailing him to discuss it. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A week lag is not unusual. I got my first version of Huggle via email, and when I asked Gurch to add me to his list, it didnt seem like a problem I got it elsewhere first. Also, I think he prefers emails to User talk:Huggle for requests for the software AFAIK. MBisanz talk 15:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know he has said he'd rather people no give it out, and to send requests his way. Possibly for updating purposes or tracking, I don't know. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When Gurch was AFK for a while some people did start to redistribute it but then he same back and all that stopped. I think he is trying to control who has it. All people need to do is e-mail him and you will get sent it and added to the list for further newer versions. And yes he sure does do a lot of updates. Also some of the older versions don't work due to bugs. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 17:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And that was only one singular case. I know you only applied for it very recently, because I helped you out with it, and you got the tool almost straight away. Gurch had been inactive on Wikipedia for some time even then. So I think it's still best left in his hands at the moment. Lradrama 18:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, if Gurch is inactive, who is the user Gurchzilla?--Urban Rose 18:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that appears to be Gurch, because GurchZilla simply re-directs to Gurch's talkpage. Don't know why he made that account though... Lradrama 18:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Gurchzilla is like Bishzilla, the accounts were created primarily for reverting vandalism too keep those mass edits out of the main account's contributions. Keegantalk 18:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Gurch may be inactive in his user but he also uses the username huggle as well. He is also active on irc from time to time. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 20:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unacceptable

    Includes 2 FAs! Sceptre (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    We shouldn't have articles about controversies? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I also fail to see the problem with having the word "controversy" in an article title. Things are controversial. WP:NPOV requires that we cover them neutrally, not that we whitewash the issue. Rossami (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My thoughts. At the risk of sounding naive, what is wrong with articles such as Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy or NSA warrantless surveillance controversy? Should we rename to "dispute"? Does that make it better? Perhaps if you could be more specific. Mahalo nui loa. --Ali'i 21:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from the comments above about it being okay to use the word "Controversy" in articles, some of them do appear to be forks. Global Warming controversy, Thiomersal controversy, Stem cell controversy, Scientology controversies, etc. off the first page of results jump out at me as being possible forks... --Bobblehead (rants) 21:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ding ding ding ding. Sceptre (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My interpretation of WP:FORK is that the four articles bobblehead listed above are probably legitimate examples of spinoff articles. It isn't wrong to have articles about controversies if their inclusion on the main article page would overwhelm the article. The controversy would need to be notable in its own right, but those four seem to easily meet that hurdle. The trick is making sure the article about the controversy stays NPOV. (No opinion on all the articles that come up in the Google search; undoubtable some of them are POV forks). That is a good list of articles to keep an eye on, but I don't think it's a list of mostly unacceptable articles. --barneca (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with general "controversy" articles is that by and large they are used by editors to shuffle controversies off the main article and into the controversy article, generally with a comment along the lines of "We have a whole article for these, moving to subpage", while the controversy articles themselves become cesspools for every minor controversy about the subject of the main article regardless of the proper weight the controversy deserves. I've been involved in the dismantling of a number of "controversy" articles and have yet to find one that "overwhelmed the main article" with its content. Particularly given that many pages have sub-articles into which "minor" controversies can be added, leaving the "major" controversies to be interleaved into the existing prose of the main article.--Bobblehead (rants) 22:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is true, and this nuanced approach is far superior to Sceptre's renaming of the articles under clumsy titles, no offence intended. Carcharoth (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. In the case of general controversy articles... A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet... --Bobblehead (rants) 22:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (N.B. The 2 featured articles referenced are Boy Scouts of America membership controversies and 1996 United States campaign finance controversy.) --Ali'i 21:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In general, it's better to treat stand-alone controversies as separate articles rather than overwhelm the articles on the participants or concepts involved. That's particularly true in cases involving living people who may be otherwise non-notable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing wrong with articles with "controversy" in the name, as long as a) there's a summary in the "main" article; b) the controversy article is linked to in the main article with {{main}}; c) the conditions demarcated on Wikipedia:Summary style are met; d) the summary and the controversy subarticle remain neutral, etc, etc. And why is this on AN? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sceptre doesn't mention that he's on a campaign to move these articles to other names, without any talk page discussion or even consensus here. I urge him to use the talk pages to discuss this with the editors of the articles rather than to unilaterally decide what the best names for these articles are.

    Moved "Boy Scouts of America membership controversies" to "Boy Scouts of America restricted membership public debate"
    Moved "Video game controversy" to "Video game explicitness debate"

    I dispute the premise that "'controversy' is a POV term". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's never used legitimately though. It's nearly always used to say that one side in the dispute is invariably wrong (the BSA case might just be a legitimate use, but many others fall way clear from the mark) and thus fails NPOV. I don't need to have consensus or discussion to enforce that policy. Sceptre (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You do need a consensus that you are enforcing policy, rather than just enforcing your opinion. (I have no opinion on this yet). Carcharoth (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All respect to you, Carcharoth, but this isn't NFCC#8. On Wikipedia, "controversy" is always the word people use because they can't use "scandal". Sceptre (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And "debate" is evidently the word people use when they can't use "controversy". --barneca (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are expected to listen to others when then disagree with your interpretation of what is or is not neutral however. Though I agree "controversy" can be misused, I also believe there are many cases where "controversy" is simply a factual description of events and both sides recognize the existence of a "controversy". I think you are painting with a broad brush where individual discussion would more generally be useful. Dragons flight (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) Unless people dispute that it fails the policy, in which case you should discuss and get consensus. If everyone thought they could do whatever they want without discussion because policy was on their side, this place would be even more chaotic than it is. Those page moves seem odd, and phrased awkwardly, and in no way that I can see linked to fixing NPOV. --barneca (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Controversy is a perfectly suitable word. To quote the dictionary "a dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views". Recognizing that there is a dispute is hardly a violation of NPOV. Changing the titles to debate ignores the fact that these were acrimonious issues. --Bfigura (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did check Merriam-Webster before making a big deal about it. It's used incorrectly on Wikipedia. Sceptre (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's worth distinguishing "controvery", the noun, from "controversial" the adjective. "Controversy" is a fine term and is often the most neutral and accurate word to describe a major disagreement that involves numeorus parties. "Debate", by comparison, implies a more limited disagreement that is carried out in a defined manner between few individuals. "Controverisal", can be abused as a short-hand label for people and groups who have been criticized widely. Perhaps some of Sceptre's objections are more about "controversial" than "controversy". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Both words. Sceptre (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Uh, what is wrong with an article about controversies having that word or a variation thereof in the title? Both FAs are about controversies and there is nothing wrong with this. Sceptre has apparently embarked on a crusade to fix a problem that doesn't exist and has targeted about anything he/she can find that has that word in it. I prefer to AGF, but in this case it's hard to do so, esp re the two FAR's that Sceptre has filed. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Featured articles must be neutral. Use of that word in an article's title isn't. Therefore, they shouldn't be featured articles. Sceptre (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, Sceptre, your theory that the term "controversy" is a NPOV violation is distinctly unsupported by consensus. If you continue with this crusade, it could be deemed disruptive editing. Unless you bring it to the talk page at WP:NPOV and get agreement that you are in the right here, I'm going to ask you to stop doing this. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Even more unacceptable!

    It's Google searches like this that give us needed homework. Thanks for these, my to-edit list just grew a bit. Lawrence § t/e 22:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I was just having a look through some of them. The range is interesting. From Apollo 15 postage stamp scandal (seems fine) to 2006 Melbourne teenage DVD controversy (huh?) and Burrell affair (something there, but feels wrong at the moment). 39th District corruption scandal looks a bit bare, but it led me to Mumia Abu-Jamal (a featured article). Of course, we still have this as well... Many of these could be used to build up a portfolio of examples of the best and worst about such articles. Anyone want to try and do that (rather than repeating the same old arguments)? Carcharoth (talk) 23:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sigh...

    The approach shown in taking an 18 month old article, Mark Foley scandal (prior version), with 2500 edits, dozens of contributors, and 153 references and turning it into a full-protected redirect is emblematic of why I get frustrated with Wikipedia. People worked on that article, some of them probably care about it. Even if it is the most vile filth from hell, it is rude and disrespectful to those contributors to toss their work aside without so much as a word of discussion or explanation with them about what you see the problem as being. Even if it were 100% the right thing to do, we shouldn't carelessly tear down the things that other have invested time and effort in building up. Well-intentioned editors deserve more respect and consideration than simply having an admin come along and wordlessly stomp on their work. Dragons flight (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    See WP:WTA#Scandal, affair. Textbook example. Sceptre (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    "Likely" sockpuppet reports

    Hi, guys. I have a query about sockpuppet reports.

    User:Stone put to sky has had checkuser requests filed against him. As you will see four accounts were found to be "likely", but no action appeared to have been taken over them. Three stopped editing but were not blocked. But the fourth, Aho aho, continued to post.

    Sky has been blocked for sockpuppetry, so if these accounts can be tied to him then that would show he is attempting to avoid sanctions. But he has also been accused of continual sockpuppetry by other users, so a lack of admin response has led to ill will. I would appreciate if:

    1. I could get clarification of what a "likely" report means and how they are dealt with/should be dealt with.
    2. Whether any action will be taken over the continued editing by Aho aho, the other "sockpuppet" accounts not being blocked, etc.

    A recent report on the ANI page was pretty much ignored by administrators, even though a number of editors had comments to make. John Smith's (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism stats

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

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

    A Very Odd Move and Vandalim to J.K. Rowling

    Need some help with this mess: J._K._Rowling. Check the move to the talk page as well. Thanks.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Phew Woody remerged the talk page histories.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=205029586"